Guild Wars 2

1. Make Skritt a playable race
2. Give Skritt a Gangnam Style dance emote.
3. ????
4. Profit!

veritech.1048:

Hydrophidian.4319:

veritech.1048:

We should be allowed to dye these things with the dyes we have unlocked.

This is very unlikely to happen, due to the rating on the game and the aforementioned concern about making characters look nude.

I think the best we can hope for is a small palette of obviously-not-skin colors.

Well, there’s already a bug in game that allows characters to go full on barbie doll nude.

I highly doubt this is as big an issue as you’re making it out to be. Coloring underwear doesn’t even show up on the ESRB’s radar.

It’s been a concern before with other games of the same rating, so I’m allowing for the very real possibility that it’ll be a consideration on this one. And a bug isn’t the same as WAI.

veritech.1048:

We should be allowed to dye these things with the dyes we have unlocked.

This is very unlikely to happen, due to the rating on the game and the aforementioned concern about making characters look nude.

I think the best we can hope for is a small palette of obviously-not-skin colors.

Erebus.7568:

i would like the ability to CHOOSE class at endgame and switch it as i wish so i can one day say “hmm wanna play a necro today” and do that and the next play another class while not having to wasted time lvling and exploring everything again once more.

Problems that I see:

• I think this very much runs counter to the design philosophy underpinning the game. We’re given 5 character slots at the outset, with the option to buy more. So, the expectation seems to be that if we want to play another class, we need to make a new character.
• Having multiple class options at the cap is an advantage and an achievement earned through play. Yes, it’s a time investment. As this is an MMO, time investments are pretty important to long-term playability. This probably shouldn’t be trivialized.
• Leveling in a class is one of the big ways in which a player learns how that class operates. This shouldn’t be so easily bypassed. Team endeavors would be plagued by players who didn’t actually know what they were doing with their class.
• Not everyone plays the same way or has the same preferences. Many players would not see leveling and exploring again as a ‘waste of time’. Many players (myself included) enjoy playing and leveling several characters simultaneously. This also shouldn’t be disregarded.

I’ve now seen a few suggestions along these lines.

While I applaud the sentiment behind ‘em, they wouldn’t actually accomplish anything.

I like this idea. It would also mitigate the obstacle of waypoint fees (for certain level ranges) when you’re trying to get a party together. Teaming with friends who all have various objectives across the world can be a costly undertaking.

MithranArkanere.8957:

There’s no horses in Tyria. That’s why you’ll see lots of other types of beasts of burden like bulls and dolyaks, but never a horse pulling a cart of something like that.

See, I knew centaurs would be good for something, eventually!

Roven Leafsong.8917:

I would hope this is never implemented. For every player choosing a more fashionable look there would be hundreds trying to dye their underwear as close to skin tone as possible so they can pretend to be nude. No thanks.

That’s why you just add a few default options at the outset and call it done.

ButlerianHeretic.3251:

This system has the cost based primarily on level and secondly on distance. So it makes sense to teleport if you are going a really long way to save time, but for closer distances it makes more sense to just walk. It is a good balance in my opinion.

Yah, I’d agree the fundamental idea is sound enough. I’m just finding that, as you move up in levels, the cost becomes prohibitive.

Maybe this will change again as I get closer to 80? But I think the mid-level fees, at least, need to be adjusted downward.

Admittedly, I thought it a little strange that we couldn’t change undergarment color with at least the default palette. But I shrugged and said to myself, ‘oh well. It’s not like anyone’s going to see it…’

…then I discovered a diving scenario…

…then I found out what happens when your armor gets beat up real bad…

…so, uhm. Yah. Let us dye those thangs. Or at least give us a few options at the outset. Because screaming canary yellow? Honey, please.

Tarkaroshe.8370:

I completely agree. Money sinks are a necessary evil. And like you say, if the rate of income in the game is lower than the rate of outgoings (such as WP travel, repair costs, etc, etc) then the player may be discouraged from actually partaking in certain activities due to concerns about the costs involved.

My situation from last night:

- Myself and 4 friends form a party. Upon that formation, we’re in three different locations across the world map.
- We decide to do one person’s story mission. None of us are in the zone the mission’s in, so waypoint #1 (ka-ching).
- After the mission, we go to the zone that the lowest level in our group is trying to complete. Waypoint #2 (ka-ching).
- That group disperses. I go to clean up my inventory. Waypoint #3 (ka-ching).
- Another friend then wants me to join her for part of her character’s arc. We don’t want to run to the instance points, because it’s late. Waypoints #4, #5, and #6 (ka-ching-ching-ching).

At the end of the night, at level 40, that adds up to not an insignificant amount of coin.

Perhaps if there where other “options” for travel then the players would be empowered with a choice to decide whether or not to spend their money on the WP system or other means. They could then perhaps save some money and the cost of the WP system wouldn’t necessarily need to change.

But I won’t go into details because that is for a different thread

I’d be interested to see your ideas.

Xclio.3204:

iritates my that we get nerfed to low lvl when we enter a low lvl area, why is that ?

Unlike in other games, lower level zones don’t become irrelevant once you out-level them. There are still plenty of reasons—exploration, challenges, materials gathering—for a player to visit zones below their level, and to keep returning to them. There’s also the consideration of being able to play with friends who might be of disparate levels.

So, the idea is to keep some measure of challenge intact.

Even with the level drops, though, a high-level character will decimate almost anything in a zone well below their actual level. They do keep a significant degree of their “oomph”.

Nkuvu.2570:

See this thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/crafting/Why-are-Karma-recipes-soulbound

Linsey Murdock indicated that it’s a bug, and the recipes should be account bound.

Hooray! \o/

I think waypoints are a brilliant currency-sink and a good solution for getting around.

That said, I agree. As you increase in level, the cost of using them gets to be a bit much.

The counter-argument would probably be that, if they’re not taking a meaningful amount of currency out of circulation, it defeats the purpose of the fee.

But to that I’d say: it’s much more important to enable players to easily gather and do stuff together. If the waypoint fees are hindering that—they’re starting to do so for me—then they’re too high.

Slemsvamp.8596:

Or at least write in the tooltip if it will bind on buy or not.

Very much this.

I specifically looked for such a warning before buying, didn’t see it, so went ahead and bought the recipe. I was a little miffed to discover I couldn’t then shift it to the appropriate character.

If we’re to have account-bound dyes, why can’t we also…

• Collect armor skins and also have them be account-bound?
• Collect weapon skins and also have them be account-bound?
• Collect clothing skins and also have them be account bound?

Actually, why should we need to collect dyes at all? Wouldn’t it be easier for everyone if we were simply given the whole palette right at character creation?

MilitiaMasterV.7216:

Hydrophidian.4319:

So, if we consent to all of these other restrictions and conditions on physical appearance, armor, clothing and weapons… why are dyes, of all things, the big deal-breaker?

Because of the sheer amount of them you can find and the limited storage that requires real life currency to expand.

I don’t think you’re expected to store them. You’re expected to use them, sell them or share them. This storage difficulty is something you’ve brought upon yourself. It’s not required.

While I do think there are items contrived to stuff your storage, I don’t think dyes are one of them.

Your posts are pretty condescending. I don’t think I’m going to bother answering you anymore because you’re attempting to flame-bait.

Oh, brother.

A good example of “flame-bait” would be this:

“You appear to just like to hear yourself talk without really saying much.”

It wasn’t me who said that. You might also want to go back and read your initial response to me.

You can think what you want of my posts, but I didn’t insult you in them, did I?

Being unable to play the game because you have to store so many dyes in a limited amount of space IS game-breaking.

You do not have to store them.

Re: Duplicate Dyes

1. Sell your duplicates.
2. Collect the profit.
3. Buy the specific dye you want.

This is what’s intended. The Trading House is part of, and factored into, the overall design of the game. Duplicates are good, because they promote sharing and trade.

MilitiaMasterV.7216:

I didn’t ‘disregard’ the effect on the in-game economy.

I didn’t say you did. It was implied in the post I responded to, and I asked if that impression was correct.

I addressed it in quite a few posts.

I was responding to the one post directed at me, in which it was not addressed. I don’t follow your posting history.

Just because you believe making the dyes account bound is going to crash the economy, doesn’t mean it will.

At no point have I claimed that to be my belief. I’ve stated it’d have an adverse effect, and it would. It’s not a matter of belief, it’s a matter of a significant decrease in demand. If dyes became account-bound, that would obviously be the result. Ergo, it would have a negative impact on the in-game economy. As dyes are one of the few things that seem to have any actual value right now, that impact would be broadly felt. There are plenty examples of glut in the current market, and I’d rather not see dyes added to that pile.

You’re assuming I don’t use the market.

I made no assumption one way or the other. I was pointing out that the impact would be felt even if you don’t use it.

I’m one of the people who plays auction houses in games.

Then you should know the current situation here is not a good one. There’s little to no equilibrium.

It seems that a modest amount of the people who post in support of character bound are stuck on the fact that it makes them (Anet) real money to keep producing content, and then there’s multiple people who keep saying they’d never pay for the dyes in their current state.

Are you missing the disconnect here?

No, the disconnect I see is your misapplication of that argument to me. Again, the real money aspect has nothing to do with my point. And I’ll reiterate: I personally won’t pay real money for items that can be obtained in-game, whether they’re dyes or anything else. So clearly I’m not one of this “modest” number you’re referring to (for the record, this entire thread, yay or nay, is statistically insignificant). I actually don’t expect dye packs to be a big real money item. I do expect them to continue to be a heavily traded item in the strict context of the game. That’s what I’m concerned about damaging.

People are completely capable of buying and selling dyes and other items without ever bothering with gems. That tier of the market is another matter entirely and doesn’t factor into what I’m citing here as an issue.

Long and short of it, if you want to counter a specific argument, you should probably address someone who’s actually making that argument.

Also, underneath all of this is a clash of design philosophies. On the one side, there is the camp that believes that players should have as much access and control over their character’s appearance as can be accommodated. The other side—the more traditional one—restricts that access and control, making it something that has to be earned or bought in degrees.

As it happens, I’m firmly in the former camp. But ANet clearly isn’t, and I recognized that when I started playing. Character-bound dyes are in keeping with their overall approach to this element. So, if we consent to all of these other restrictions and conditions on physical appearance, armor, clothing and weapons… why are dyes, of all things, the big deal-breaker?

Do you see the disconnect here?

If we had the ability to store wardrobes, multiple ensembles, change hairstyles or makeup; if we had visible accessories beyond weapons and if weapons were affected by dye… if we had all of that, then account-bound dyes would make perfect sense to me.

But we don’t have any of that. So why is the idea of character-bound dye so offensive? This game’s been out for only a few weeks and I already have a decent selection of dyes on all five of my characters. Probably more than I’ll ever use, because we are otherwise so cosmetically restricted.

Honestly, I still don’t see what the fuss is about. Can you supply an adequate explanation? ‘Cuz, frankly, I haven’t seen one yet.

MilitiaMasterV.7216:

How is ‘Gimme your real life cash multiple times because we went against our word (honor, integrity) and are being greedy and don’t care that the real life economy is in the sinkhole or care whether you’re even able to enjoy our game with it’s limitations’ any less selfish or myopic?

So, if I’m reading this correctly, you agree that wanting all dyes to be account-bound without any regard for the effect it’d have on the in-game economy is a selfish, myopic stance. However, because you perceive ANet to be behaving poorly, that’s okay.

Is that correct?

For the record, I’m not referring to “real life cash”; it has nothing to do with my point. I’m referring to the in-game economy. The in-game economy would be adversely affected by making dyes account-bound. This would negatively impact you, me, and everyone else who plays the game in several indirect ways, even if you don’t use the market at all.

So, again, if you want dyes to be account-bound, I’d say it’s in your best interest to take the larger picture into consideration and come up with a solution that accommodates it, while providing you with (most if not all) of what you want.

I mean, c’mon, do you really think, “Give us account-bound dyes you greedy so-and-sos,” is going to get you anywhere?

Personally, I will never buy dyes, or anything else that can be obtained in-game, with real money. I might agree that ANet’s shift on dye implementation, particularly the timing of it, was a little dubious. But it really is a separate issue from the in-game impact of such a change, given how things actually are in the game right now.

My preference would be to keep dyes per character. But I’m not all that devoted to the preference. What’s most important to me is keeping the game experience vital. I think a healthy economy is necessary for that. It’s not very healthy right now. I find that to be a much larger problem than how dyes are bound.

I see a recurring assertion in this thread that one of the strikes against character-bound dyes is that the player has to collect so many of them.

To those forwarding that claim I’d like to ask: why would you need all dyes on all characters?

I already have about a dozen-or-so colors unlocked on each of my characters, and that’s already more than enough. What exactly is the justification for a need to have them all?

If it’s a collection thing, a completist thing… isn’t prolonging the completion, making it something gained over the long-term, a plus?

Another question for those who’re advocating account-bound dyes: would you still support account-bound dyes if it meant dyes would no longer be dropped by mobs, and would only be obtainable through crafting or the market?

I’m guessing… probably not.

Here’s the problem: the economy is part of the game, and dyes stand to play a significant role in it. ANet is invested in the economy for a myriad of reasons including, but not limited to, its role in hindering RMT.

So, even if you don’t use the market, it’s good for everyone if crafters can profit from their crafting, and if players can make gold selling the things they collect.

Making dyes account-bound, without any sort of mitigating influence, would be a serious blow to a market that’s already struggling for equilibrium. If you want account-bound dyes, it seems pretty clear to me that the only way it’s going to happen is if the negative impact such a change would have on the economy is somehow countered.

One such possible solution would be to implement the aforementioned limitations. There are likely other ideas that might work. But it’s gonna have to be something, so I’d say: put your thinking caps on.

‘Cuz not only is ’gimme account-bound dyes, I don’t care about the market’ a myopic, selfish view, it’s probably not going to be given any serious attention.

Wheee, Quaggan loves the Quaggan!

And I despise the Krait, in no small part due to what they inflict upon the Quaggan.

Spoon.3826:

I, for one, don’t.

Don’t suppose you’d want to reveal why you prefer the cultural homogenization? How does that benefit the game?

Also, while ‘Humans aren’t an imaginary race’, the cultures in the game are.

The cultures as found in the GW1 setting are very plainly inspired and informed by existing real world cultures, but this is beside the point. Regardless of how conceptualized the cultures are, having a diverse mix of them is where the authenticity comes in vis-a-vis human experience. Redefining humans into a “vanilla” euro-centric monoculture is artificial. It’s also needlessly limiting. Having the other established GW1 cultures more plainly represented in GW2, increasing their visibility, would take nothing away from those who favor the Ascalonian vibe. It would, however, give those of us who’re a bit worn out on euro-centricity something to latch onto and play with. It’d increase accessibility and retention.

To throw in another angle, I’ve been playing it that my norn Thief learned some of her “tricks” mostly from the skelk (specifically those in the maze beneath the Rookery). Given that norn can be spiritually attuned to the essence of an animal or creature type, I thought this worked rather well.

Nothing saying that humans can’t do the same, though. Just because a discipline was once exclusive to a particular culture or region, doesn’t mean it has to stay that way, especially if other cultures were exposed to it. Others can reinvent, reverse-engineer, or just stumble upon their own way of achieving the same effect.

While we can belong to multiple guilds, we can only chat with the guild we’re currently representing.

So, yah, this game needs player-made chat channels, with the option to make them public or private, and with some other mod abilities built in (invite, kick, assign privs, etc.).

The other route would be to create some sort of guild coalition channel, but I think that’d be an inferior solution.

Spoon.3826:

For some people it is apparantly super important what skin color the NPC’s have.

On that subject, do the Char give a kitten what color fur an other Charr has?

The thing is, while Charr do have their own racial/cultural dividing lines, we’re not Charr. We’re humans. Humans aren’t an imaginary race.

And it’s not so much about skin color as it’s about ethnic flavors and distinctive cultures.

In the real world, humanity is, ethnically and culturally, wildly diverse. When this diversity is reflected in a fantasy game setting, it adds authenticity and depth to the experience of playing it. It emphasizes immersion. The dilution of this element, which was notably strong in GW1, is what a lot of us are lamenting.

And it isn’t even just about games. The fantasy genre in general has long been overwhelmingly euro-centric and pseudo-medieval. For fans of the genre, the Guild Wars setting was a breath of fresh air.

With the addition of Asuran and Charr aesthetics and culture to the setting’s milieu, GW2 has distanced itself a bit from the pseudo-medieval. I, for one, would like to see a return to the downplay of euro-centricity the franchise once boasted.

drogon.3546:

Couldn’t agree more. The drop rate for the required rare crafting components is too low.

Not sure I agree with this… yet. For me, it’s too early to say.

What I’d feel much more confident in saying is: the drop rate for rare components is too low in relation to a character’s leveling speed.

But even that wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if what I crafted, though useless to me, could be sold for a profit. But that’s currently not the case. By and large, when I’ve sold crafted goods, I’ve taken a loss. And in the few niches where profit has been possible, it’s been a meager gain that wasn’t really worth the effort involved.

Trying to obtain market equilibrium under these conditions is going to be rough, and maybe even impossible. I think something’s going to have to be done about crafting, even if what’s done isn’t what I’d personally like to see.

My assumption has been that bacon will be a prestige item, as it should be. Because it’s bacon.

Alternatively, it could be something that is only obtained through cooperation. First, the Artificer would have to craft the bacon-producing device (strangely, it would look not unlike a restroom hand drier).

Then the Cook would have to combine the device with the appropriate ingredients, creating the Bacon Dispenser consumable.

The quote would of course be:

“Push button. Receive bacon.”

Let me start by stating that I really like the fundamental idea of crafting. Essentially, I like anything that supports the idea of player-made items and content, and crafting certainly qualifies. In the context of the MMO genre, I consider this design element to be very important for the long-term vitality of any game. Being able to create things leads to player investment, player investment leads to player retention, and retention is what it’s all about these days. Especially for MMOs.

I’ve dealt with a handful of crafting systems over the years and, in my estimation, none of them have really been successfully designed or implemented. I was hoping that GW2 would break this trend and get it right. Sadly, my current view is that it’s fallen short.

BUT… I think this game has almost all the right components for an ideal system; they just have to be leveraged differently. Design emphasis just needs to be shifted.

In my ideal crafting system, crafted items would not compete with loot drops. This is a problem many systems have suffered from, and yet new systems keep being developed that have the same inherent issue. GW2’s system is no exception here and, frankly, that’s surprising to me. It could’ve been avoided and I’m amazed that it wasn’t.

In my ideal system, crafters would enhance and change the appearance of items, and they would be almost exclusively the source of these modifications. Sure, you could get that nice weapon or armor drop, but in order to maximize its attributes and give it the look you want, you’d have to give it to a crafter, be a crafter yourself, or buy a crafted “mod package” on the market made by a crafter. In this design, crafters would no longer compete with drops but instead compliment them.

The GW2 system doesn’t work this way. However, if you’re at all familiar with it, I’m sure you can see how it could. All the necessary design elements are there. They just need to be rearranged.

Also in my ideal system, the experience of progressing in craft skills would not be a footslog. So far, again, GW2 doesn’t really deliver here. I’ve found crafting to be, by and large, tedious and a bit grindy. There are two exceptions, though:

- Cooking. Thus far, progression in Cooking has been fun. It’s been fun almost entirely because it really utilizes the discovery feature in a way that the other skills do not.
- Jewelry Making. When contrasted against weaponsmithing, tailoring, etc. it hasn’t felt as tedious to me. However, it’s progression formula seems rather simple, so once you figure it out, it’s just a matter of taking the appropriate steps. It doesn’t make me dread doing it like some of the other crafts do, but it’s not exactly engaging either.

If, like with Cooking, the other crafts had a wider range of interesting items and skins that could be uncovered through discovery, I think it’d go a long way towards making progression in them fun… and probably profitable. Which brings me to my next point…

In my ideal system, crafting would be profitable. In GW2 it’s anything but right now, and honestly that’s a real turn-off. While supply glut due to population is certainly a factor, and there’s probably little anyone can do about that right now (it’s not a bad problem to have, as problems go), you can also generally make more profit from selling materials than selling the crafted items made from them. In short, crafters aren’t making anything of greater value. Which is obviously a huge disincentive to even bother with the system.

Shouldn’t avoiding this very scenario have been a top design priority? Once again, I find myself a little mystified that the development team didn’t see this coming.

I do think this system can be salvaged though (har har, see what I did thar?). It’s not my ideal, but it comes so close to it, that it’s a bit frustrating to see it failing…

- Add more recipes for exotic items to most of the professions. Make a lot of them discoverable.
- Make skinning and reskinning items easier for crafters. Introduce skins, as found in the Hall of Monuments, to the wider game.
- Give players a bank for item/armor skins.
- Remove most upgrades from dropped items. Crafters should be far and away the primary source of upgrades.
- Introduce the ability for crafters to reverse-engineer many items.

Now, I allow that it’s entirely possible that my overall crafting experience could improve as I move up the various craft ladders (save for Cooking which, again, is already fun). However, based on a lot of the other threads I’m seeing in this forum, that’s looking hella unlikely.

I’m hoping that at least some changes get implemented before I get there. Otherwise, crafting will not be something that helps retain me. And the thing about that is, I am just the sort of player it should be locking in.

Thanks for reading.

The problem with adding game benefits to Tonics is that they then would no longer be strictly a novelty item. That would significantly curtail development options for them.

That said, I’m really fond of this idea…

Kalypta.1073:

- once transformed you no longer aggro the species you are transformed into – could be fun for exploring

…I mean, I really, really like it. Certain conditions would have to be added to prevent abuse, but I think it could work.

I’m also likin’ this one:

- add armor recipes that require a tonic – maybe masks, that have the appearance of the tonic creature

…because it’d have the added benefit of bringing more value to crafting skills—something that I think is sorely needed—and without causing any game/balance concerns.

“Tonics are consumables that transforms the player into a monster. The monster the player is transformed into is dependent on the tonic used. Almost all known tonics are acquired through opening Black Lion Chests.” — GW2 Wiki

“Hey, what’s that you got there?”

“It’s a tonic. It turns me into a monster.” [gulp] “See?”

“Wow, you’re a Skritt! That’s cool! Do you have any special attacks?”

“Well, no… It’s just a cosmetic change. And all my abilities go away.”

“Oh. Well, got any fun emotes you can do? Can you dance?”

“…No…”

“So what can you do as a Skritt?”

“Uhm. I can… run back and forth a bit?” [runs about]

“…I see… well, what are those other tonics you have?”

“They’re… more Skritt tonics. I got three at once.”

“Oh! Can I have one? We could be Skritt together!”

“Actually… no, I can’t give one to you; they’re bound to me.”

“Oh. So basically you can transform and stand there a couple more times, should you ever need to do so.”

“…Yeah. I have eleven left-over Ooze tonics as well…”

“…”

TONICS: Half the calories, half the fun!
Well, let’s face it. As a novelty item, tonics are a little sad, aren’t they? I already have a pile of them taking up precious space. Honestly, at this rate, they’re probably just going to get deleted, and that seems like a waste to me. Especially seeing as they could be much more fun.

So, let’s make them more fun! Here are some suggestions:

• Make Tonics Tradable - Why these things are account-bound is a mystery to me. I’m having a hard time coming up with the widespread tonic abuse scenario that’s being safeguarded against here? Let us trade ’em! Let us pass them out to friends, so we can become little packs of monsters! Much potential for fun is lost by having Tonics bound, and for no apparent reason.
• Make Tonics Collectable - What could it hurt? Give us a Tonic Collection Bank. The obsessive com—er uhm I mean… the completists among us will then want them all! Collecting is fun! Feed the addic—uh that is to say… accommodate player preferences!
• Add Special Emotes To the Skill Bar - I’ve noticed one monster transformation, the Fire Imp, has what seems to be a special emote option. I think all of the transformations should have at least one of these emote skills, and maybe more. At the very least, Skritt should receive the Gangnam Style dance. That’s just a no-brainer.
• Add Second Tier Tonics to the Mystic Forge - Certain combinations of chest-acquired Tonics could unlock forge-exclusive Tonics, and wouldn’t that be neat? Maybe these could be the emote-equipped versions? There could also be a small chance to receive a related miniature?
• Thrown Tonic = Temporary Miniature - This might make too much of a lag mess? But it’d certainly be amusing. The duration could be brief, and the miniature could just wander about a bit, rather than following the caster like a true mini does.

…Implementing any of these suggestions would be, I think, a great improvement. However, I believe implementing them all would significantly increase the novelty value of Tonics, bring more people to the Trading House, and make actually opening Black Lion Chests a more appealing proposition (right now I’m thinking of building a house with my stack of unopened chests).

Thanks for reading! More suggestions and discussion welcome!

Willowleaf.5721:

Apparently Anet has not asked themselves if the new character bound dyes was fun in any way, because I can assure you one one thing…

NO, the new character-bound dye system IS NOT FUN AT ALL!!!!

BRING BACK THE FUN!!! FUN as in account-wide dye system, the way it was meant to be.

Speaking only for myself, an account-wide dye system would be less fun.

- I want a vibrant dye market wherein I can craft, sell, and trade. While the level of impact could be debated, making dyes account-wide would be a dampening effect on that market.
- I like that my characters have individualized color palettes. Even if dyes were made account-wide, I’d want this preserved somehow.

So, please keep in mind that ideas of what qualifies as “fun” can vary a lot.

roqoco.4053:

Making dyes account wide would mean that once you’d found a black dye you’d never need to find another. Really the current system is already maybe too generous

It could be, ‘cuz, as it is, once you find five black dyes, you’ll never need another. So this system is just delaying the inevitable scenario you’ve described. Sure, some people will pick up more character slots, but that’s just another delay, right?

Will it be enough of a delay? I’m hoping so, but I don’t see how there’s any way of knowing for sure.

hiccups.3790:

Or at least make a poll about it, that we can vote. The community should decide it, right?

Not really?

While the voice of the wider community should certainly be facilitated and heard, it shouldn’t be the ultimate determining factor in any decision. ‘Cuz this isn’t a democracy, it’s an MMO. As such, the priority should be retention.

Consider that the community is made up of various and sundry subgroups, and that every subgroup has priorities and preferences that don’t necessarily line up with the majority view. With any given issue, should the views of these subgroups be ignored? Probably not, as it would lead to a (rapidly) shrinking player base. You might have majority accord, but your majority would keep decreasing in its overall size, as more and more niche groups were disenfranchised.

The goal then should always be to find a solution that reasonably accommodates the widest spectrum of preferences, without undermining the intended gameplay: a compromise.

1. I don’t grind. If an activity/pursuit stops being fun for me (becomes a grind), I just stop doing it.
2. I’ve created five characters.
3. I tend to be a penny pincher.

Despite these points, I haven’t had any issues with the dye system. Here’s why:

What I did from the start was assign palettes to each of my characters. One got the darker earth tones; one got pale, neutral shades; another would receive water-related colors, while another was assigned a royal palette (reds and purples).

This has worked out really well. I tend to know exactly who should get what dye, and the dispersal has been fairly even. Each character has obtained a decent selection of personal colors, and it’s reached the point now where I’m having to expand the scope of their palettes to accommodate new drops. I’ve even sold some dyes without regret, because they didn’t fit any of the five color schemes.

So, I recommend this as a solution to anyone who’s been having issues trying to decide what dye should go where.

As for accountbound vs. soulbound, I see pros and cons to each. However, I’d like to add a point that I don’t think’s really been mentioned yet:

For some players, a trading post is seen as a mini-game and, as such, is a draw. I look forward to crafting and trading dyes, so I’d be very concerned about any change that might dilute the vibrancy of this market. I fear that making all dyes account-bound would do just that (I myself already have more colors than I ‘need’).

As a compromise, I’d suggest adding the ability to reassign dye swatches from character to character. Perhaps even add a new item, not unlike the transmutation stone, that facilitates this transfer?

I wouldn’t want to see favorites become account-wide, because I do see the eventual need of having a favorites option for each character. If this route were taken, I’d say leave favorites alone, and add an account-wide tab that can hold X number of swatches.

When contrasted against other classes, I wouldn’t say Elementalists do well in PvE. Rather, I’d say they do well enough.

But, as we’re right out of the gate, I’m not going to kvetch too much about it. All the classes seem to be in the viable range of the playability spectrum. Some more so than others, but hey. It coulda been worse… coulda been a lot worse. Other MMOs have had absolute horror shows w/ class balancing and viability.

That’s not the case here, that’s for sure.

I’d like to see more about the ‘exclusion from dungeons’ problem. What’s the reasoning given for the exclusion?

I haven’t seen it happen myself, but it’s been mentioned enough in this forum for me to believe it’s happening.

DaedalusDragon.3754:

And P.S. I really like the skill required to play the ele. I think it makes it stand out and be more challenging. But from any “challenge” aspect (dungeons, which are already starting to exclude eles and pvp) the elementalist can be replaced by any other class and work better with a team and still require a less skilled player.

This is in line with my own impressions so far.

I think the underlying problem with the class is that it’s, generally speaking, not as rewarding to play as the others. That it requires more effort and focus isn’t necessarily a detraction; it could even be viewed as a draw, but that there’s no real significant pay-off for that extra effort… I think that’s an issue.

BUT I do also think the OP needs to be echoed here. I have a lot of respect for the ANet dev team and their methodology, and this game has only just started to get rolling. Even if my Elementalist isn’t wowing me as much as my other characters are (Thief, Ranger, Engineer, Mesmer), she’s still fun enough to play and she still has areas of play in which she shines (group scenarios, support). She’s still viable and can still contribute. For now, that’s enough to keep me mollified until the tweaking starts. I have every confidence that the situation will improve.

If, a few months from now, nothing’s really changed, my knickers might start getting twisty. But I do think that at this stage ‘relax, give it some time’ is sound advice for everyone.

DaedalusDragon.3754:

Just look at that number…. I use 25 skills when I have to fight one player…. they use 3 (or 8 if they want to be flashy with their utility/elites/heals).

Couldn’t this be taken as an argument that the other classes need to have greater complexity, rather than the Elementalist needing less?

While I agree the design of the Elementalist is going to need some work in the coming months, does anyone really want ‘mashing 3 buttons’ to be the gold standard in gameplay? I most certainly don’t.

Conceptually, my Norn Thief is played as a scout/outrunner/skirmisher/tracker, and she works just fine that way.

Her idea of honor includes a healthy portion of pragmatism. Most of the louts and braggarts who go on about honor—who apply all sorts of arbitrary restrictions on what’s “fair” and “acceptable” in a game of iron—generally do so from the warmth and safety of their lodge. They wouldn’t last a day out in her world. At least, not with their “honor” intact.

Not coincidentally, she firmly adheres to the teachings of Raven.

So, there’s a Norn “Thief” for you.

Before I drop my observations in here, a few caveats:

- I haven’t even touched PVP yet, and likely won’t for some time to come.
- I haven’t reached upper levels yet, and I’m in no rush to do so.

So why am I posting at all? Well, my approach to the game may be telling in that I’ve been giving roughly the same amount of attention to 5 classes, including the Elementalist and the Thief.

So, here are my impressions so far:
In contrast to the other four classes I’m playing, the Elementalist:

- Makes noticeable contributions in large-scale group scenarios.
- Is decent in the support department.
- Takes noticeably more effort to play, both actively (combat) and passively (learning/building/equipping the class).
- Cannot push the challenge envelope as far as the other classes can (even if the aforementioned effort is invested).
- Is easily the most fragile out of the five, requiring more mitigation tactics from skills than the other classes have (this has led to the skill bar staying relatively static, which takes some of the fun and variety out of it).

With other classes, I’ve had more room to play around and make mistakes. With my Engineer and Thief in particular, the disparity has been significant. Night and day, really.

So far.

I acknowledge the possibility that the Elementalist might be a “late bloomer”. I also realize I’ve a lot to learn yet about the mechanics of the game.

But, if I stick strictly to the context of accessibility, I think it’s safe to say at this point that the Elementalist is… not very. And it’s significantly less so than at least the Thief, Engineer, Ranger or Mesmer.

‘Course, whether or not this is really an issue depends on the design criteria of the game. But as this is an MMO, I’m assuming it’s an important consideration. Every class should probably be roughly the same in its initial learning curve. As it stands, though, I believe the Elementalist invites much greater potential for frustration for the newcomer. Given that it’s the “mage” class and that a lot of people are attracted to that, the Elementalist should probably get some serious attention and review in the coming weeks and months.

For someone who isn’t new to this kind of game, the Elementalist is certainly viable, but it doesn’t seem to give you much if you meet its demands, especially when contrasted against other classes. For someone who is new, I think the Elementalist could be a big-time bummer.