Guild Wars 2

Arghore.8340:

Ok, so how to link these sort of rewards to the cash-shop, and use it to give people what they want. Both in the shop as well as in-game:

But everything people want should be available in the game as part of the game-play.

If you take something out the game that people want or adds value and put it in the gem-store you are effecting the game. You are taking away part of the game. Plus you will still be busy trying to get people to buy the thing what also effects the game in some way.

Trying to get people to buy items will effect in a negative way because of exactly that.. you are trying to get them to buy it. Meaning you try them to want something and then make it boring or hard or impossible to get except when they buy it.

chemiclord.3978:

They’d be suckers to you with an expansion model.

If the people at Arena.net are just looking for money, and decided not to do a cash shop, instead you get glitchy, buggy, slapped together expansions every 6 months with tons of re-used resources that they charge $60 for.

An example I’ve seen used is with EVE, who cranks out quality expansions (supposedly) on a half-year cycle. But if EVE was focused on quality, they’d be focused on that quality with F2P or subscription or whatever revenue flow they decided to run with.

IF Arena.net is the company you claim they are… the problem with the game is in the people developing it, not the system they use. THAT’S why it’s a non-starter.

I like the system they have, because it allows me to support them when I feel they deserve it. If I like the content they’ve put together in a given month, then yeah, I’ll drop ‘em $10-20. If I don’t, they don’t see anything from me. I’m speaking with my wallet, and if enough people did, you’d see change. That we’re not seeing change tells me people want this stuff.

Whereas in a subscription model or expansions, I’m basically buying it on good faith I’ll like what I see. If I don’t, they still get my money. I haven’t told them anything other than I’m a sucker for their brand name; that I’ll throw money at whatever they slap their title on.

Right now… I blame the players. This game has shaped the way it is because this is what the bulk of the players want, even the parts I don’t like.

If you read back I did state that the investor might have different interest then the developer. So we are more talking about NcSoft then Anet if it go’s about squeezing out money.

However I really think you don’t get the point I make. I don’t say they are a company that want to make bad content just to make some money (Now talking about Anet). However the way they need to try and get people to buy gems will effect the game in a negative way. Even if they try to create a high quality product.

If they want to generate money on expansions it means they need to keep ongoing for many more years (it’s much more long term) and so a bad expansion would not work because after the first expansion nobody would buy the second one.

However thats not the point. Even if Anet tries to create a high quality product the fact that they try to get people to buy gems does effect the game in a negative way. Thats the point.

chemiclord.3978:

Devata.6589:

For me there are 3 main issues with GW2. It’s the cash-shop focus, it’s the Q&D and it’s the ‘different for the sake of different’. But while they might be slightly related overall I see them as 3 different problems where I see the cash-shop focus as the biggest of the 3.

1) The cash shop is a non-starter. It literally has nothing to do with product quality. It’s a revenue stream. If a company is putting out cheap, lazy content… they’d be doing the same thing with a sub-model or expansions.

2) The “quick and dirty” production (presuming that’s an actual problem and not code for “design decisions I don’t like”) is a problem with the personnel of the company, and there’s little player can do to “fix” that outside of quitting the game and not playing.

3) “Different for the sake of different” was the very selling point of the game, really. It’s already slowly morphing into a traditional MMO experience, and you want it to do so more. No thanks. Ya want that? Play a different game and stop trying to ruin this one.

1 Example: If they made money with an expansion in stead of gem-sales there would be no need to make gold so important. Now it makes a lot of sense because that increases the incentive to buy gems to convert to gold. It however also means the game becomes a gold-grind and so effects the game in a negative way.

So the focus on the cash-shop can indeed effect the quality of the game. Even if you have the same company behind the game.

3 Selling point was maybe different or innovative. But not “We just do thinks different just so we can say it’s different”. While in reality thats what it looks like. Sometimes different is better but you also need to recognize that sometime it isn’t.

chemiclord.3978:

Arghore.8340:

It is not the system, ‘subscription, expansion, cashshop’ that determines the quality of the game. It’s the people behind it. Are they in it for the quick buck and as much of it as possible. Or are they in it to offer a value for money product…

Thank you for actually reaching the same conclusion as I do from the different direction.

The “people behind it” would be just as money driven if a “cash store” didn’t exist. The quality wouldn’t magically improve if such a thing was declared illegal and GW2 had to abruptly turn to the expansion route. You’d see the same “quick and dirty” process, just in a different form.

If you honestly believe that this company is simply looking for the path of least resistance and seeking quantity over quality no matter what, simply changing the system would NOT make the game better.

Well I think that the different routes would indeed result in other decisions and I think those decisions effect the game in different ways and micro-transactions based decisions results in decisions that effect the game in the most negative way. Thats really how I see it. You say it are the same money grabbing people.. well if they get forced into one way yes.

But maybe the reason they pick this route in stead of the the expansion-route is because this best fits the “money grabbing” mentality. Oow and for the record, I don’t mind them wanting to make money. But I also want them to deliver a high quality product.

When I buy a printer I search for the printers that might be much more expensive then the average printer but have way cheaper Ink Cartridges.

chemiclord.3978:

Devata.6589:

Well I did say that from a financial viewpoint of an investor it could make sense to not use it but go for a F2P model. Yes I do want the expansion model because I do think it will result in a better game.

It’s not like I ‘just want it’ and make some stuff up to support it (noise as you name it). Why else would I want that model? If I didn’t honestly believe it would result in a better game then I would want a F2P model as it would not cost me anything (I never buy cash-shop items).

But that’s the issue. There is NO reason to believe simply changing a financial model would change the quality of content in and of itself. If you HONESTLY think that Arena.net’s motto now is “quick and dirty…” it’ll still be “quick and dirty” with expansions shot out rapid fire. Cheap, lazy expansion content is no better than cheap, lazy F2P content.

The entire heart of your argument is that you want expansions. The “quick and dirty” is your excuse to rationalize it. You wouldn’t care one whit about “quick and dirty” if it was coming in the form of “Guild Wars 2: [insert expansion name here].”

I don’t see the cash-shop-focus being the main reason for the Q&D. So yeah that mentality would still be there.
If I did see the cash-shop-focus mentality as reason for the Q&D I would have put the Q&D topic inside this one but I created it as a separate thread for that. Still I do think the quality would be better but it would indeed not just solve the Q&D. I don’t think they would suddenly remove all the invisible walls as an example.

For me there are 3 main issues with GW2. It’s the cash-shop focus, it’s the Q&D and it’s the ‘different for the sake of different’. But while they might be slightly related overall I see them as 3 different problems where I see the cash-shop focus as the biggest of the 3.

So yeah I still do think it would be better for the game (and there you disagree) but I don’t see it as solving the Q&D mentality.

But of course you could see cash-items as a form of Q&D. Not denying that. But I really view the two topics as separate topics.

Arghore.8340:

~

I want to start by saying I use mini’s as an easy example. You could fill many things in that spot where I talk about mini’s. Skins, fun-items, mounts, finishers, dyes, ranger pets and so on. All examples of a type of horizontal progression.

It’s not only the fact that many mini’s are in the gem-store it’s the way you need to get this sort of items. There are a few implemented in the correct way imho (there is a mini the TA dungeon, there is one that drops from Tequatl and I think there is also one that drops from a mob in Southsun Cove ) thats how they should all be implemented. Having some linked to achievements is also fine IF the achievements are not temporary.

“obviously you would like to keep gathering them (and remember there is no expansion), what would you find acceptable in regards to mini’s? to ‘pay’ “

The only way I find it fun (and I play a game to have fun) so acceptable is if they are almost all implemented in such a way (and grinding gold does not fit in there, farming one type of mob for one specific mini does). Now don’t get me wrong, lets say they have 5 mini’s in the store, and for every expansion there is one you can only get with the collectors edition and there are 5 mini’s you can only get at gaming conventions then you would not hear me complaining (that means only for every expansion that number gets upped by 1). So you say “when there are no expansions”. Thats the whole problem. What I ‘want’ will not work if you base your income on micro-transactions.

Anyway, I will go by your list.
-10% that is way to much and that also means the number will stay increasing. Like I said if there are 10 / 20 mini’s you can’t get ‘the normal way’ it’s oke, you can easily say I want the full collection but I don’t count those 10/20 as full collection. With 10% thats just to much.

-Ingame and in cash-shop. No that would take away the ‘special factor’. Besides then some might be extremely hard to get ingame but they are not ‘special’ because people simply buy them (no fun there). Maybe if we combine the first 2 option. 10% of the mini’s that are available ingame (and then not the very special or hard to get ones) are also available in the cash-shop then it might work from a game-viewpoint (for me personal) but then it would not work from a commercial viewpoint because not enough people would buy them.

-No thats exactly the stuff I would love to do ingame. Have something like that in a fun-craft where I can make that.

-Thats how it is now, so obviously no. Makes getting mini’s a gold-grind.

-Some bound, some non-bound yeah but then where is the cash-shop? Converting gems to gold? Yes that would work but once again from a financial viewpoint the incentive to then buy gems to indeed convert them to gold might not be high enough.

-No (See first and second point)

-Only if you can indeed convert gems-to gold. Because then it’s one thing where you need to grind gold for (if you don’t want to buy gems) so it does not become a grind grind grind. But at the same time I want it to be available ingame as also this is a game-play element. I can tell you that exactly this was one of my personal set achievements in other mmo’s. Having as much ‘pets / mini’s’ active at the same time. Sometimes there are quest that give you a temporary mini / pet I would then not complete that quest to keep the mini / pet, and there are items that can summon a mini/pet and then you have a normal mini and as ranger a pet. So while this might look for some players as “just a convenience” for other people this is a game-play element and so should be available ingame. Now like I said if this was the one thing you had to buy by converting gold to gems it would work. But exactly for that reason once again it would not work from a financial viewpoint.

Now it might seem like I am just complaining by pretty much saying no against everything but what people miss is that these sort of things are just as well game-play elements for them as combat might be for you.
People who do a lot of combat don’t like P2W elements or having to grind and grind and grind to get there BIS weapons / armor. But what that ‘kill’ is for them is the same as that collection of mini’s is for somebody else.

I am not a role-player, I do like the RP elements of the game but because I am not a role-player the ability to sit in a chair is not a game-play element for me. But looking true the eyes of role-players the ability to sit on a chair is part of there game-play. And just as a combat person would not like it if there are P2W items in the gem-store the Role-players don’t want the ability to sit in a chair in the gem-store, they just want that available in the game. That is something some people seem to forget.

GW2 was put on the market as an MMO for casual gamers. I see things as collecting mini’s really as a thing casual gamers would do. Then “But it’s not P2W” does not do it for me.

tolunart.2095:

Neural.1824:

This touches on a point that I’ve wondered about regarding GW2. I’ve wondered if NCSoft never intended GW2 to be a long term game in the first place. If the financial data shows that the bulk of the consumer money moves from game to game in 1 year segments (people play the game out, then move to the next new game), it would make financial sense for a company like NCSoft to create a cycle that follows that. Pump out a new game once a year, and just sideline the previous ones. Focus on providing new games for that majority who move from game to game to game. In our case, Wildstar is the next big one. We also have no idea if NCSoft considers GW2 to be successful as a model. Sure, it’s made a bunch of money, but did it do as well as they expected?
.

That sort of thing works well for SP games, FPS games, football/basketball/etc seasonal games and the like. They’ll keep churning out Halos, Resident Evils, and Call of Duties until people stop buying them. But an MMO is an ongoing project, one that takes years to plan and develop, and there’s no guarantee that it will ever recover the costs, let alone show a profit in its first year.

I think Anet was caught by surprise when GW2 opened with 2 mil box sales, while TOR seemed to have been built around that expectation and crashed because the company expected people to stay with the game for the Star Wars name alone and forgot to give them compelling reasons to subscribe beyond the month or two it takes to finish the story.

Games definitely have a life expectancy, and most SP game are bargain bin candidates six months after release, but an MMO requires a much deeper commitment. In order to make a profit a company has to be prepared to spend the first year or two getting their sea legs, so to speak, before they can count on a few years of successful cruising.

Well those other games usually only sell the game and maybe one small expansion or some DLC but I did talk about how you could use an MMO to squeeze out money (using the cash-shop) in the short-run. And then I talk about 1 to 3 years where for the other game it is indeed old after 6 months.

However for an MMORPG 3 years is imo still short term. So thats why I said they might indeed not be interested in the long term. But your are correct, that is still long compared to the games you referred to. That makes up for the longer development time of an MMORPG.

chemiclord.3978:

At the end of the day, and what Devata doesn’t want to acknowledge, is that expansions don’t keep a greedy company honest. Instead, you’ll just see buggy, half-developed expansions every six months to keep the money flow going. If you think they develop “quick and dirty”, eschewing quality for quantity… changing how they pursue that quantity isn’t going to fix the problem you claim.

The core of the matter really doesn’t have anything to do with the gem store. Devata wants a traditional expansion model. The rest of his/her tripe is just noise.

Well I did say that from a financial viewpoint of an investor it could make sense to not use it but go for a F2P model. Yes I do want the expansion model because I do think it will result in a better game.

It’s not like I ‘just want it’ and make some stuff up to support it (noise as you name it). Why else would I want that model? If I didn’t honestly believe it would result in a better game then I would want a F2P model as it would not cost me anything (I never buy cash-shop items).

nightwulf.1986:

Rhyse.8179:

~

Sure, it’s been a financial success; but it’s been a gaming failure. Even with the living story, it just doesn’t develop over time the way other MMO’s have. Nightwulf said that both models (f2p and sub) influence game design- this is undoubtedly true. The difference is that f2p encourages short term gimmicks, if not outright requires them. A subscription business model allows (note: “allows for.” not inevitably results in) for gradual development of a superior product that keep customers simply by being awesome. F2p is fighting an uphill battle to accomplish the same thing.

A successful game, regardless of business model, has a long term upward trajectory as it fights for subscribers. The difference is that monetizing must be included at all times with a F2P system. Quality considerations aside (even F2P has to make good content- if they don’t, noone will play and the number of shinies in the shop won’t matter), this means that the shape of content is subtly different. GW2 is full of gimmicks and doo-dads- special effect finishers, special harvesting animations, quaggan backpacks. Like a mall during christmas, it’s positively packed with stuff. The F2P shop doesn’t just distract from development, it distracts from gameplay as well.

To sum up, if GW2 is an example of F2P’s great success, then I prefer subscription development hands down. F2P is simply too intrusive.

This definitely highlights what I think is at the heart of a lot of people’s issues with the Cash Shop model as it’s implemented in GW2. It is an apt description of the shop as any. It’s funny though. GW1 had a cash shop as well, although it was pretty bare bones in terms of services and offerings. Anet didn’t really weave the cash shop into the atmosphere of the game as heavily. Because of this, some people heralded the GW1 cash shop as what the GW2 cash shop should have been. In light of that sentiment, it’s worth noting that Anet early in GW2’s development said that the cash shop as it was implemented in GW1 was more of an afterthought. It was an example of a cash shop service that offered some cosmetic rewards and a few convenience items without an apparent need for significant short term gains.

Clearly, between the dynamics of the GW1 cash shop and GW2, there are shades of the Cash Shop system as there is with the Sub system and how it’s implemented. But you have to think, GW1 was released almost 10 years ago. Today, we are seeing more and more games with both subscriptions and cash shops and as such, it becomes less of a free to play versus sub argument than it is an issue with the forward march of microtransactions into all mediums.

For those asking for an mmo to support an expansion only business model, do you really think it is financially stable and competitive in today’s market to do so? Are there risks involved, and if so what are they? I will say that I don’t know how financial analysts at mmo publishers do their math and help decide on a finance model but I would wager a guess that running an expansion only mmo is considered a big risk and possibly a non-starter for most companies. The one mmo that was heralded as the champion of this model abandoned it when given the chance to start over. I don’t really know what that means for that business model but I imagine it’s not what some people are hoping for.

GW1 had no focus on the cash-shop because it had a focus on the expansions.

About it being viable and the risk. Yes I think it’s viable but it’s not a system where you can squeeze out money ‘fast’. It’s a system where you earn money over a long term (multiple years). A steady flow of income. The risk there is that if you don’t deliver the quality people will leave before you make the long-term money and then you where better our squeezing as much as you could in the beginning.

When squeezing out money that risk is smaller and the amount of money you can make in the short run is bigger but the people will get tired of the game sooner so the long-term is smaller. So from an inverters viewpoint I get it (squeeze out money and move to the next game). From a company that makes the game on the other hand you want a company that runs for many years so the long-term profit would be more interesting. Maybe that learns us that in the future it’s wise to go for a game that is developed and payed by it’s own company.

From a gamers viewpoint of course I wants a high-quality game for the long run. Not some squeeze out the money product.

About that GW1 did go to this cash-shop and that that maybe says something. Well it also shows that off the many MMO’s we have seen during the last 10 years that GW was one f the few that was able to make that step to the next version.. Sort of proving that expansion-based sales works great as a long-term goal.

nightwulf.1986:

Ok, so if we’re on the same page now, you take issue with GW because the monetization model influences game design in ways that, for you, are unacceptable. I have argued, and you appear to agree, that sub model monetization also influences game design. You haven’t explicitly stated the same level of disinterest in the sub model based on our previous comments but I suppose that’s a different matter. So, what is it about this Expansion only model that precludes developers from implementing some form of coercion to get you to pay for the next expansion or in some other way you don’t agree with? With both sub and free to play models, developers don’t have to design the game in a way to move you towards either the cash shop or draw out your goals to bleed into the next subscription period. But they do, in part, because it ensures that there is an external incentive to keep supporting the game financially.

I mean, consider this, there have been arguments made against the concept of an expansion purchase only model as it separates the player base between those who were willing or able to buy the expansion and those who didn’t. Thus creating an incentive, imagined or otherwise, to shell out money for the expansion. A b2p/f2p model allows people to get that same content without having to spend a penny as they are covered by the cash shop supporting player base. Again, I hear you on making the cash shop less in your face and intrusive but it would seem that an expansion model isn’t the best option for some people either and does influence game design and player experience as well. If Anet can design a less intrusive cash shop and still deliver content found in expansions (which is a stated goal of theirs already) it seems like everyone wins.

I think that in a micro-transaction-based game they have to lure you into buying because thats there way of making money and I also feel that that form of lure effects the game-play itself much more then P2P or expansion based.

Yes P2P games also effects the game (I don’t like P2P for that reason) but imho mainly by putting a timer over your head, not so much with in-game mechanics.. well maybe a gear-grind to keep you busy? But they can do many thinks to keep you busy like I did show in my previous example and when done right I like to be kept busy IN A FUN WAY. For me it might then be collecting mini’s while for somebody else it would be the gear-grind. Micro-transaction tend to become “it’s a little annoying (less fun) when you do NOT buy items”.

Yes with expansions they will still need to get you to buy an expansion. However the best way to do that imho is to release a good quality expansion with much content. Has to be of a good quality else the next expansion won’t sell and after a year / year and a half what people want is a big new chunk of content (you don’t really need to do much for that). So the game (mechanics / gameplay) will get not as badly influenced by it.

Spreading the community is partly true. Yes, people who do not have the expansion might not have access to a new continent and or specific ingame items (like those hair-styles), then again excepts for continents, micro-transactions and even P2P do also not allow access to (part of) the game so thats the same for every model. (And no converting gold to gems is not a viable option here. Then all you would be doing is farming gold, not so much playing the game).

I am not talking about an expansion like with GW1 where it’s a separate game. So they can still play together in the old area’s and then they are even more likely to be willing to buy the expansion. But yes, to be really active with everybody you should be buying the expansion. I don’t see that as a bad thing for a B2P game. You know, ‘ok I will need to buy an expansion every year / year and a half but then I do get everything ingame and there are no annoying mechanics trying to trick me into buying stuff and so making the game less fun and no timer over my head like in a sub-model game’.

All in all I personally see that as the best rade-off from a gamers viewpoint.

Rengaru.4730:

Devata.6589:

They should have simply gone for selling expansions to generate income in stead of selling gems but as long as people are foolish enough to buy in-game items for money you will keep having this problem.

The gem shop isn’ t inherently bad, there are lots of items I approve of (bank space, character slots, finishers, toys, etc.) and A-Net has to earn money some way or another.

What I don’t approve of is vertical progression, especially on gem store items.

I fear A-Net heavily underestimated the long term effects of short-changing their customers, (because thats essentially what they did to everyone who bought previous tools) and it will hurt them (and by extension, the players) in the long run.

But thats what I said, it depends on your play-style. You don’t like the vertical progression so don’t like the vertical progression items. I like horizontal progression (like those collections) so don’t like the horizontal items and how horizontal progression has bee turned into a gold-grind. It always (or almost always) effects the game in some part.

I also don’t like it if they make something ‘wrong’ in the game on purpose to then sell the fix in the gem-store. I am then referring to the fact that you need many more then 250 items of many items but the max you can stack is 250. Then they also suddenly introduce something people get stacks and stacks of. The problem is here that you can only stack 250.

So what do they do.. They sell a stack increaser. I am sorry but thats just extremely extremely extremely rude towards your customers.

There are indeed also some items in the gem-store I don’t have problems with like indeed character-slots.. however they should then have already included the number of slots as there are classes, but they didn’t. And will we get a free slot when they introduce a new race? I also don’t mind them selling something like a name changer and I would also be fine with them selling beta access. All things that are not really in the game.. Well the character is but you get the point.

The coin is still bad imho. The problem is that hard mode is not just skill based. When you do it without guide there are simply traps you are not able to see so it becomes trial and error. Thats why you pretty much needed that coin just to learn where the traps are. After that it becomes skill based.

And yes they need to make money. Thats why I said they should base there income on expansions. Of course if they can trick many people into buying a pick for the price of the game that might mean the profit is a little less but it does mean you can deliver a higher quality (because the goal is then, releasing a good expansion, not selling many gems) and the game will more likely have a longer future. This gem-tactic will work until even the people that can’t handle money notice they are getting squeezed out or until people get burned out from all the grinding. But expansions should be easily able to support the game and would work great if you want the game to run for many years. Want to squeeze out as much as you can and then move on then the cash-shop work best because there will be people that are letting them-self getting squeezed out while in the meanwhile being very proud of themselves because ‘they support this game’. Giving those gifts to Gem-buyers is a way to increase that feeling. It’s some very nice psychology we see here going on.

Septemptus.7164:

yorick.1305:

biscuit.7540:

IMO, it’s definitely p2w. It would be fine if it’s only skin and effect but actually gaining more stuff is really bad design no matter the value of the item gained. Bad precedent.

What do you actually ‘win’.

This pick gives a ‘permanent advantage’ which is not the same thing as ‘winning’ something in-game.

P2Win means the ability to get more with gem store item that normal person can get by playing.

That wasn’t the case with unlimited tools since you would pay way more for just the fact that you don’t have to replace them, but getting extra things just because you bought it in gem store is seriously P2W as standards say and I fear we will see more of it.

It does not matter if it’s P2W. It effects the game (like the whole focus on the gem-store does) thats the problem.

From a combat viewpoint this is not P2W because it won’t help you getting a kill. From grinders viewpoint it is because he wants that item he can now not get (in a similar way) without having to buy an pick and for an RP players thats the same for a mini in the gem-store because he can’t get the mini in the game itself.

It just depends what part of the game has your preference how it effects you.

Shakkara.2641:

XacTactX summarized it as follows:

These are the main reasons why people dislike the new pick:

1. P2W giving out free crafting materials, this is more than the 0c cost per gather on infinite tools.
2. Gear treadmill for infinite gathering items that cost real $$$.
3. No prior warning about having old gathering tools made obsolete.

Not much more to add. Eagerly awaiting Anet reply on this situation.

3. No prior warning about having old gathering tools made obsolete.
Well you could have seen that one coming. Every item they put in the gem-store they try be more appealing then the also one. Is it not in stats then it is in looks.

What I find interesting is that it takes something like this to get people mad. I have been complaining about how the gem-store focus effects the game for a very long time and recently made a topic about it. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/A-focus-on-micro-transactions/first#post3581283

It always effects some part of the game. Real P2W (that this pick is not.. I think the infinitive SAB coin was much more P2W then this, as well as the vote booster was a form of P2W) will effect the combat in a negative way.

Much of what we did see in the gem-store before effect the more RP elements of the game (RP not referring to being a RP player but playing the RP elements, like collecting mini’s and stuff).

Now this pick effects the grinding game-play element in a way. So people who like to grind a lot get effected by this.

GW2 is a RPG meaning it has all types of game-play in it and so a gem-store will always effect a part of the game. They should have simply gone for selling expansions to generate income in stead of selling gems but as long as people are foolish enough to buy in-game items for money you will keep having this problem.

They might have seen sales dropping because they scared away the fluff / RP people (or teched them to not buy anymore) so now they are maybe coming for the grinders? And then later they come for the combat people and then they close there doors? I don’t know? Could be a good way of squeezing out money. You don’t know if Ncsoft has long-term plants for this game or just wants to squeeze out as much as they can and then move on but with a micro-transaction based model thats a very possible scenario.

Algreg.3629:

well, yes, there is some p2w-element in the game, was there from the very beginning. Buy win or not, your choice, it is as easy as that. And if those few dollars/euros are too much for you, well, chances are, you should be thinking about your career instead of wasting too many hours in a game anyway.

I am not talking about P2W and it’s not about the money as I am asking for expansion.. that cost money. It’s about how the focus on selling those items effect the game in a negative way.

However if you manage to trick people (who indeed can’t handle money) into buying an ax that cost more then the whole game I can’t really blame the monetize people. Big part of it is the people buying the gems.
Watch the video and see how the EA man pretty much talks about they manage to trick people into buying that sort of stuff.

Guardian.5142:

I am starting to have a different point of view completely as to where the real problem lies. You and I were looking at the symptoms, not the cause. Gold and Gems aren’t the problem here. Lets do some comparative research…

If this was WoW on its second year, we’d be gearing up to tackle the “final boss” of this expansion after having raided through 2 or 3 additional tiers of content to get here. I feel like instead of raids that challenge us to work together in order to see content, that we’re more or less being “walked” through the content, with lots of hand holding and conciliation prizes, group effort and completion awards.

Imagine if instead of raid content and new armor sets, Blizzard walked you through each raid dungeon where you fought sometimes personal and sometimes 5 man instanced content thats… sometimes challenging… when you don’t cheat and check out Dulfy…
Snap

I never said Gold and Gems are the problem. I said a focus on micro-transaction is the problem. You talk about some of the end-game but you forget in a RPG game there is more then just this.

For example you say "If this was WoW on its second year, we’d be gearing up to tackle the “final boss”. Well maybe. But maybe I would be getting close to completing my mini-collecting. Having farmed many mobs for them, have been doing quest for them, have been doing dungeons for them, making them with crafts. Finding them while fishing (not in this game yet).

Or maybe I would be close to finally getting that awesome last item in my fun-craft after having been going all over the world to get the recipes and material you needed for all the other items from your fun-craft.. As you refer to WoW Engineering comes to mind and if I am correct the bike (mount) was the last item in WoW Vanilla you could make? Not 100% sure.

Or maybe I would have just been able to get my rainbow stones collection. (There is a shiny [color] stone] for every color of the rainbow. Totally useless but heey it’s a RPG game and collecting them can be a game-play-element for you. Or some other very rare (pretty useless) but cool item.

Just having a look here from maybe a more casual RP perspective. (RP not in being a RP-player who playes in a role but RP as in a person whole likes the RP elements of the game like collecting those mini’s or stones or whatever).

Now lets translate this to GW2.
Most mini’s have been in the gem-store. So getting them mend, buying gems or grinding gold to then buy them from the AH.
There where also some in the gem-store that where only temporary available. Might come back at some pound but if you missed them at least for now, to bad there go’s your collection (of course thats the idea, thats how they try to convince you to buy them). Another way to getting mini’s was to grind the achievements, every time again. You finally got it, two weeks later there was another achievement, you nearly did not have time to grind the gold to the the normal mini’s (oow what a fun do we have). Some of them where account-bound so you missed them once again, fat luck there go’s your collection. Some where not account bound so if you missed them grinding gold to buy them was the option.

I am looking here from a game-play element. Of course you could buy gems, convert them to gold and you got the collection much easier. But for enough people this sort of content is what they like to do.

Then crafts. Well there aren’t any fun-crafts but even leveling the normal crafts mean you can’t really farm most of the items. You can’t really go out there to get what you need. To much of it is a general world drop. So the solution.. grinding gold and buying it. Aldo crafts itself aren’t the bigest problem here tbo. Then again from a RP viewpoint thats they are also not so interesting.

Legendary weapons then.. They would something to go for but once again, it’s not a journey into the world collecting and farming the items you need. Again way to much general world loot. The way to go once again is farming gold and buying it.

Same for skins (items) and much of the other stuff. It’s just not fun the way thats implemented.

However it totally fits into the idea of “how do we get people to buy gems”. You make a task extremely boring or hard or impossible and then give an easy way out with gems. Meanwhile destroying a whole element of the game.

Arghore.8340:

I would like to add something to the idea that there are games that have an actual fully ‘open world’ … There is NO game that has this! Absolutely none that I know off! Not even single player ones…

What there is though, is carefully crafted ways, to hide that you cross a boundary. And if your computer is somewhat oldish, you will almost always notice where this happens due to even the slightest hiccup or lag spike. (and yes my computer tends to lack behind as my financial situation does too) …

Does this mean that making the game ‘load screen gated’ is the Q&D way of doing things? I don’t know … What I do know is that the ‘open world lie’ uses a lot of Q&D solutions to make you think that you are in an open entirely open world.

They use low quality textures and a lot of recycling of these textures to reduce loading times by as much as possible, they use ‘sub sections’ which are basically really tiny maps that load ultimately fast and a trigger in this space to start loading up the next big area (like caves, or mountain tops, or small valleys, etc.). While you are in this tiny map you feel like you are in the ‘open’ world, but you are not, and once you pass 1/3 in the programming will assume you will move on, dumps the previous assets and starts loading the map you are about to enter.

So which is the Q&D here? I am not sure, but I am sure that truly open world games are a big myth. And it’s basically a design decision to do it one way or the other, which then has implications for the rest of your game. (as reply 1 to this issue explained a bit more about as to how this choice pans out for GW2)

---

In that regards, I think in any place that there is a hidden wall they at least tried to fix it in a way that you don’t hurt your nose. This is most obvious in water maps, where a current will push you back. In other places it’s usually steep hills, obvious gates or other things.

And for the maps being instances they are (in my views) very well designed and of very high visual standard. As opposed to some of the ‘truly open world’ (cough) worlds I been on…

---

snap

Of course it is not really an open world, but then again it’s not really a world. I am of course talking about the way it is presented to you. Indeed there will no game where the whole world will be loaded into your ramm at once. But you do understand what I am referring to. It giving you the feel of an open world, no portals at the edge of a map with loading screens and so on.

All those portals and loading screens are just not very immersing and I still feel like an easier way out.

About the invisible walls not being in your face. I have to disagree. Now I am a person that always jumps up everything I see. I guess that if you stay on the road you are less likely yo run into one however I even know some invisible walls in such locations. I also like to jump over railings and then it turns out there is an invisible wall and the invisible walls runs longer then the railing does meaning there is indeed an invisible wall where you do hurt your nose.

I at some point started recording invisible walls and visible non-existing object (object without hit-detection) because I did run in to them so often. A quick brouwse in my video files shows that I already recorded about 70 of those (Most of them recorded in a period of 2 months playing). And I did not went and search them to record them. It are just invisible walls I happed to run into.
Something simple as a well (first video I did see) has a invisible wall over it. Another is indeed a slope but not a steep slope and I really don’t see and good reason to close of that little area.

I might put all the video’s together at some point and upload it to YouTube but thats a lot of work so we will see. But trust me, there are a lot of invisible walls in places there are not needed at all and it’s very frustrating every time you run into one or fall off an object without hit-detection. Reminds you every time “this is a game” and a game should not remind you of that.

Arghore.8340:

snap

About 1.
Well there will be room for one bigger patch (I am thinking on a fractal like patch) a LS but way way smaller then what we see now (just a small story leading up to the expansion) and they should still fix bugs else people will not even buy the expansion.

But yes, overall the content during the year will be way less then it is now. And I would be fine with that if the quality will be much better. In in my opinion the quality will be much better because it’s in game game and there is no mechanics build in just to get you to buy gems.. what also mean that is are mechanics to make it annoying to get the items in another way. That the gold-driven nature I did refer to.
Edit. Same as Neural.1824 said.

About 2.
Well in a way an expansion is exactly that what you are saying. But in stead of one smaller unlock it’s one big unlock.

@Neural.1824
Agreed.

uknortherner.2670:

At the moment, there is something seriously wrong when a resource gathering pack (mining pick, harvesting sickle, etc) costs as much as the game itself (around £40 here in the UK) for what are, effectively minor convenience items.

Town clothing items cost nearly £10 for each piece and of course, should you delete a character that is wearing such items (and forget to remove those items first, like I did – luckly the Gems were bought with in-game gold) then you’ve just thrown away a lot of money for absolutely nothing at all.

There is no reason for me to spend real money on intangible, disposable fluff. There is certainly no reason for me to spend the equivalent of a new game on a handful of flashy convenience items that may be replaced by even flashier items that harvest items unobtainable through other means further down the line.

Long rant short – Gem store items are overpriced, and there’s no comeback for the player if they accidentally destroy those items. A couple of quid here and there and I could probably overlook it, but £40? I could buy a new game (or several indie games) for that!

True but thats not even what I am looking at. I am mainly talking about how it effects the game. The idea that if it’s not P2W it does not effect the game is totally flawed. If it’s not P2W it does not effect the combat but a RPG game is much more then just combat.

Collecting mini’s is simply not fun because of the way this game works and that has a lot to do with the fact that the game is build around the idea of trying to sell you gems. Same for getting much of the other items in the game. And getting such items is just as much of a game-play element in an RPG as combat is.

Ashen.2907:

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.”

I referred to GW1, Battlefield and GTA partly because it are all different games but they all generated money mainly with sales of the game, not by micro-transactions. But you don’t like the GTA example because they are to big. Fine. Take Rising Storm as an example. Much smaller company only gets money from the game and maybe expansions but is also able to keep servers running and the game updated.

BTW I referred to GTA mainly because lordkrall was suggesting that maybe GW2 was to big of a project (compared to GW1) for a expansion-based model to work. That why I picked that very extremely big project as an example. And then you talk about how it works for GTA because they are so big. I guess we can conclude it can work for many projects (games) no-matter what their size is.

All I am saying there is that you can easily keep servers running until your next release (expansion release in this case) without having to get money every day from gem-sales, Some people act like if the cost of keeping servers running is so extremely big that it’s simply impossible to keep them running without getting money every day. That nonsense and thats all I am trying to say there.

GW2 most likely did make enough money on release to pay back the investment (and make money), keep the servers running for multiple years and to be interesting enough to invest money into an expansion.

That expansion should then have been released 1 year to 1,5 year later (so at latest about now)

And then that expansion would likely generate again enough money to pay back (and make money) on that investment, keep the servers running for multiple years and be interesting enough to invest money for the next expansion and so on and so on.

tolunart.2095:

Eh, you’re welcome to your opinion, as baffling and amusing as it may be. I just find it exasperating that people keep insisting that – with no real info, statistics or experience – they know more than the people who do this for a living. It’s obvious to me that you do not, but I know better than to think that I’m going to change anyone’s mind.

Just read the last paragraph again. I am saying that they might very well know what they are doing but that there goal is simply something else that what I want.

There goal is making as much profit as possible and what I want is the best possible game.

Lets just for a moment put you in there shoes. You have money on the bank and want to get the best possible profit. You then get the information that the best way to do that is to invest in some company. You don’t really care about what they produce but it’s a good way to make money so you invest money into that company.

What you then want is the best profit. You then don’t care about the product. They can be delivering an extremely bad product but if thats the way they can generate the most money you will not care about the fact the the quality of there products is not the best it can be. You just care about getting the best profit.

tolunart.2095:

Devata.6589:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

~

Maybe but not likely.

I really don’t understand this attitude. This is their job, and for most of the devs I’m sure this isn’t their first ride on the merry-go-round. It’s like the football fans who talk about the game the day after and blast the coaches’ decisions, the players’ performances and so on. It’s easy to say “it should be like such-and-such” when you’re not in the middle of it, have almost nothing invested in the outcome, and can look back at the situation from a completely different perspective.

The devs’ jobs depend on the company making money, and the company makes money by making more players happy than unhappy. So when they make a decision to go a certain way, and to stay on that course or try something different, it’s usually after a lot of thought and research about what will happen if they do what they are doing, or do “such-and-such” instead. If “such-and-such” were obviously the best course of action, they would be doing it.

So when someone outside the situation says “obviously such-and-such is the best course of action” I have to wonder if they believe this because it obviously is the best course of action, or whether it seems this way because that is what the individual would like to see, not what the majority of players want. I think those who are inside the company, who deal with these decisions daily, and have a lot more information than we do about what is happening with the game, are in a better position to make that decision.

Of course, maybe I’m wrong. And maybe when you need legal advice, instead of seeing a lawyer you would be better off talking to your cousin who has every episode of “Boston Legal” on dvr. Obviously he knows what the best course of action will be.

Let me address your points.
“This is their job, and for most of the devs I’m sure this isn’t their first ride on the merry-go-round.”
It does not have a lot to do with the devs. They usually are not to decide on how to monetize the game.

“ It’s like the football fans who talk about the game the day after and blast the coaches’ decisions, the players’ performances and so on. It’s easy to say “it should be like such-and-such” when you’re not in the middle of it, have almost nothing invested in the outcome, and can look back at the situation from a completely different perspective.”

First of all, it’s not the day after. Been talking about this for a long time. It’s more like saying a couch should do something, he does something else, it fails and you see.. You see thats what I said!
And I did buy the game and put time into the game so in a way I am invested in it.

“and the company makes money by making more players happy than unhappy.”
Only partly true. There are many ways to get money from people. For example, only making money happy when they pay stuff. It’s not just about delivering a good product and then getting payed for it. If that would be the case it would be nice but sadly thats not the case.

“So when they make a decision to go a certain way, and to stay on that course or try something different, it’s usually after a lot of thought and research about what will happen if they do what they are doing, or do “such-and-such” instead. If “such-and-such” were obviously the best course of action, they would be doing it.”
Yes they have those discussion but the question is not “what is the best product” but “How can we squeeze out the most money”. I rather have them trying to make the best product and so selling more copies and making the most money.

“So when someone outside the situation says “obviously such-and-such is the best course of action” ” There is a difference. Is the best action for the game quality. I think that might also help generate a good outcome but indeed there is a different focus between what somebody like me is looking for (highest quality) and what they are looking for (highest profit). The people inside the company have a completely other focus that the consumer.

And in all honestly I think it’s foolish to say “well they know more about it so they are right and you are wrong”. The whole west has had or still has a big financial crisis and it was mainly caused by economist who where supposed to know what they here doing.

But in the end that’s does not even matter. Ncsoft might know what they are doing. They maybe want to squeeze out as much money as they ban and then move on to the next game and then they might completely succeed at that. What I want is a high quality game that will stay of high quality and a big player-base for many years to come. So the question is not even if they know better what they are doing then we do. It’s something completely else what they want and that what many of us want. Thats the problem.

I came across a video that I like to add to this discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaAH-cv2ybo&list=PLjeh5MaFvzeSRylyuXowSfscHoW6eqVmn&feature=player_detailpage#t=1124

While that video is based on EA and to much on ‘well the company is trying to make money’, it does at the same time touches many of the points I al trying to refer to in this thread.

Of course it’s not a problem that a company tries to make money, thats a good thing. But as soon as game machanics get build around the idea of getting people to buy stuff it always effects the game in a negative way.

You can try to make the best game possible and then make money by selling that game and the experiance or you can try to implement something into the game that helps to fool people into buyng stuff. the last one is always bad for the game itself.

Even if it’s not P2W. P2W is only about the combat element but in a RPG game combat is not the only aspect. The example I use a lot here is mini’s because collecting them is just as wel a game-play element and that does get effected by this mechanic.

I hope this video makes some things a little more clear for some people.

I don’t like the way achievements are being used in the living story,

I used to love achievements. I did achievements long before game invented achievements. You now, setting your own achievements. Complete a level without dying. That sort of stuff.

But in GW2 I came to dislike achievements. Every living story is a grind of achievements and to make it worse even with rewards on that (AP, titles, items). That would be fine for normal permanent achievements. But now that the achievements is a form of temporary content it’s a grind against time. And if you do not do it you miss out on the rewards. For ever. Thats the worse use of achievements ever in any game I have ever played. It’s part is the temporary content nature that makes the living story as bad as it is.

The Living Story should just be a story without achievements, unique rewards and so on but just a story. Then because of the story permanent content would be created (because of the story) and then that permanent content can have permanent achievements (with rewards) linked to it. That would be fine. But as it is now it’s just terrible. And thats an understatement. It’s one of the main elements that is imho destroying this game.

People are getting burned out by the never ending list of temporary achievements that many feel they have to do because else they will miss out on the achievements and rewards forever. The idea behind it may be to keep people playing. But the problem is that that does only work until people have missed some of the achievements or are burned out by it. Then they simply stop caring but it might also mean they will not come back knowing they missed out on a lot of stuff they will never be able to do again.

While GW2 is still able to get new people and get some old people back. It’s very bad at actually really keeping the same people bound to the game. Thats at least what I see with the guild. This might be one of the main reasons for that.

The achievements are a sort of end-content and if you make it in a way it’s not fun, it burns out people, you learn people to not care and make sure they will never be able to complete it (once they missed something) then that is very bad.

I hope the developers will equally do something with this information but the complains bout temporary content have been ongoing for over a year and so far this element has not been addressed. Beside I can’t imagine the developers not noticing this them-self. Or maybe they have the ability to simply unlock everything? So it might all be based on the way the game gets monetized what means that has to change (what would also for many other elements of the game would not be a bad thing) before this gets addressed.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Devata.6589:

It does exactly the opposite. Champ trains are there because of open world drops. Not because one specific group of mobs in a specific area drop one specific item (or a dungeons does, or a quest does or a boss does and so on).

No, Champion Trains exist for the Monthly/Daily runners. Especially the Queensdale train, where you can rack up a lot of kills and a lot of events fast without having to think, dodge, or use anything other than auto-attack.

The loot is incidental for that one. The Frostgorge Train on the other hand, is more about loot but serves the same purpose – a fairly steady amount of champion kills and a few events along the way.

People will then just try to find out what map is most rewarding and start farming there. Exactly as with the champ-train.

Sadly, the people who flock into Champion Trains will do so. Much like servers which want to run WvW as one big train capturing things in a circle, or when it was possible, doing Penitent over on Cursed Shore and making a rush of a few events close together with massive amounts of Risen to kill.

There’s no stopping that from going on, I think. Happened in games even where you couldn’t share kill credit.

Oow for sure you will always have people farming gold. All I am saying is that if you make specific drops (so also not just one drop in a map chest.. it’s oke for one skin but not as basic system to use) people can set specific goals. I want to work for that one item so then I go do this dungeon or that boss or kill that group of mobs.

It’s gives it much more of a thrill because every kill there is that change it drops. Now it’s brainless gold-farming and slowly the number (gold) go’s up until you can buy it. Sorry but thats so boring.

The value of the items will also be higher because it’s less likely that somebody who is not interested in that specific item gets it. With more general drops (also map-based) you will have that a lot meaning more people selling it, meaning gold-price for that item drops meaning grinding gold works much better then farming an item.. Thats almost impossible with general world loot but maps drops could decrease that problem a little.

Now the idea that people then HAVE to do that once specific part of content to get it is however falls. If you like to do another dungeon you can still do so, make money there and buy the item.

Biggest difference is that at least then you can go directly for an item and farming an item is more rewarding then grinding gold to buy it. The opposite of what is now that case.. well farming a specific item with open world loot it pretty much impossible.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

Devata.6589:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

~

Edit

Attach region/elite karma vendors to quest chains.
(Tobias Trueflight).

Edit – Expand the rewards system to include WvW and PvP.

Earn Zaishen Keys (for winning) or Zaishen Key Pieces (for losing) sPvP/tPvP matches. Use them to open the Zaishen Chest in the Heart of the Mists.

Earn Garnet, Sapphire, or Emerald Key Pieces at random for killing opposing players in the appropriate borderland. Earn guaranteed Key Pieces for capturing towers or supply camps. Earn a guaranteed full key for capturing a keep.

Earn Obsidian Key Pieces at random for killing opposing players in the EB. Earn guaranteed pieces for towers or supply camps. Earn 1 full key for capturing a keep. Earn 3 full keys for capturing Stonemist.

(Modified from Tobias Trueflight’s suggestions).

All guaranteed key rewards have a 3 hour cooldown (to help prevent cross-server abuse through flipping). May need to be extended or the rewards adjusted.

(My addition to the suggestion).

Thanks for reading.

Does not seem to go far enough. Just make specific rewards for specific stuff. One type of mob in a specific area of cave has the possibility to drop x.
Some champion has the possibility to drop y.
Dungeon x bos 1 can drop Z while bos 2… and so on.

I rather disagree with that on principle. It encourages grinding of specific mobs, which, as evidenced by the champ trains, isn’t exactly healthy for the open world as a whole.

In other words – it’s counter-productive. The game was designed to be “play your way,” not kill 10k Risen in -insert swamp here- for a Sword of Something Special.

It does exactly the opposite. Champ trains are there because of open world drops. Not because one specific group of mobs in a specific area drop one specific item (or a dungeons does, or a quest does or a boss does and so on).

And that “play your way” is exactly what now means you can buy everything with gold (well more a good excuse for it, has more to do with gem-sales) so people farm for gold (champ trains) What is not the way I want to play by the way, and then buy it. In my example the item will still get on the AH so you will still be able to pay it with gold if you want to. But at least you can set goals to work towards. I want that skin, I want that mini. Not just some random drop from a chest. What is really more like the stuff we see with champ trains. It are random ‘good’ drops only difference is that one map might drop one item. That will then keep people busy untill they have that one item.. gonna throw more then one item in it you would even more have the champ-train effect.

That will then keep people busy until they have that one item.. gonna throw more then one item in it you would even more have the champ-train effect. People will not get what they want but something somebody else wants so there will be many of those items on the TP making farming for gold once again more interesting then specifically going for an item.
People will then just try to find out what map is most rewarding and start farming there. Exactly as with the champ-train.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

~

Edit

Attach region/elite karma vendors to quest chains.
(Tobias Trueflight).

Edit – Expand the rewards system to include WvW and PvP.

Earn Zaishen Keys (for winning) or Zaishen Key Pieces (for losing) sPvP/tPvP matches. Use them to open the Zaishen Chest in the Heart of the Mists.

Earn Garnet, Sapphire, or Emerald Key Pieces at random for killing opposing players in the appropriate borderland. Earn guaranteed Key Pieces for capturing towers or supply camps. Earn a guaranteed full key for capturing a keep.

Earn Obsidian Key Pieces at random for killing opposing players in the EB. Earn guaranteed pieces for towers or supply camps. Earn 1 full key for capturing a keep. Earn 3 full keys for capturing Stonemist.

(Modified from Tobias Trueflight’s suggestions).

All guaranteed key rewards have a 3 hour cooldown (to help prevent cross-server abuse through flipping). May need to be extended or the rewards adjusted.

(My addition to the suggestion).

Thanks for reading.

Does not seem to go far enough. Just make specific rewards for specific stuff. One type of mob in a specific area of cave has the possibility to drop x.
Some champion has the possibility to drop y.
Dungeon x bos 1 can drop Z while bos 2… and so on.

Vayne.8563:

Kevan.8912:

bannex.1923:

I like this game. Its fun. For a 1 yr old mmo it has TONS of promise and longevity. Most ppl that don’t like this game are just uncomfortable with how different it is compared to more traditional MMOs.

no. it’s the opposite.
some people don’t like it no more because it’s becoming too similar to that traditional mmos.

Only Guild Wars 1 fans think it’s similar to other MMOs. I’ve been in both games. This game is worlds apart from other MMOs.

Only Guild Wars 1 fans think it’s similar to other MMOs?

So the direct statement is that only Guild Wars 1 fans think it’s similar to other MMOs. I am not really a GW1 player and I think it’s similar to other MMO’s. Which means not only Guild Wars 1 fans think it’s similar to other MMO’s. Therefore it’s not a true statement.

At very least it would have to be changed to only Guild Wars 1 fans and Devata. But I know at least a dozen people who who don’t play GW1 and think is simular, so therefore it would have to be changed further and frankly, what are the odds that I know every single person who’s not not a GW1 player but does think it’s similar?

It’s a pretty simple statement. It’s demonstrably untrue.

Sure it has it differences but every MMO has it’s differences overall it’s very much like other MMO’s.

(See what I did there)

Vayne.8563:

Devata.6589:

Vayne.8563:

Ferik.3127:

Vayne.8563:

Ferik.3127:

~

~.

~

You made a statement that is directly and demonstrably not true. That statement doesn’t offend me. I’m simply pointing out the wording is wrong.

Vayne,
It’s something you are now doing for a pretty long time here in the forums. Every time somebody uses a hyperbole you pretty much accuse him of lying.

Yeah when he says ‘everybody’ it’s not literally everybody. He first pretty much says that Anet tries to please everybody (Hyperbole alert!) and then that they end up disappointing everybody (hyperbole). So it means “many people” and many is subjective.

I quote from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
“Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.”

He did not make a statement that is ‘not true’ you did read a hyperbole literally and you should not have read it literally. Thats where it go’s wrong. His statement becomes ‘not true’ at the moment you read a hyperbole literally.

I’ve never hid the fact that I don’t like hyperbole because it doesn’t strengthen arguments. Nor does it effectively communicate ideas. In fact, it weakens arguments because they’re easy to dismiss for anyone who does take them literally.

It’s not a mistake to stand up against hyperbole. The use of hyperbole to try to fix this game is precisely the kind of thing that someone looking at a thread might overlook.

Many good threads will end up getting ignored because of the overuse of hyperbole. Why make a strong point easy to dismiss?

“In fact, it weakens arguments because they’re easy to dismiss for anyone who does take them literally.”
Well there are indeed always people who do dismiss it by taking it literally however personally I then don’t see that reaction as very valid. As it is very easy to dismiss pointing out that it’s a hyperbole.

Why focus on that word ‘everybody’ if you know it’s a hyperbole. React mainly on the content not on that one world. No offense but I see that type of defense weak and not helping to the discussion.

You could have reacted mainly on the content and said something like "btw, I don’t like you use the word “everybody” even if it’s a hyperbole" but in stead the main discussion is about that one world losing the whole content.

You see it in politics when the party that is not right wants to deflect from the content. Not saying that you are not right but just as you don’t like hyperboles I don’t like it if people focus on such a hyperbole by taking it literally and so pretty much making the content second while it should be first.

Anyway thats what I had to say about it and I don’t want to kidnap this thread any more to discuss about hyperboles.

Vayne.8563:

Ferik.3127:

Vayne.8563:

Ferik.3127:

~

~.

~

You made a statement that is directly and demonstrably not true. That statement doesn’t offend me. I’m simply pointing out the wording is wrong.

Vayne,
It’s something you are now doing for a pretty long time here in the forums. Every time somebody uses a hyperbole you pretty much accuse him of lying.

Yeah when he says ‘everybody’ it’s not literally everybody. He first pretty much says that Anet tries to please everybody (Hyperbole alert!) and then that they end up disappointing everybody (hyperbole). So it means “many people” and many is subjective.

I quote from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
“Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.”

He did not make a statement that is ‘not true’ you did read a hyperbole literally and you should not have read it literally. Thats where it go’s wrong. His statement becomes ‘not true’ at the moment you read a hyperbole literally.

Bezagron.7352:

Also just letting everyone know I will not be covering any more summarises. So 53-58 will be my last one for this topic. Hoped they help and next time I jump in summarising I’ll look at improvements and staying a bit more up to date. Any feedback would be great (Maybe in the Evolution CDI). Chris would summarising and/or ways to improve summarising be part of CDI Process Evolution Phase 2.

Nice work. If you have the time I would suggest trying to summarize to 64. After that it’s more about how to form the proposal but up to page 64 you still see some suggestions.

Anyway you did a good job

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Devata.6589:

I had a list compiled of RP elements talked about in this thread. Pets being one of them, another being the way or acquiring items like ‘fun items’, mini’s, dyes, mounts, recipe’s and so on. Another element went into fun crafts and the last went into NPC interaction for exploration and acquiring things.

I did try to put that down as a proposal around RP elements as all of these elements had been talked about in this thread before.

Maybe it’s because of my lacking skill of setting up a proposal but what happened in stead is that the person interested in pets went on to talk about that, the person interested in fun-crafts went to talk about that and so on. But as this thread is ending I think it’s important to now make a complete proposal for that whole RP part of HP in stead of going into the details again.

Here you can find me trying to set up the proposal: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/64#post3495708

Here I define the ‘dynamic catching of pets’ a little better: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/64#post3496209

We can put links in a proposal so devs can also read the details back. But it’s time that this gets packed into a good proposal. So we can move on. Devs will always be able to come back here to see more details.

Thanks Devata.

Chris

Chris,

The proposal I said up, is that good enough for you or at least good enough for you to edited it yourself in a way it does fit in the proposal?

VOLKON.1290:

I’m going to toss a new idea in here even though the proposal is already out there because… well, because I just thought of it… sorry Chris. It may seem a little strange (and feels a little strange to me to be honest) but it feels like a potential horizontal progression path…

Right now with the Living Story we’re seeing a changing of the guard as far as the heroes of Tyria go. Destiny’s Edge is settled back into non-guild, non-adventurer life with some influence and we’re seeing the latest quintet of Braham, Rox, Marjory, Kasmeer and soon the new Asura who seems about to become significant as well. To me, this could be the beginning of a new guild similar to Destiny’s Edge. I think that I think it would be interesting if, through the Living Story, players could also become a part of that guild and somehow through their actions and accomplishments in the LS progress along a path to possible rewards, unlocks, etc.

Conceptually it’s still a bit vague, I just thought of it, but possibly there could be skills or traits unlocked, unique weapon or armor skins, minipets, items to display in a housing environment (guild emblem or crest for example), etc.

It’s a fledgling idea, but there you go.

[off-topic]
But what is players can also go for Scarlet’s site?
For a very long time I have had the feeling that the current living story was going towards factions because it’s making this big new faction licking a lot ‘enemies’ together.

In the personal story you might have had the feeling you could pick between two sides. In the Sylvary for example for the nightmare. However, eventually you never got to pick.

Now look at the story as it stands. We have already this big second faction and for example the nightmare belong to them. Some for the ‘bad guys’ from the other races.

The Tengu in LA talks about they having to pick a side.. So there are sides?

The only element still missing is giving the Scarlet faction a better name. In the Sylvari personal story they at least show that it’s more complicated then just saying the one is good and the other (nightmare) is bad.

In the living story for now the Scarlet group is just bad.

It could at the same time be a wink towards GW1 because factions is it’s second stand-alone campaign.

Chrispy.5641:

Gulesave.5073:

1. Pets. Pet acquisition is a fitting, (if late), topic for this thread. However, as this CDI is about progression, I recommend that further discussion of any perceived problems with current mechanics or balance would do better in the Ranger subforum.

I’m working on/starting a thread with a focus on Ranger pets, that I will be specifically posting in the Ranger Forum Early Tomorrow Morning. In it so far are details that cover the following:::

• Horizontal Progression (pet aquisition and looks, skill selection among pets)
• Vertical Progression (pet stat scaling with Rare to Exotic and Ascended gear)
• Pet AI stuffs…. (Not my expertise, but its pet related)
• Pet Skills/ Shouts/ Signet/ Trait balance and suggestions (what works, what doesn;t, what could be done in the future, etc.)

If Ranger Players agree with everything, then I will post all the balance related stuff in the subforum that handles it, and the rest of the proposal in a future CDI thread. The problem is that many Rangers have just stopped posting and caring because of the lack of red in the Ranger subforums, so there wont be many replies there unless it a “I hate Anet” Thread (which it won’t be!) . personally, I see that as an utterly Lame excuse to stop caring, and I will be creating that thread tomorrow even if one person replies.

I am posting this here so that way anyone who is interested in Rangers, by even the smallest amount, to go there tomorrow and read that thread. Even if you Hate Rangers and everything they stand for, go read that thread tomorrow anyways!

I think you should split up the horizontal progression part from the rest. That has now also been discussed in this CDI where it belongs imho. But it’s such a different element that it will attract completely different players.

It’s combat VS more RP elements of the game. Might both be about pets but from a game-play viewpoint it could not be much further away.

I had a list compiled of RP elements talked about in this thread. Pets being one of them, another being the way or acquiring items like ‘fun items’, mini’s, dyes, mounts, recipe’s and so on. Another element went into fun crafts and the last went into NPC interaction for exploration and acquiring things.

I did try to put that down as a proposal around RP elements as all of these elements had been talked about in this thread before.

Maybe it’s because of my lacking skill of setting up a proposal but what happened in stead is that the person interested in pets went on to talk about that, the person interested in fun-crafts went to talk about that and so on. But as this thread is ending I think it’s important to now make a complete proposal for that whole RP part of HP in stead of going into the details again.

Here you can find me trying to set up the proposal: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/64#post3495708

Here I define the ‘dynamic catching of pets’ a little better: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/64#post3496209

We can put links in a proposal so devs can also read the details back. But it’s time that this gets packed into a good proposal. So we can move on. Devs will always be able to come back here to see more details.

Gulesave.5073:

Quick notes on animals:

1. Mounts. Have you been inside that classroom-like chamber inside the Priory headquarters? Imagine that nonsense, but with animals instead of desks. As for horses, they did exist, but as far as we know they went extinct prior to GW1. Their presence in concept art for the current era is probably a simple mistake. And given the world’s advancement, riding a mount would be seen as archaic, used more for recreation than actual travel.
2. Pets. Pet acquisition is a fitting, (if late), topic for this thread. However, as this CDI is about progression, I recommend that further discussion of any perceived problems with current mechanics or balance would do better in the Ranger subforum.

Well the horizontal progression part of it (different types, way to catch them.. it has all been said before) fits very well into the CDI. The current mechanics or balance does indeed not fit into this CDI and should indeed do better in the Ranger sub forum.

Arghore.8340:

Not sure if this thread has been referred too already (65 pages is a lot to read ) … so i will just refer to it in this post: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/suggestions/Reinvent-The-Quest/first#post3423683

This suggestion made by me roughly 2 weeks ago, suggests ‘reinventing the quest’. You can read the details of the suggestion by following the link … so, while this suggestion isn’t really a way to have horizontal progression for a character, it is a format this progression (or at least part of it) can be achieved.

We did touch the more traditional quest in this thread but it’s mainly if you use them as a way to help to explore the world (what is one good way to use quest, mainly the chained quest) that it fits in with horizontal progression.

There has also been some talk about using the more traditional quest to tell about the lore and while you can combine that with explore quest that goal by itself is maybe more something for an RP CDI that has also been suggested.

So in my option it does fit partly.

darkace.8925:

StriderShinryu.6923:

I’m also disappointed to see Orders and their involvement get such short shrift considering that they pop up in a fairly large percentage of posts in this thread. Yes, there’s mention of “factions” but again, no actual details on what that means. Are we talking races, class based factions, orders, area based factions, Scarlet fanboy factions? None of the above? All of the above? It also seems a bit of a throwaway point to me and not something to be made real note of given how it’s positioned in the proposal.

I assumed he was referring to the Orders when he said “factions”. If not, then I too feel the Orders came up in this thread too often to be left out of the proposal.

I had and still have the feeling that the LS is going in the direction of factions. So maybe he referred to factions because he knows thats coming Just speculating here.

Nike.2631:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

@Chris -

I know I saw it mentioned in passing but those ore nodes which could get added to Home Instances? I feel sort of odd seeing them available after saying they could be added to a housing segment . . . and now there’s a teaser of sorts.

It could have been more interesting to quest/scavenge/earn them . . . and assorted other nodes, like we have been doing in the Living Story so far. (Love my Candy Corn node, even if it sticks out like a sore thumb in Hoelbrak.)

There’s nothing other than floorspace limiting the addition of more/duplicate harvesting nodes.

Maybe progression through the orders can open up Rich Nodes . Or some sort of Leather and Cloth nodes that make sense in a civilized space but not outdoors (likely “harvested” with salvage kits per usual practice). And a multi-tier herb garden is still pretty much a must (thought likely another gem store item).

As long as they do not put them in temporary stuff like they did before (or in the gem-store). I like the idea os such nodes but people who did not get them in living story can now have a real disadvantage and they can not get it anymore. Maybe never.

brittitude.1983:

Devata.6589:

Swagger.1459:

Devata.6589:

Swagger.1459:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Devata.6589:

Mimizu.7340:

~

~

~

~

~

The part that didn’t get quoted was the one asking for more ranger pets. Rangers don’t need more pets until fundamental flaws to performance are addressed. There does not need to be additional discussion on adding pets, there needs to be a proposal on fixing the ranger and implementing these fixes to our class mechanics first.

I have to disagree because it’s a completely separate thing. It’s the same as saying stop doing anything else because ranger pets don’t work like they should.

While we are both talking about ranger pets it’s from a totally different game-element perspective.

Having fun collecting pets, finding rare pets, doing special events or quest to being able to get a special pet and so on.

That has nothing to do with the fact if pet function (combat wise) like they should. I don;t talk about putting in a pet with different abilities. I can understand how that might be in the way of fixing the combat mechanism of pets. But a skin or the way you catch or get a pet is a totally unrelated aspect of the pet compared to the aspect (combat) you are looking at.

GW2 pets are specifically designed as a combat mechanic, so it is a valid point that adding new ones could just exacerbate the current problem since they all have their own skill sets.

You seem to be asking for something like the following (correct me if I am wrong):
1. Add pet “skins” that can change the look of my pet.
Ex. Change my black bear to a grizzly, change my pink moa to a hot pink moa.
2. Add these new items as random drops through chests, mob kills, specific encounters.
Ex. Tequatl now has a chance to drop a “Tequatl” skin that can be applied to any drake pet.
3. When adding new pets to the game, consider adding a scavenger hunt to find it or make it located in a new exclusive explorer location within a map, so you have to “hunt” for it.
Ex. Add a new pet Stag. This new rare pet can only be found in one new area, can you find it first? (add a new area to a place like Diessa Plateau, southeast near the area with the skulks and make a little forest of dense trees, where you find the rare Stags with deer and does around.)

If this is what you are asking for, then I like it.

If every new pet would mean adding new skills then yes. But thats not needed.

And I think I am talking for many people that like the more RP or casual or just fun elements of game-play. It’s not all about combat. Well for some it is but for enough it isn’t.

1 No and yes. Don’t add in the skins, Add in pets with those new skins and looks.

2 Pets then are of-course not in chest but in the world. However they might only spawn in a dungeon from a boss if X. Or only spawn from a specific event or there is only one black pig in the game in one place.

3 Yes that as well

You forget one element. Making catching pets more dynamic. What that means is that for example don’t only allow juveniles to be tamed but all ‘animals’. Then whenever putting a new animal into the game you link it to a group (The group is then about the skills and strength).
You then remove the LIST of predefined pets as they now exist. You are then simply able to catch every animal but taming it takes 15 seconds (might require some specific mechanism). What then happens is that it is even possible that people might catch a pet the the developer never mend to be in the game as a pet.
For example, one boss spawns a animal for 10 seconds. No way you can get it.. Well there was an elementalist that speed up all spells meaning you now where able to catch it in 9 seconds.
It would not break the game because the animal linked to that group so still has the same strength and skills as lets say pigs (because it belonged to the pigs group). Size might be a problem but you can simply shrink all animals after capture to a specified size so that would then also happen with the pet developers did not foresee you catching.

You can see how you now get a whole new element in the game (Horizontal progession type of game element) where people go and search for rare pets. You might also see somebody with a cool pet and ask him where he did catch that. That will not happen now because you can already see all pets in your pet overview so no surprises there.

This is what I referred to in when I said in the proposal it should be more dynamic.

Gaebriel.3754:

Hi Devata! Since you said in your earlier post that you weren’t that good at compiling the info, I tried to help and sum up your points in a way I think would be proposal-ish enough to be included. RP elements are very much in my interest as well!

Feel free to edit all you like, or slap me if you think it’s horrible. Hopefully this helps!^^

Expanding both RP-oriented and non-combat elements of character progression. An example of how this can be achieved is by making fun or collectable items (miniatures, crafting recipes, dyes), unlockable through various aspects of gameplay.

Expanding NPC interactions and optional conversations throughout the world – possibly using this as a vehicle to make additional lore and history of Tyria more accessible and known to players ingame. This includes expanding on the already included personality system.

Addition of fun non-combat crafting professions (or alternatively, add such recipes to existing ones). Make ingredients for those professions obtainable throughout the world, with a focus on the journey and exploration to get them. Obtaining the most precious recipes should be rare enough to be special, but not impossible enough to be discouraging.

Examples of fun items to make would be instruments, toys, town clothes, mini’s, furniture/decoration for housing if implemented (like paintings with miniature GW art!).

You did not mention the ranger pet element (fun way in taming / catching rare pets and so on).

And NPC interaction the way you describe it is not so much horizontal progression. The way I mend it was more to acquiring things and world exploration (like you have in traditional quest). Of course the two could be combined. When having that interaction you can get information about the lore but that part is not so much horizontal progression.

There have also been many examples of fun crafts. From raising pets to Musician.

The rest is described pretty well I think

darkace.8925:

Rigultru.3597:

Horizontal progression is a fairly simple accomplishment in the minds of an RPG community

Perhaps RPG elements could/should be their own CDI? Things like the ability to sit down in a chair aren’t really tied to character progress, but I’m sure additions in that vein would be welcome by quite a few players. I just don’t see it as character progress, though.

Yeah I think there is a difference between RP horizontal progression elements. (What I have been talking about)

And elements what RP gamers want. I, for example, are not an RP gamer so I care less about ‘broken lore’ and that sort of stuff.

I do appreciate details like sitting on a chair but it’s not something I use as a game-elemt. For the RP community things like the lore and being able to sit on a chair and so on are extremely important and part of there game-play. But that is not horizontal progression.

Swagger.1459:

Devata.6589:

Swagger.1459:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Devata.6589:

Mimizu.7340:

I see so many animals in the game that I would like to charm into a ranger pet yet the game only allows me a small portion of them.

Ranger pets need expanding to include all the working animals in the game.

I would like a Stag pet, for example.

(and i miss the zoo island from gw)

That is one of the elements I touched on with the RP part of horizontel progression here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/63#post3494474

It´s not yet on the proposal list. Hope Chris will adds that soon. Think the RP (or casual or whatever you name it) horizontal progression is pretty much non-existing in GW2 and it could make huge steps there.

Can you put a short proposal together for the CDI group to discuss please?

Chris

love you chris, but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!

I understand you asked for a discussion proposal, but it is currently unnecessary because this topic has been discussed for over a year now. pets are mostly useless and hinder ranger performance, balance against other classes and overall growth. many will be highly upset if any development dollars goes toward adding more pets when you cannot improve the ones we currently have, and continue to force this poorly made profession mechanic. most players would be all for this if you genuinely fix the ranger and the pet became completely optional, but until then, no thank you sir.

love,
swagger

The point here is horizontal progression. You see, there are many people who like to collect minis, do fun crafts and find rare pets. It’s not so much about the combat mechanic but about you going and finding that rare one of making a full collection.

I know people do complain about ho useless pets but mini’s are also useless or fun crafts that have been talked about are also useless in a sence that they don’t add anything to the fight. It however does add something for horizontal progression. And thats what this CDI is about.

The part that didn’t get quoted was the one asking for more ranger pets. Rangers don’t need more pets until fundamental flaws to performance are addressed. There does not need to be additional discussion on adding pets, there needs to be a proposal on fixing the ranger and implementing these fixes to our class mechanics first.

I have to disagree because it’s a completely separate thing. It’s the same as saying stop doing anything else because ranger pets don’t work like they should.

While we are both talking about ranger pets it’s from a totally different game-element perspective.

Having fun collecting pets, finding rare pets, doing special events or quest to being able to get a special pet and so on.

That has nothing to do with the fact if pet function (combat wise) like they should. I don;t talk about putting in a pet with different abilities. I can understand how that might be in the way of fixing the combat mechanism of pets. But a skin or the way you catch or get a pet is a totally unrelated aspect of the pet compared to the aspect (combat) you are looking at.

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

Rather they take much of those elements out of the gem-store, like mini’s They belong in the game not in the gem-store. You want to put something in the gem-store that does not effect the game.

Wait, wait… minipets affect the game?

I must be using mine wrong then.

They are part of horizontal progression.
Collecting them is for many a game-element of an RPG.

It’s not all about combat, it’s also about fun.

So then that also means the way you collect them must be fun and interesting.

It’s the same as what I just said to Swagger.1459 about pets. Yes pets can bee seen as a combat element but at the same there there is also just a fun element in collecting them.

For the combat it is not interesting if it’s green or purple but from a RP / casual viewpoint collecting the ‘rare purple one’ is a real element of the game, end-game. Or it could be.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Devata.6589:

Mimizu.7340:

I see so many animals in the game that I would like to charm into a ranger pet yet the game only allows me a small portion of them.

Ranger pets need expanding to include all the working animals in the game.

I would like a Stag pet, for example.

(and i miss the zoo island from gw)

That is one of the elements I touched on with the RP part of horizontel progression here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/63#post3494474

It´s not yet on the proposal list. Hope Chris will adds that soon. Think the RP (or casual or whatever you name it) horizontal progression is pretty much non-existing in GW2 and it could make huge steps there.

Can you put a short proposal together for the CDI group to discuss please?

Chris

I will try but I am not so good in making a long story short (as you might have already notices). Edit it if you like.

So this is the full RP part I was talking about.

"
Add the more RP elements. As being discussed also on this moment.

Make collecting mini’s more of a play element (so put them really in the game behind bosses, dungeons, drops from group of people) add in other items in a similar way (fun items yellow shiny stone, recipe’s even dyes and if we ever get them mounts).

Make collecting ranger pets more a play element by making it more dynamic, putting also rare pets in the game.

Fun crafts.. see the many suggestions on the last few pages. Where you also really have to go into the world to get your stuff (not from a gold or other currency grind). Fun crafts should also be fun from level 1 to max if they even work with levels.

Lastly, make exploring the world a journey / a quest where you also meed and learn NPC’s. Not a list of locations to cross of your list.

I think that are some important RP-elements for horizontal progression that also many casual players will love.
"

Proposal:
-Be more aware for the RP or casual elements of horizontal progression. Put mini’s, dyes, crafting recipe’s and other ‘fun’ items behind game-play like mobs, dungeons, bosses and so on. Also work on more interaction with NPC’s.

Make pet taming more dynamic and interesting so people can go into the world and find rare pets to collect and tame.

Add in crafts not for convenience but for fun. Crafting fun items every level, raising pets, raising mini´s, making furniture, musician (and so on) while having the ingredients one again available in game and in a similar way as the items I talked about before.

I can’t make it any shorter or to better fit ‘proposal quality’.

Swagger.1459:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Devata.6589:

Mimizu.7340:

I see so many animals in the game that I would like to charm into a ranger pet yet the game only allows me a small portion of them.

Ranger pets need expanding to include all the working animals in the game.

I would like a Stag pet, for example.

(and i miss the zoo island from gw)

That is one of the elements I touched on with the RP part of horizontel progression here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/63#post3494474

It´s not yet on the proposal list. Hope Chris will adds that soon. Think the RP (or casual or whatever you name it) horizontal progression is pretty much non-existing in GW2 and it could make huge steps there.

Can you put a short proposal together for the CDI group to discuss please?

Chris

love you chris, but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!

I understand you asked for a discussion proposal, but it is currently unnecessary because this topic has been discussed for over a year now. pets are mostly useless and hinder ranger performance, balance against other classes and overall growth. many will be highly upset if any development dollars goes toward adding more pets when you cannot improve the ones we currently have, and continue to force this poorly made profession mechanic. most players would be all for this if you genuinely fix the ranger and the pet became completely optional, but until then, no thank you sir.

love,
swagger

The point here is horizontal progression. You see, there are many people who like to collect minis, do fun crafts and find rare pets. It’s not so much about the combat mechanic but about you going and finding that rare one of making a full collection.

I know people do complain about ho useless pets but mini’s are also useless or fun crafts that have been talked about are also useless in a sence that they don’t add anything to the fight. It however does add something for horizontal progression. And thats what this CDI is about.

KarlusDavius.1024:

Hi Chris,

Just wanted to point you in the direction of this thread.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/List-Of-Things-We-Want-In-Gemstore

There’s some really nice ideas here which apply to horizontal progression. Things like animations when idle or different stances with weapons. It’s a good read and I know you’ve taken a lot on of things anyway.

Can’t wait for 2014 to really kick off!

Horizontal progression is an element that is lacking in the game (partly because of the gem-store). Then you don’t want put those elements in the gem-store and so effective removing them from the game / game-play itself imo.

Rather they take much of those elements out of the gem-store, like mini’s, They belong in the game not in the gem-store imho. You want to put something in the gem-store that does not effect the game. The character-slots are oke, however when they add a new race they should give everybody a new extra slot. And a name-changer you can even throw in beta / test access but not anything that should belong inside the game… Like horizontal progression things.

Jski.6180:

Maliel.8362:

Jski.6180:

I think the forums have gotten them self into a situation where they can be called out for asking for something and then getting it and then complain about the very thing they asked for.

Thats the type of behavior you would expect from free to play games, you dont have to pay monthly fees to play this game which i think is the main reason people complain so much about the game.

But its b2p you still need to have to buy the game to get on the forums. They realty need to add in a time counter for the last time you logged into GW2. I am a very strong believer that throwing more money at something will not fix a problem this is how i see monthly fees for games. They are happy to take your money but that dose not mean they are going to fix things but i must say it thins ppl out of there game fast.

Monthly fees don’t really work anymore. Last game that was and still is successful with it is WoW. Thats 9 years old. All games after that with sub-model had to change the model or are to young to have proven themselves.

F2P or micro transaction-based games (like GW2.. with it’s gem-store focus) can earn a company some money so work from a financial viewpoint but the focus on getting people to buy items always effects the game in negative ways. P2W being the most obvious one but also without P2W it effects the game. Look at GW2 that has almost no P2W but the it effect the core game mechanic. Getting mini’s is just not fun (what should be for a fluff driven casual game) and everything is so currency driven. Not strange because you can buy money with gems.

Imho the only system what would really work is basing your income primarily on regular expansions. In a way that is how many games earn there money, difference is there that is are not expansions but new versions of the game. Release an expansion every year / year and a half and from a financial viewpoint you have a nice longterm investment that will keep paying itself back over years to come. From a game viewpoint you can expect a high quality game.

Oow and what also doesn’t help is the investor not being the same company as the developer. Then you can get conflicting interest.

So if there is every an MMORPG that will base it’s income on expansions, is an independent company and does seem to really have a good game it might indeed be the big success so manly people are waiting for. Something to keep in mind.

Nike.2631:

Devata.6589:

Yes and no. Doing it in an instance would feel not as world changing as it did with the open world event. But they should indeed make a better system. The idea was great but the fact that it did only happen at once specific time was a problem.

We already have an overflow system. Maybe work with server before and after the change and have an event running every hour for 24 hours. When you log in and you did not have the event yet you will be put in a overflow that will soon start with the event.

In addition I would record the first event per server. Literally record it. Then put that in some log-file you can see back. The people that where there might even see them-self. That would really give the feeling of being part of it.

Then after such a event leave behind content.

I would love that.. You have a living world indeed where you see things change but no temporary achievements or rewards. That stuff is all added after the change.

In a way Karka invasion and then going to the island is how imho the LS should have been. Of course there where some technical difficulties that have to been solved.

You might find this solution interesting if you hadn’t seen it before .

Yeah I think that would be a way to solve it. However linking rewards or achievements to it would then not be good in my vision. I think you talk about a reward for top 10 builders or something. Except for that I do like it.

Mimizu.7340:

I see so many animals in the game that I would like to charm into a ranger pet yet the game only allows me a small portion of them.

Ranger pets need expanding to include all the working animals in the game.

I would like a Stag pet, for example.

(and i miss the zoo island from gw)

That is one of the elements I touched on with the RP part of horizontel progression here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/63#post3494474

It´s not yet on the proposal list. Hope Chris will adds that soon. Think the RP (or casual or whatever you name it) horizontal progression is pretty much non-existing in GW2 and it could make huge steps there.

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

“First of all it is an option because if you think it takes too long -take a way point.
I don’t understand how you can complain about taking too long and then in the same breath in another post say, that we do not have time to check the scenery- or that there are no interesting places to explore.“

It was all based on the idea of removing way-points or having maps without way-points. In that case walking would take to long. I think you missed the beginning of that discussion, that might be why you are confused about this.

Not that I want to go into the mount discussion again but I will answer your comment.
Like I commented on VOLKON here https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/3490392

I still don’t see the terrain as any problem. Yeah you would not do a JP on a mount no. We have many animals that already walk like mounts do… or run like mounts do.

Yes there are many mounts in the game. We have cars, bikes (and actively building them), we have airships, air balloons (now above you in LA), normal ships, helicopters, transport vehicles (Dredge), horse carriages (Being used to get supply to Kessex Hills for toxic LS), on this image you see people riding horses https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/releases/january-2013/ , we have dolyaks used to carry supply and brooms we can already mount on. The whole game is full of mounds. So from that lore view it does not even make sense we don’t have them. Not sure how you can see they are.

“Take a look at the races for example- the Norn, Charr and Asura.
Both the Norn and the Charr would see it as an insult to ride a mount because it implies they are to weak to use their legs, the Asura would see it as an insult to their intelligence because they made gates after all.“ Really? Just say you don’t like mounts thats fine. Charr have an active factory building mounts and I have seen Charr and Norn on airships I have have seen them all on brooms.

About the humans. Nowhere in there lore with the exception of all the horse carriages all over Tyria?

I find it humorous that you’re using as an example a piece of art that shows a horse, yet there’s no one riding any mounts in the artwork, just beasts of burden.

Mounts don’t fit in GW2. They don’t fit with the fast travel system, they don’t fit with the lore no matter how you try and twist things around. You don’t see the NPCs riding all over the place on mounts. You see two things… war machines and beasts of burden. Well, three if you include ships, however ships are not personal mounts. Mass transport systems are also not mounts, i.e. balloons, etc.

You keep mentioning these “horse carriages” all over Tyria, but for the life of me I can’t recall seeing a single one yet.

Really don’t want to go into this discussion again but here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWmwrYRkIdE
At the picture I did show you look left front (can’t really mis it),
And at Thunder Ridge Camp you can see a horse carriage that has just moved there.

Now lets drop mounts for this thread. Might be something for a future CDI.