Guild Wars 2

Why did you make NPC allies so terrible? Why do the enemies get a mob of super deadly assassins but you programmed our NPC allies to do jack damage and drop in three hits? What is the point? I’ve watched them a few times and they often just stand perfectly still! It’s ridiculous.

NPCs are terrible because if they weren’t, there’s a chance they could win without your intervention. The player has to be the one to swing the battle, or else what’s the point? And since the player can usually take out an entire army, as long as they come one by one, that means the NPCs have to be significantly weaker.

That said, I only got through Claw Island by abusing Entangle as a ranger. It held the mobs in place long enough for me to revive what’s-her-name, and helped slow mobs down just enough in the final encounter for me to survive by constantly running around on the battlements.

I have to agree that the way in which ANet make a mission ‘hard’ is extremely limited and balanced on a knife-edge between challenging and absurdly maddening. I rarely feel: “Right, if I knuckle down and think clever, I can do this”. Instead, it swings violently between me being more or less on autopilot and a sense of total despair as dozens of mobs close in.

One thing I was really satisfied with in the main world, which I’m surprised you didn’t utilise in the story, was making use of neutral NPCs. I enjoy provoking enemies to accidentally attack a veteran oakheart while trying to get to me, and then I sit back and watch the show. Please, please, please plan more missions around these sorts of ideas.

Jeffrey – how about Tybalt or someone like that refuses to budge, saying he’ll hold them off, and keeps chiding you to escape? The cutscene of the ship leaving then has your character looking back and seeing him swarmed?

The player could fight on until doomsday but they’ll never be able to save Tybalt because he insists on covering your (eventual and unavoidable) retreat. Make him immune to push/pulling.

Of course, the radical in me says that you really need to start designing the game around possible player intervention. Surely, whatever present limitations, as a game designer you must have your eyes set on a future where players can crucially affect the story by the way they react to certain events?

I can tell you that one of the most memorable parts of GW2 for me so far has been when someone asked me a random question and a little timer fuse appeared at the top, indicating I had only a short time to answer. I chose the wrong answer, and they said, “Never mind” and disappeared. It was obviously some sort of code word that they wanted, and I missed the opportunity to access that content. I wasn’t annoyed – it was one of the most curious and exciting things to have happened so far. I love the idea of ‘what ifs’ and various secrets that might make me want to replay parts of the game.

“Calm your nerd rage, young keyboard warriors.”

Love it, Romeo.

I tend to only log in for 1-2 hours at a time because it’s all I can fit in, tbh.

Oh, and what people are asking for when they ask for better ‘endgame’ is the chance to earn superior armour and weapons or mini-games like ‘raiding’ – essentially, it’s anything to keep them occupied.

As far as I can make out, endgame is the way pay-monthly MMOs keep you paying and playing after you’ve exhausted all the meaningful content. It started out as a desperate bid to keep player numbers high by offering tantalising rewards (read: better gear and bragging rights) and now some players are so used to it that they feel something is ‘missing’ without it.

What’s really frustrating about the nixing of sniper spots is that it’s a cheap way to solve an AI issue. Mobs should be able to read when they can’t reach an enemy and look for a way round or retreat out of range, but they decided not to program in this degree of AI and left us with ‘invulnerable’ instead. Very disappointing. There are many, many points in the game where I would love to snipe from.

I wonder if it’s not so much an issue of being creative as the fact that everything is so short term – rate of change is too high to coordinate properly. As a ranger, I try to save my conditionals for just after other ones have worn off, but there’s no way to stop three other players laying on the same condition at the same time and wasting shots. I came up with this idea while trying to think of something both flexible as a tactic, and also easy to read visually, so that coordination doesn’t require frantic typing or mind-reading.

I do have trouble dropping aggro – best I can manage is fleeing the field of battle while my pet tanks, but often that doesn’t work.

OK, I’m feeling really good about this one.

These forums are full of complaints about combat lacking tactics. To my mind a simple solution is to give every class the option of a taunt move that immediately transfers aggro to them. The problem at the moment that I’ve experienced is that a boss will focus on one player at a time – the first player eventually goes down, and everyone runs to rez him. This creates a predictable rhythm to the encounter. Either:

(1) The boss is downing players more frequently than their team-mates can rez them. Therefore the boss wins. Or:

(2) The team is able to rez players more frequently than the boss can down them. Therefore the team wins.

What I think would make a huge different – and reward teams who communicate and are aware of each other – is having the option to transfer aggro to yourself at a critical moment. So as a ranger, I would be supporting a tanking warrior and see that he’s on his last legs and one more blow will down him. I taunt at the same time as he dodges, and the boss comes for me. I concentrate on dodging and escaping until the warrior has healed himself, and then he taunt-moves to attract the boss again.

Obviously, the problem is that players could potentially play taunt ping-pong to keep the boss in the centre of the battlefield. So:

Simple solution #1: a taunt only has a 50% chance of succeeding, and can only work at the same time as a successful evade by a player whose health is below 50%.

Simple solution #2: a boss can only be taunted once every 90 secs or so.

More complicated solution: difference bosses have different rules as to when a taunt is effective, which the players have to figure out. Maybe one boss just really hates the Norn, and a Norn taunt is three times as like to catch aggro than any other race. Another boss might only be affected by taunts by another player in melee range. Another is easily taunted, but always responds to taunts with an attack far stronger than any of its regular attacks. And so on.

One new feature = suddenly massively increased tactical depth.

joykafka – how about making it optional? Some users could choose to have mobs spawn on them as happens now. Others could choose to activate the field, which means they will keep fighting as long as they keep moving forward, but be able to clear an area out and move around without getting attacked by respawning mobs right next to them or behind them. Any dynamic event chain will override that and make sure that more mobs spawn where players are gathering for an event.

I also started a ‘stealth mode’ suggestion thread. Apart from the immersion-breaking problem of sudden appearances, my real issue is that while, yes, sometimes I want to have a long and tough battle, at other times I’d like to plan a strategy to pick through an area or find a way to take in the scenery without being constantly attacked. I actually just don’t see what advantage it confers on players for them being able to avoid encounters.

Also, what I said above – I’d really like to be able to win renown hearts by doing a mix of activities. I’m kind of annoyed that on some of them, I don’t get a chance to do the alternative stuff because of high respawn rates. As an example, there’s a heart on Bloodtide Coast which you can earn by killing drakes but also by catching frogs, juicing them and then exposing poaches by throwing the juice on them. I only managed to expose one poacher while winning that heart because I was constantly – and I mean constantly – having to fight off respawning drakes, which meant the bar filled up entirely from killing.

I wish people would explain their reasons when rejecting an idea.

“Why should level 80’s be given the chance to avoid encounters with mobs simply because they don’t like it?”

I was suggesting it being available to everyone, not just to level 80s.

“ANet kept long-term stealth out for a reason. So, no.”

What reason? So that we couldn’t explore or perform any task without having to constantly fend off the same mob?

Your Top of the Food Chain idea fits in with the game’s predisposition towards extremely short term effects that make hardly any difference, but I really don’t see what the problem is with being able to avoid encounters (while moving at a slower pace) if one wishes. Pray tell, how does it give you an unfair advantage or ruin the game?

Four characters, only one played significantly. I’m saving the rest, but I loved the character creation process so I made them anyway. They’re like a cool little team.

That unpopular, eh?

Some people have suggested that all mobs became yellow (non-aggressive) at level 80, so that the player gets a choice of explore or farm. Personally, I think this goes a little too far, but I do think we should have the option to avoid encounters without just running past mobs and building up a train.

Therefore I suggest that all classes are given a variant on a creep/camo/stealth mode that slows their movement and hugely decreases their area of aggro effect. The mode is broken the moment you attack. Because it doesn’t turn your character invisible, it would have no application in PvP.

As a side effect, future content could actually make use of this for infiltration style missions where aggro’ing too many mobs always gets you killed, but staying under cover lets you trace a path to the objective.

Come on, chaps. You know this is a good one! Back me up!

TO my mind, it’s the compromises made in the overall game design that cause the biggest problems for Ranger players, particularly in PvE. You might not agree with the propositions as I put them below, but to me, these would be the essence of a Ranger’s combat style.

• Rangers ought to be masters of their terrain. Yet you aren’t allowed to ambush enemies from on high and enemies will still detect you when you’re making use of cover. Your best tactic is really the same as the warrior’s – to charge in, guns figuratively blazing.

• Rangers operate best at range. But the maximum range of the longest range weapon in the game (longbow) is still close enough that enemies can cover the distance between you in a matter of seconds.

• Rangers scope out an area and use positioning tactics to take down enemies in an efficient fashion. But high respawn rates mean there’s absolutely no point in rekky’ing an area, working out what order to attack mobs in and take them down efficiently. By the time you’ve painstakingly taken down your third mob in a quiet and clever ambush, you’ll find one you killed a minute ago has respawned right next to you.

• Rangers excel at control, mobility and area denial. This seems to be the idea behind most of our possible builds, including traps, application of conditions, knockbacks and a plethora of dodge tactics. But all these have too long a cool-down period to really take any measure of control over the immediate area. One knock-back per battle is the best you can hope for, traps fail to properly immobilise enemies and dodging is mostly reactive because of a lack of control over direction.

• Rangers are survivalists. Yet we have no camouflage or creep ability that would enable us to sneak up on or past enemies undetected.

MithranArkanere.8957:

But it should quickly decrease in size until it disappears if the character stops moving, or someone AFK could stand anywhere with minimal risk.

I’d agree to this after a certain amount of time – say, if you hang around somewhere for more than four minutes, the field starts decreasing. That would prevent camping, but mean if you were trying to move through a cave, you could safely backtrack a little for kiting without running into mobs you’ve just killed.

joykafka.4308:

I happen to think the opposite. The more players, the more mobs, and the more fun.
The more we intruded into the dens of the monsters, the more they will gather and respawn to fight us back.

I don’t think our views are mutually exclusive. The way I envisage it, you would battle almost as many monsters, they would just be spawning at a suitable distance from you so that they don’t magically/unrealistically flicker into view right next to you, and so that you can push into a camp without worrying that any small amount of dodging and positioning will bring back the monsters you killed on your way in. The present system spoils any tactic that isn’t ‘tank n’ slash’ or ‘run straight through ignoring everything’.

Suppose 20 players are doing the same renown heart, mobs won’t respawn, and you have to wait, this brings us back to the old camping issue. I hate queuing. Mobs queuing means players queuing.

Actually, this would help with renown hearts a lot. 95% of the renown hearts can be achieved through a multitude of different tasks, only one of which is killing mobs. Yet nearly every one I’ve played has prevented me from doing many of the other tasks because I have to constantly kill mobs instead. So I get a thank you note saying, “Thanks for resurrecting allies/planting seeds/crushing nests/returning stolen parts” when I didn’t do any of that; I just stood in one place fending off mobs the entire time.

C’mon – you must see my point?

Twin axes and shortbow/longbow (depending on the area).

Twin axes rocks.:

• Winter’s Bite applies two conditions in quick succession.
• Ricochet and Splitblade are great when you have multiple mobs closing in on you, or want to charge headlong into a battle already underway.
• Path of Scars, in conjunction with the others, lets you put out eight or nine solid hits on a group of three enemies in a couple of seconds.
• Whirling Defence weakens multiple melee enemies while reflecting projectiles – brilliant when you have a couple of mobs on top of you supported by multiple arches.

Yes, you are beating a dead horse, but I think many agree with you.

There are, broadly speaking, two ways to do stories in games. Method 1 is to plot the whole story tightly and drag the player into it, giving them no choice in what happens. This enables you to tell the story well and develop characters properly, but it also means the player lacks any agency.

Method 2 is to give the player lots of decisions to make and to shape events around those decisions. This makes them feel more like they’re actually involved in what happens, but also means you can’t spend much time developing characters or working out clever plot twists, because there are too many potential story paths to do them all justice.

ArenaNet aimed for the best of both worlds and somehow gave us the worst. The choices we make fragment the story and necessitate a coming-and-going of utterly forgettable characters between every mission, but at the same time, none of the choices are consequential enough to make you feel like you have any control over your destiny.

In future, my preference would be for them to stick with Method 1. Hire some good writers and craft a really memorable story line with brilliant characters, unexpected twists, betrayal, emotions, tragedy and comedy, then invite us players along for the ride.

I don’t follow what you’re saying – it’s easy enough to create exceptions:

• Bosses respawn regardless of where players are standing, because they’re on a longer timer anyway. This prevents camping near legit objectives to grief other players.

• Dynamic events override the usual rule, spawning mobs just outside the area of the event who then approach the players.

• If a mob is prevented from spawning because a player is standing somewhere, it’s queued up so that it spawns as soon as the player moves on. Thus, mobs will still spawn at a decent rate – just not right on top of players, or right behind them when they’re trying to made headway in an area.

The only way of exploiting/griefing that I can see is if a big coordinated group of players organise a sit-in, camping at regular intervals throughout an area so that their proximities prevent any mobs spawning while they’re there. But (a) this is a realistic effect – if a party of adventurers occupy an area, you would expect there to be no monsters, (b) with the kind of range I’m talking about, perhaps reduced a bit, it would take hundreds and hundreds of players organised like this to shut down most of a zone.

I’ve always been attracted to MMORPGs but put off by three things:
1) Subscriptions.
2) Hideously unoriginal fantasy worlds.
3) The prospect of uber-competitive ‘veterans’ acting like complete [censored].

GW2 ditched the first and has made great strides in the second, with inventive races like the Asura and Sylvari, and professions like the mesmer and engineer. Added to that, the painterly art style is gorgeous. It also promised that the PvE environment would be geared towards proper coop play where you and other adventurers join forces (as you would) to destroy evil, instead of grinding, farming and dungeon-queueing in a big to one-up each other.

So I waited to see if the reviews were good, and then I bought it.

I agree, though, that a good solution would be to have special ‘realism’ areas where respawning could take place without breaking the visual sense of the game. Sometimes bandits or Sons of Svanir drop from trees – that’s a good idea. This should be the case for every type of creature – spiders coming from behind stones, drakes emerging from the water, grawl from a high-up cave etc.

Could someone please explain to me what exploits are actually possible?

So the op doesnt want any monsters to respawn in high populatio area?

I’ve never been in an area so densely packed that there would be no room for monsters to respawn. But yes, if 500 players are hanging out, in spread out fashion, over a relatively small radius, of course no more monsters should spawn in that area. You’re controlling the area. It’s ludicrous that creatures and enemies should just ‘appear’ there.

Honestly, I guess some of you tolerate the idea of enemies appearing right next to you because you’re long-time MMO players. If the genre is ever going to advance to being remotely realistic, certain accepted nonsenses need to be taken on. The Holy Trinity was one of these, and well done to ANet for ditching it. But constant strings of enemies attacking you while you stand in one placer is another. Creatures respawning before their corpse has even faded is another.

ANet were really onto something with the idea of helping friendly forces capture land in order to clear out areas, but then having to defend that land against hostiles. They should take the idea a step further, imo.

But I guess what I’m proposing would upset those players whose one purpose in life is farming and grinding …

Honestly, don’t get emotionally attached to any look or item until you get to higher levels. I ended up carrying tonnes of junk because ‘we had such good times together’, and used up all my transmutation stones trying to keep one piece of armour looking the same and still had to switch eventually. The pace of upgrades is just too fast to have a ‘trusty’ anything.

• It breaks immersion when monsters appear out of thin air right before your eyes.
• The respawn rates in many areas inhibit movement, forcing players to try to stay rooted to the same area and weather damage instead of moving and dodging for fear of attracting aggro from monsters that have respawned right behind them.

Solution:
Give the player an invisible perimeter field or AOE of about 1500 (the range of the ranger longbow) in which enemies cannot spawn. This way, the server can continue to spawn new enemies for other players without spawning old enemies on top of players who have already cleared an area.

^ I like this idea.

Another idea I’d put forward is not allowing respawns at all within a certain perimeter of the player. That way you avoid creatures respawining right on top of you.

I’ve spent nearly all my time in the game so far levelling up my Norn. However, I’ve also made Asura, Sylvari and Human characters and played them up to level 4-ish. I’m wondering about which to play seriously next, and factoring in which will have the most entertaining story. The Asura sections look fun, and their characters are generally wittily written.

But from the few times I’ve dipped into it, the human story seems like it might involve a lot of Logan Thackaray and Queen Jenna, two of the most comically ridiculous cardboard characters I’ve ever encountered in a video game. (a) Am I going to have to see a lot of them? and (b) is my character going to spend all her time sucking up to them like wot my Norn does with Eir?

vjek.4270:

Personally, I cannot logically see any benefit to making the personal story inordinately difficult, frustrating or tedious. As evidenced by this thread, however, what makes something difficult is an opinion debate.

Yes, the question is: if Jeffrey is testing this out himself and able to do it with the same class you’re using and no bonuses, and since there are many players who have successfully completed this mission, what possible reason could he have for meddling with it? You’d need a much stronger case than “I get frustrated” if you’re asking them to kitten the difficulty.

Personally, I’ve done two missions so far where I was forced to grind through while dying repeatedly. Yes, it’s frustrating and annoying, but I don’t know if I was doing something wrong. Most missions I do first time without dying (as a ranger) and when I do die, I usually find a change of tactic makes a huge difference.

For example, on one of the Norn missions, there was a boss that kept knocking me down with turrets. I lost spectacularly when I decided to just run in and take him down, but on the third attempt, I used a cloak (it was part of the mission, not because I was a thief) to put myself in a completely different starting position, using the terrain to block where he likes to put down turrets, and he went down easily.

It sounds like you want Dragon Age, not an MMO that let’s you pick some key story moments. It’s not fair to judge GW2 by those standards.

Dude, you can’t blame the OP for complaining that he didn’t get what was advertised. Calling it a ‘personal story’ (which they still do) is more than a little cheeky, and if you go to the main page and look at the way they market it, it’s markedly different to what we’ve got.

They say that decisions you make will be ‘fateful’ – they aren’t. No decision you make matters in the scheme of things.

They say no two stories will be identical. Not only are there going to be thousands of identical stories, but even when they’re non-identical, they’re very, very similar. The last third is always identical, the middle third only meaningfully differs in who your mentor is, and the first third is a string of disconnected missions.

This would be fine if:
(a) The writing standard was a lot better than it is.
(b) ANet had been clear and accurate in their way of describing the system. They should have just said something like, “The story has multiple branches and missions leading up to an epic final battle.”

I agree with OP, I’m afraid – it’s a bit of a letdown. I was really gunning for something like Planescape: Torment, where the way you act affects who your allies are, what paths are open to you and how you approach your final confrontation.

I found a rich gold vein today – only managed to mine it when three other players came to help me because there was absolutely no clearing the immediate area.

What I find most depressing is when you see things appearing right in front of you. It rather breaks any sense of reality. Why not a simple rule? Don’t spawn mobs within a certain distance of players.

What about buy-back? That’s worked for me a few times.

Did any of you, apart from Yasha, actually read the wiki entry? Where’s your kigo? Without a kigo, it’s more of a senryu than a haiku.

My ranger just got the Master of Overkill badge come up for dealing the most damage she’s ever dealt in a single burst.

I did by picking up a hammer that was lying on the ground and pressing 1.

Actually, this is a real criticism I have.

When I first booted up GW2, I had very little idea about the naming conventions of the various races, or how the name I put in would be used in the game. (If, for example, people use your name when talking to you all the time, I would generally avoid putting in a first name and a surname, otherwise it will always seem excessively formal).

It would be nice if the character creation screens gave you some idea of how the names work in different races. I got clever with the Sylvari and looked up the folk names of various plants, but my other characters have very incongruous names.

MithranArkanere.8957:

It’ll have to be fully instanced content. And it’ll need a way to make sure people do not use them to generate easily farmable enemy encounters.

Surely, all the problems go away once you create a ‘gateway’ of approval at ArenaNet. The development tool for creating maps/stories would only let you test it, not actually run it with your characters. After submitting/showing off your work on Youtube or through a Steam Workshop-like system, ANet would select a few items every month to implement into the proper game.

If you ask me, they just need to parachute in a plethora of rare cosmetic skins for all weapons/armour that occasionally drop from mobs/chests and which high level crafters have a small chance of creating. The issue, if there is one, seems to be that there are only a small number of items that anyone really wants.

Agree with many of the assessments here.

I wasn’t expecting literary fiction, but the standard of character development in particular is so low, it’s underground.

I can’t name any MMORPGs that have better storylines, as this is the first I’ve played, but I can name an RPG: ‘Planescape: Torment’. It had memorable characters whose personalities came through in their dialogue long before they were propped up with any backstory. It let you choose roughly what sort of person you were through simple dialogue options, some of which made the difference between fighting your way out and talking your way out. And very importantly, it managed to stay thematically coherent throughout.

Even people who say they don’t mind the story as is would notice the difference if PS:T calibre of writing were brought to GW2. Just imagine entering into a dangerous area not because there’s a green arrow on your screen but because you actually care about rescuing someone. Imagine hesitating over a dialogue option because you’re actually concerned about staying on someone’s good side. Imagine feeling like you made a difference.

I got through the mission, but I did notice bizarre delays at several points when trying to get the Pale Tree Avatar to start talking. I ran around her for a while, went away and came back, and each time eventually managed to get her to start talking.

But this bit was unintentionally funny, because Trahearne is such a fey, pseudo-Shakespearian flouncer.

This bit was genuinely funny.

Apparently the personal stories weren’t written by the writing team, but by a particular team of developers. One of the devs said it on this forum somewhere.

I have to say, it really does come across as terribly amateurish writing, with lacklustre voice acting to boot. The NPC dialogue is generally of a much higher standard.

I’ve got into the habit of talking over my character in cutscenes to try to make it more fun – instead of being a straight-laced dullard who worships Trahearne, I respond to everything he says with withering put-downs.

“Something is wrong.”

“Yes, your face.”

“I sensed something unpleasant in the air shortly after we arrived.”

“I know. I’m looking at it.”

It was one of the better missions, sure, and fairly well written, but it’s a shame the game’s engine and mechanics is so poorly suited to mini-games. I had no idea what I was doing at the drinking game and I still won.

Also, I was really, really hoping that after drinking so much booze, you’d have to fight whilst swaying about or missing half your shots, with blurry visuals. But nope – you just slur your words a bit.

Dynamite, if you’re still keeping up with this, let’s cut through the bull, eh? You approached the PvE content as a hoop-jumping exercise and rushed through it as quickly as possible to get to level 80 because you expected there to be special prizes and bragging rights for players who crossed the finishing line first.

What you really want from the game is for it to make you feel like you’re ‘better’ than other players by giving you fancy outfits and weapon/armour advantages in return for time spent playing. You won’t be happy with PvP until you’ve got god mode against newer players and can type, “Pwned, n00bs” in the chat window. That’s what you mean by ‘longevity’.

That’s basically it, right?

I’ve only played about with the trade window gingerly over the last few days, and today I made 65 silver in about two minutes, just by putting up various materials that I didn’t need anymore.

Seems to be working okay to me. Only thing is it’s a shame that there’s so little weapon/armour/item variety – I’ve sold every single thing I’ve crafted to an NPC merchant because it’s way below my current level and even the high level drop items I put up for sale in the trade window don’t shift.

Good luck doing the jumping puzzles in caves!

What the heck is with you all saying ‘no’ to 1? It’s absolutely ridiculous that you can’t use terrain to your advantage in this game, and are locked into a close-range kiting style of play by absurd and unrealistic ‘out of range’, ‘invulnerable’ and ‘obstructed’ messages. Wherever a mob is currently designated as ‘invunerable’, it should be switched so that the mob runs away or tries to find a way round instead.

I have a raven called Nook and a snow owl called Egg. I refuse to swap them around with others because of the name retention issue. But that’s fine – it’s unrealistic and silly that you’d be able to carry around dozens of young animals anyway, so I only collect them for completion’s sake (or if someone gave me a very good reason to switch to a certain pet for mission).

Pets were the main reason I picked ranger, since the thought of being on my own for stretches of the game was unappetising. I like them a lot, especially their stubbornness when it comes to fighting.

Yep, I think it’s fair to say they talked the talk but couldn’t walk the walk. Which would be okay if the talk had been a little more down-to-earth. They should’ve just said: personal stories … go at your own pace … choice of missions … some missions depend on your chosen character biography.

Thanks, Tibbel!

But would it make it worse for a warrior? I think it would add a lot to my ranger playstyle. Kiting gets kinda dull.

Ronah.2869:

I don’t understand how exactly this can be done, but the idea is innovative.

There’s lots of 3D modelling software out there. ArenaNet would just need to release the base player models so that people could import them and test out their creations on them. In the Steam Workshop, users can upload images of their creations for the playerbase to discuss and vote on.

For map designs, they’d have to open the code up to a degree, but that wouldn’t make it a free-for-all because players can’t run their own servers. The only playable content would still have to be approved and implement by ArenaNet – they’d just have to spend less time actually making the stuff.

This kind of thing has done wonders for the longevity of Team Fortress 2 – probably more than half the new cosmetic content in that game is now user-generated, and its indistinguishable in standards from what the pros come up with.