It seems to me that the drop rate for Blood Rubies is similar to that of T6 gems from ore. I wasn’t really surprised as ANet has relied on low material drop rates for incremental rewards since launch. However, I do have to laugh when I go to Ember Bay, harvest Petrified Stumps, and don’t get any Petrified Wood. At least Bloodstone Nodes always give Bloodstone Dust.
I think this is a good idea, and I really don’t understand the objections.
The OP is asking for a completely separate mode with separate rewards. Your raiding experience will not be changed at all as you can just click on hard mode. If the original point was to nerf the difficulty across the board of raids then I would be with you in objecting but I don’t see the harm of a completely separate box that aims to be more inclusive.
If you buy an expansion pack then you are paying for the development cycle of that expansion pack. If part of that development cycle is based on raids then you are getting a worse deal on that pack if you are someone who doesn’t raid then someone who can enjoy all the content.As someone who doesn’t raid, let me give you an objective view of how this debate has developed:
When raids were first released people complained about them being too hard. Keep in mind people also used to complain vistas were too difficult, and we even had people whining about dungeon difficulty at launch.
At first, some raiders pushed back against the idea of needing an easy mode, but many more said “yes I think it would be good to have an easy mode without the rewards leading to Legendary Armor.” Basically make it more like dungeon scale rewards. After this, many people complaining about raid difficulty turned the argument to “what no, we should still get legendary armor even playing on easy mode.”
That is why you see the argument you see now, so hopefully you will be informed going forward and not be confused. There are large swaths of non-raiders who want both the prestige of raiding but also to do it in a dumbed down brain dead mode.
Personally, I think it would be alright to see a dumbed down brain dead 5-man raid that has exotic gear to work towards and doesn’t share any achievements with the regular raid mode. Don’t call it a raid because that is an insult, just call it whatever the name for he raid is and explorable mode or something. I don’t deserve to unlock raid achievements and gear if I am not willing to put in the blood and sweat. Maybe some people see that as unfair, but too bad. Go play a game where you have the whole armory available to you at level 1 and don’t need to work for anything.
In any case, this is why you see this argument Merlin. Because it isn’t just a debate of whether an easy mode should exist or not. It turns into a debate then of whether easy mode should allow you to work toward Legendary armor and such. Personally I think if people want to play a dumbed down version of raids that’s would be as unchallenging and boring as dungeons, let them have it without the same rewards. I’d get to see the raid wing story then at least I guess, but I’d probably only do it once because it would be boring. Besides, I could already explore the maps in an open instance.
Also, two more points directed specifically at some silly things you said in your post (one that, now rereading, shows you have huge bias and are being intentionally obtuse):
1) Yes, raids were part of the expansion. Yes, everyone who bought he expansion has access to raids. No, a game developer doesnt have any responsibility to make the content easy enough for everyone who buys it to complete it. Sorry, but that is a terrible mindset. You bought it, you can access it, if you can’t complete it it’s on you.
2) Of course people like the exclusivity of it. Why are you acting like that is a bad thing? It has exclusiveness because it is difficult content. They go hand in hand. They enjoy it being exclusive and enjoy it being exclusive because it is difficult and they can overcome that and show that they are good at it. That is a normal thing and a big part of gaming. So you trying to use it to devalue their argument is hilarious.
Also, no one is blocking anyone else from content. It is super easy to find 9 other players to play with if you aren’t picky. Just advertise in lfg and map chat you are forming a raid party for new, inexperienced, or nonmeta players. Don’t call it training, just say all welcome. I promise you will find people.
It’s also clear that the lore argument is just an excuse, as no one complains about not being able to experience the lore of arah.
There’s a story mode for Arah, although I can see why someone might want to forget it. I believe there are people who really do want a raid story mode for lore purposes, just as I believe there are people who care about raids for the challenge and who care nothing for the rewards or prestige. That doesn’t mean I would bet on either group being of significant size.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
How is it possible to be kicked from a map event?
At a guess it’s probably being kicked from a squad, which in the event of DC might mean being unable to get to the map one was on. Bit of a stretch, but about all I can think of.
And is sure being updated frequently
Lol at “updated frequently”.
By the way OP, I think you wrote “Wildstar” wrong.
We get major updates 1-2 times a month with smaller updates in between.
That’s crap. It’s not enough, it’s not acceptable. Friggen runescape is updated every 2 weeks with sizable content. Gw2 takes 2-3 months to come out with 5 hours of content. Then leaves us in a draught. When ls is over it will be another huge content draught.
They’re not the same which is why there’s a difference. I’m sure a lot of content could be added quickly for the first Legend of Zelda but take much longer for Breath of Wild.
Not if your team is the right size and you are run on a monthly sub to afford a bigger team like always should have happened
So, the biggest MMO, which charges a sub, has a store and which charges for XPacs should have the biggest staff and should put out content at a pace that puts all other MMO’s to shame, right? Well, that’s not what happened when I was playing it.
I don’t believe that an easy mode raid is needed. I very much believe that not all content is or ought to be for everyone. However, Djinn is correct that the combination of raid design and player tendencies do mean that raids are exclusionary in a way that open world content is not. No one is asking for LI, specific builds, specific gear or anything else to allow people into open world content.
While people like Djinn could start their own groups, that is also going to be problematic with raids (unlike dungeons). People are going to expect someone who starts a raid group to know what they’re doing and to be competent with regard to playing in the content. When it becomes apparent that is not the case, people are going to bail and look for a different group. Even those who cannot get into other groups are going to bail.
The issue comes down to commitment. People who are really committed to raids are raiding. Players new to raiding and who have the commitment get themselves geared up and join training runs, wherein they get the experience.
The people asking for more accessibility are less committed. Commitment is necessary to push through adversity. Adversity (i.e., the possibility that an inexperienced group is going to face wiping a lot in order to learn) is a part of raid design. While there is some possibility of failure in open world, the possibility is much lower.
It was a very, poor short sighted attempt to fix a much larger issue. Which is ironic when literally changing the salvage rates or adjusting the leather requirements would have been sufficient for much healthier long term solution.
Why this won’t happen:
- MMO business models, including that of GW2, depend on keeping players playing the game. Whether there is a sub or store, completely inactive players don’t pay for time or store stuff.
- Long-term goals keep people logging in. Economic solutions that would involve making it take less time for players to gain the long-term goals put in to keep them logging in is contrary to the company’s business goal.
- Farming does keep people logging in, even if their engagement with the game is less than it might be were they elsewhere in game.
Did you play the original GW NIghtfall as an Elonian character? When you get to the story quest “And a Hero Shall Lead Them,” Elonian characters need to attain the General Rank in the Sunspear Rank Title Track to qualify to continue the story. Depending on what you did prior to that point in the game, that might or might not be more involved than getting a particular Mastery.
I played GW Nightfall with my first GW1 character almost 9 years ago, and I remember it well. I activated every shrine on Istan, I made every quest on Istan. When I was required to have some Sunspear rank, I simply had it. The game was designed in a way that when I play all the available content, my character level and Sunspear rank was just right. I didn’t have to explicitly farm XP or rank points. If you didn’t had enough points, you could look for quests you skipped – available content you skipped or did not find until then.
That was good design back then. It made you searching for and playing through the contents once. Perhaps cleaning a map once more to catch up with the points if you skipped too much, but not grinding stuff over and over again like in GW2.
On my Dervish, I skipped a lot of the side quests, and needed to grind a whole lot of Sunspear Points to be able to proceed. In HoT, I found no grind at all in getting the Masteries needed to follow the story.
I’m hearing complaints on the other side that a potentially legitimate strategy on their side is being disregarded as it isn’t meta.
Yes, that can happen.
Adherence to the meta in pick-up-groups is risk management. In what is mostly a random grouping setup, players have almost no control over who joins a group. They insist on a meta comp and the accompanying encounter tactics because those things have worked on prior tries. There is risk in allowing other players to deviate because there is no certainty that the deviation is going to produce a positive result.
Throw in the idea that unless an encounter is new, the people insisting on the meta have done the encounter before, maybe a lot of times. Having succeeded before, maybe many times, failure would be seen as a waste of time. Thus, there is little incentive to try a new way of doing the encounter when the old way works and the new way might not.
a story i can’t complete because i need X mastery unlocked is exactly the reason why it’s flawed, i never heard of a single game or book that makes you do something completely unrelated to the story just to continue the story.
Did you play the original GW NIghtfall as an Elonian character? When you get to the story quest “And a Hero Shall Lead Them,” Elonian characters need to attain the General Rank in the Sunspear Rank Title Track to qualify to continue the story. Depending on what you did prior to that point in the game, that might or might not be more involved than getting a particular Mastery.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
I believe the people saying the map is dead are trying to use that to give emphasis to their own negative opinion of HOT without regard for what’s actually happening on HoT maps.
I believe that at least some of the complaints happen because ANet’s mega-server algorithms quite literally kill the map. Sometimes the closing-map experience can chain. Ironically, it’s less likely to chain when there are fewer map copies to begin with.
I don’t know how much time you spend in HOT but I literally have been in HoT for 30 hours within the past week and I have yet to find a single dead map, without using LFG at all.
I’ve been helping new guildies get their elite spec unlocked among other things.
I’m not saying there are a million people at every event, but there are very very few events where there aren’t people enough to do the events. This doesn’t equal a dead map.
I’m specifically taking note of what I’m doing and when due to the claims of certain posters. The assertion that the zones are dead are pretty much wrong. The only time I’ve encountered a dead zone recently was when I didn’t reboot right away and a bunch of other people did. Aside from that, dead zones are the exception not the rule.
Edit: As an example, right now I’ve done the entire scar lane event chain with strangers. We’re on the next to last event. There are five of us. There are a lot of events in this zone. Not sure how anyone could call this dead. No LFG, no changing maps. Just happened upon it.
Just last night I was in a VB map and got the “Map is closing” message. That’s what I mean by a map that mega-server algorithms are killing — by closing. Psychologically, that map is perceived as dead. When that experience chains, it creates a perception. If you want to counter perception, it helps to understand what is being perceived, and why.
Perhaps raiders are too ridgedly attached to the meta and could ease up on builds that are at least realistic in what they try to do and arena net need to really consider why we have things in this game that are objectively terrible and either buff or remove them.
It’s not “raiders”. It’s a large part of this entire community. These issues have been there for much longer than raids.
I agree with Aurellian. Asserting that this type of behavior is new and due to raids simply means the asserting poster has not been paying attention or is new to posting.
As to why we have things (i.e., build elements) in the game that aren’t part of a harder-instanced-content meta, that’s simple. Build elements do not have to be desirable in every piece of content to have a place in the game. A given profession’s build choices must suffice for every bit of content a player might want to engage with.
The 50% less falling damage trait is about as niche as it gets, but I don’t hear arguments that it should be part of the instanced content meta. Other build elements have their niche or potential niche. There are a lot of players who wear survival gear in open PvE, for instance. That does not mean it needs to be an optimal choice everywhere. So, as far as “Remove it from the game” goes, no, players don’t get to decide that a build element has no place in the game because meta players won’t allow it in a raid.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
I believe the people saying the map is dead are trying to use that to give emphasis to their own negative opinion of HOT without regard for what’s actually happening on HoT maps.
I believe that at least some of the complaints happen because ANet’s mega-server algorithms quite literally kill the map. Sometimes the closing-map experience can chain. Ironically, it’s less likely to chain when there are fewer map copies to begin with.
If I read the OP correctly, a player would still need to make the various pieces of gear needed for different stat combinations. As long as that’s the case, a more elegant solution might be the implementation of build slots, in which a player could store not only the gear but also the utility skills and traits for a given build. That would solve the storage issue as well as allowing the player to switch gear and everything else related to a build with one click. A plus here would also be that players could incorporate exotics or even lower tiers of gear into a build as well as Ascended, guaranteeing a more universal applicability.
“Normal MMO content”? What exactly is that?
At a guess? Stuff that every reasonable person would expect to be in a typical MMO. This likely includes open world PvE, instanced PvE and consensual PvP (instanced or not). It may also include exploration, achievements and collections (with the objectives for same found in the places quoted above. I believe you could achieve consensus on all of those being typical MMO offerings. Please note that the word reasonable is used, because I know some people would be contrary just to be contrary.
I very much doubt that you’d achieve consensus among a random group of reasonable MMO players as to jumping puzzles and mini-games being typical content (i.e., content found in a preponderance of MMO’s).
There’s nothing wrong with niche content in this game, except for the fact that ANet too often makes niche content matter towards things like meta-achievements or collections. Niche content rewards (because there have to be rewards or no one bothers after the first time or three) should not be part of reward structures for overall play. They should be intrinsic to the niche content.
Maybe it’s the old guy in me, but cant we just have the items and skip the bags part or heck even just raw currency.
While I get the feeling, raw currency would turn loot into a faucet, whereas the way it is it’s for the most part a sink. Too many faucets would cause inflation. As to loose loot over bags, I’d be happier with bags if there were fewer types because they stack. Stacking bags mean less space taken up by loot. As it is, though, there are too many types of bags. Take Champion Bags. If there was one type, they’d all stack in one slot. As it is, though, I rarely find more than 2 Champ Bags in the same slot even if I’ve killed a dozen champs since the last inventory management stop.
Fishing would be last or next to last on my list for prioritizing possible additions to the game. In other games, I’ve found the “activity” boring. When in the mode for something that is not doing events and fighting things, I harvest. While harvesting is also just clicking on something, at least I’m moving my character around.
That said, MMO’s survive on providing people with ways to waste their time. On that score, fishing certainly fits the bill.
On another matter… I think those claiming “anyone” can raid should spend more time in the open world. There are people being downed in fights like in Bloodstone Fen (Hablion, the Jade Bow + Armor and the Legendary Guardian). How likely are such people to do what it takes to succeed in content that is certainly “harder?”
With all the stupidly scaled kitten flying around during some open world events, it’s sometimes easier not to go down in raids. And there, at least you directly know what killed you …
I won’t deny that the Technicolor Dreamcoat on such meta bosses can make it hard to see. However, the learning curve in those open world events is not the same as in raids — or at least I hope not.
While I don’t find it tiresome to run to a merchant when my bags are full, I wouldn’t mind a “Sell all masterwork sigils and runes.” button alongside the “Sell all junk.” button. It could even be a “Sell all sigils and runes.” button, I’d just have to use it before salvaging rares if I want to Tp those for the extra coppers.
Before raids came along I don’t recall a single person ever using the word “elitist” once and now I hear it several times a day.
You must not have been coming to these forums until recently, then. There was at least one post a week about exclusion in dungeons, and if the OP didn’t use the word elitist, another poster came along and used it soon after. I even recall the word being bandied about in discussions about “harder” open world content wherein some coordination is needed, like the Marionette fight in LW Season One. “Elitism” gets bandied about in games like this whenever someone is thwarted in getting into content which is to any degree “harder.”
On another matter… I think those claiming “anyone” can raid should spend more time in the open world. There are people being downed in fights like in Bloodstone Fen (Hablion, the Jade Bow + Armor and the Legendary Guardian). How likely are such people to do what it takes to succeed in content that is certainly “harder?”
We’re talking about not only a difference in skill, but also in mindset. A lot of GW2 players don’t have the mindset to raid. Now, my take on what that means is that they should accept that raids are not for them. However, the trend in gaming in general is more toward accommodating the masses while also throwing a bone to committed players. Thus, we see expectations that anyone should be able to raid with minimal commitment.
Dungeons (fractals specifically) seem to be the area the OP takes issue with. As long as any dungeon encounter requires players to kill mobs, the meta is going to insist that groups bring as much damage as the game allows. So, for the meta to shift to include Toughness, the content itself would have to change to make those enhanced boons be deemed necessary. What this means is that parties would now require a boon bot with Toughness. Again, since access to boons is nowhere near equal, only certain professions will be included as the new boon bot. What this would also mean is that parties which currently do fractals with off-meta comps would also need a boon bot. I don’t view that as a positive change to the game. Ommv.
The solution to that is the same as it has always been. Start your own group.
Of course. I didn’t say it because it has been said so many times. Alas, those who ask for these types of changes want to drop into any meta group without the effort needed to start their own — and without the relative uncertainty of a non-meta group.
PROS
- Some of the people who want toughness to matter in one segment of the PvE game will be pleased. I say some because not all the people who want Toughness to be part of a dungeon/Fractals meta will be happy if its passive damage reduction as part of the Armor stat is removed.
CONS
- Reducing everyone’s Armor stat across all game modes to the Defense stat on their armor will cause sweeping changes in PvP, WvW and, in PvE, for players who already use Toughness as it is currently intended. This could be partially solved by splitting stat functionality by game mode. However, Anet has shown little to no inclination to split functionality within modes, and there are PvE players who use Toughness as is. Further, not all professions have equal access to boons,so we’d see a universal benefit (Toughness’ passive damage reduction), replaced by a profession-limited benefit.
- If the existing boons that Toughness would make better are not nerfed, then there would be no change in instanced content PuG metas. Those boons do the job as is, leaving them as is does not create a need, which seems to be the OP’s goal.
- If the boons were nerfed in order to pave the way for the proposed new Toughness stat function to mean anything in PuG group instanced PvE metas, then we’re back to ANet having to split boon functionality by mode or live with the massive impact the change would have on sPvP and WvW.
- There is already a stat, Concentration, which buffs boons by extending their duration. Does the game need another stat to buff boons? If it got one, there would be a massive shake-up in any game mode in which the changes took effect. Again, I’m leery about a universal benefit being replaced by a profession-limited one. We already hear about some professions being left out. The proposed changes would not reduce those complaints, and might make for more of them.
DISCUSSION POINTS
Dungeons (fractals specifically) seem to be the area the OP takes issue with. As long as any dungeon encounter requires players to kill mobs, the meta is going to insist that groups bring as much damage as the game allows. So, for the meta to shift to include Toughness, the content itself would have to change to make those enhanced boons be deemed necessary. What this means is that parties would now require a boon bot with Toughness. Again, since access to boons is nowhere near equal, only certain professions will be included as the new boon bot. What this would also mean is that parties which currently do fractals with off-meta comps would also need a boon bot. I don’t view that as a positive change to the game. Ommv.
Mesmers are annoying, no doubt. They are also not the only profession that can be invincible for a long enough time to deliver big damage.
Well that does not mean they are not shown any favoritism.
I’ve seen complaints about every profession on this board over time, even rangers. :O
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
To be honest, I don’t really understand everybody complaining about masteries being locked behind certain activities. You bought Heart of Thorns knowing that it would be this way, so if you don’t like doing adventures / jumping puzzles / whatever else, you should either have accepted and consented that you won’t have every mastery unlocked, or shouldn’t have purchased the expansion at all. And in case you didn’t actually read through what kind of features will HoT have, then, well…
Notice that this latter article (which is referenced at the bottom of the official feature description) was created in February 2015, more than half a year before the release of HoT.
Quoting from the article (highlighting done by me):‘To train a specific Mastery track, you must first unlock it by spending Mastery points. Mastery points are awarded for completing various pieces of game content. Things like completing a chapter in your personal story, completing certain achievements, reaching hard-to-find locations, overcoming challenging encounters, excelling at adventures found within the Heart of Maguuma, or earning 100% completion for a map will award Mastery points. Each Mastery point can be earned once per account, so while Mastery points allow you to unlock Mastery tracks, they are also an indicator of how much of the game you’ve experienced.’
While adventures are certainly mentioned, it is difficult to determine from those blogs just what adventures were going to be. I expected instanced content more like delves in ESO than mini-games in which the build I put thought and effort into being supplanted by something else.
Mesmers are annoying, no doubt. They are also not the only profession that can be invincible for a long enough time to deliver big damage.
At this point we have the classic builds, (dps, healer, utility) but we don’t have a true tank.
The “tanks” in this game tanks pretty much only use toughness to keep aggro and not really for damage mitigation as the stat is designed to do. Also the tanking person’s build is heavily focused on providing buffs to the party and not on mitigating damage. This is because they can use class skills/traits/dodging to avoid the majority of the heavy damage and will rely on the healers to keep them topped off for the damage they do receive.
I’m going to challenge the assumptions here.
- Tanks in harder MMO instanced content have one job — keeping the boss’ attention. If a GW2 tank is doing that, then GW2 has true tanks.
- Only if the tank in GW2 raids is never hit does toughness play no role. It’s a passive stat, which does its job on every hit.
- Tanks in other games also have damage mitigation skills, albeit usually on long CD’s. If a GW2 tank is using active abilities in addition to absorbing the occasional hit they’re doing more than tanks in other games. From having tanked in other MMO’s, I’d say being the focus of a boss’ attacks in GW2 is more demanding.
- I’ve neither seen nor heard of a game with serious instanced PvE in which the tank was not being healed by a healer. In fact, the damage mitigation abilities such tanks do have are mostly reserved for a boss’ Sunday Punch or for a possible gap in the healer’s ability to keep the tank up.
- What is wrong with a tank also providing buffs? GW2 buffs are a much bigger part of the game than in other MMO’s I’ve played. They last much less time, and thus require more upkeep.
I’d like to see a better explanation for why GW2 should shift to more passive tanking. I don’t know about anyone else but just taking hits constantly while depending on a healbot was boring.
The idea of needing to recraft a T1 Ascended to make a T2 Ascended, then a T3, etc. sounds neither no more tedious nor no less tedious than the current crafting process. If the mats needed were greater in number, the process would be worse. If the same, I see little change except for those who want some slight benefit (with 5 tiers, each would be about 1% of what exotic offers) if they are taking time to gather mats. If less mats were needed, there would be an overall benefit, but I have trouble believing that might happen.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
Nope don’t agree and I’ve been playing RPGs for years. I simply enjoy what I’m doing to get rewards in RPGs. And the second I stop enjoying them I lose interest in the game.
Some things are fun and some things aren’t. I’ve beaten every tombraider game, because I like that kind of gameplay, except for the last one because they introduced something in the game I don’t like.
Games are games, they’re not meant to be work. And work isn’t necessary the same as effort. I can work out in a gym if I enjoy working out. It’s still effort and I’m still enjoying it. I wouldn’t eat food that I hate every single day to get a free meal of food I like thoiugh.
Those who play RPGs? I’m relatively sure I’ve played more RPGs than most people, over a much longer span of time.
To say they are not work makes no sense even old school games where work all rpgs are more work then other games.
You’re arguing semantics, to no real point. The word work has several definitions. You’re referring to the one that would read, “Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.” Vayne seems to be equating the word with a common view of work in a lot of cultures. Work is something you have to do to earn a living, whether it’s distasteful or not. He wants to use the word “effort” instead, but effort is synonymous with work.
I suggest though, that since RPG’s are Role-Playing GAMES, the proper word would be play, not work. RPG’s may require more play than other games. MMORPG’s certainly do, largely because of their business models and the expectations of the MMO fan base.
Then your proving my point that it is your perspective that is making it work. All.games can be considered work for reward, especially rpgs. In other words it is subjective it does not mean hot is actually making most feel like it is work.
The issue of whether HoT is fun or not was always going to be subjective. If that was your point all along, you might want to review your assumptions and what you’re saying in various posts. To say, “To say they are not work makes no sense even old school games where work all rpgs are more work then other games.” suggests that you are championing the idea that HoT and by extension all RPG’s are tedious slogs that are not fun to engage with. I’m glad you cleared that up with your latest post.
Different people go to WvW for different reasons. People who prefer DBL have one map like it. People who dislike it can avoid it and still have three maps to go to and do whatever suits their fancy. The fact that the vote kept DBL alive suggests that enough of those who voted voted for DBL to justify the current situation. While I am not opposed to changing DBL a bit to address reasonable concerns, I am opposed to removing it entirely.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
Nope don’t agree and I’ve been playing RPGs for years. I simply enjoy what I’m doing to get rewards in RPGs. And the second I stop enjoying them I lose interest in the game.
Some things are fun and some things aren’t. I’ve beaten every tombraider game, because I like that kind of gameplay, except for the last one because they introduced something in the game I don’t like.
Games are games, they’re not meant to be work. And work isn’t necessary the same as effort. I can work out in a gym if I enjoy working out. It’s still effort and I’m still enjoying it. I wouldn’t eat food that I hate every single day to get a free meal of food I like thoiugh.
Those who play RPGs? I’m relatively sure I’ve played more RPGs than most people, over a much longer span of time.
To say they are not work makes no sense even old school games where work all rpgs are more work then other games.
You’re arguing semantics, to no real point. The word work has several definitions. You’re referring to the one that would read, “Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.” Vayne seems to be equating the word with a common view of work in a lot of cultures. Work is something you have to do to earn a living, whether it’s distasteful or not. He wants to use the word “effort” instead, but effort is synonymous with work.
I suggest though, that since RPG’s are Role-Playing GAMES, the proper word would be play, not work. RPG’s may require more play than other games. MMORPG’s certainly do, largely because of their business models and the expectations of the MMO fan base.
If they insist on everyone having unique names, I think they should add a system in which any character that has been off-line for X amount of time (a year?) has their name up for grabs, and if the name’s been taken by someone else when/if they come back online, they have to choose a new name.
- Payoff: For each desirable name freed up, one customer will gain access to it. Anyone else who wanted that name will be left out.
- Cost: Cheesed off customers who return after a long absence and find “their” name is gone. Cheesed off customers who want given name X, but only one of them gets it.
Too much disappointment and potential anger for too little gain.
And on the other hand, as the game continues on and more players come and go, the pool of available names becomes infinitely smaller.
Not even close. The number of combinations of first names and surnames border on infinite, whereas the number of new players/characters is not going to get anywhere close. Now, if you meant, “The pool of available names that are desirable because they evoke pop culture references or genre tropes gets smaller.” you might have a point.
Oh, yes. Billions of possible names. I guess since someone can find one on attempt number 512,780 that everything is fine.
My first online game was GW. It wasn’t until I went to other games much later that I ran into the, “You can only have one name thing.” Since my inclination was to always have characters have surnames, I rarely have to try a second time to get a name I want, never mind hundreds of thousands of times.
Understandable, but there are other ways to prove knowledge of mechanics and the game itself than maximizing DPS.
I believe that was indeed the goal behind raid design, and for that matter HoT design.
Then I also said condition damage do dps 4k to insta down someone and conditions do 4k+ per tick.
You can’t instadown someone with 4k damage.
I believe he’s referring to a damage range with 4K at the low end and “insta-down” on the other. I question whether that’s happening, though. If it is, it’s a product of a zerg dropping tons of AoE on another zerg and the defending zerg lacking Resistance for whatever reason. The other possibility is of course defending a keep and standing too close to the lord and getting the plague from him.
If they insist on everyone having unique names, I think they should add a system in which any character that has been off-line for X amount of time (a year?) has their name up for grabs, and if the name’s been taken by someone else when/if they come back online, they have to choose a new name.
- Payoff: For each desirable name freed up, one customer will gain access to it. Anyone else who wanted that name will be left out.
- Cost: Cheesed off customers who return after a long absence and find “their” name is gone. Cheesed off customers who want given name X, but only one of them gets it.
Too much disappointment and potential anger for too little gain.
And on the other hand, as the game continues on and more players come and go, the pool of available names becomes infinitely smaller.
Not even close. The number of combinations of first names and surnames border on infinite, whereas the number of new players/characters is not going to get anywhere close. Now, if you meant, “The pool of available names that are desirable because they evoke pop culture references or genre tropes gets smaller.” you might have a point.
If they insist on everyone having unique names, I think they should add a system in which any character that has been off-line for X amount of time (a year?) has their name up for grabs, and if the name’s been taken by someone else when/if they come back online, they have to choose a new name.
- Payoff: For each desirable name freed up, one customer will gain access to it. Anyone else who wanted that name will be left out.
- Cost: Cheesed off customers who return after a long absence and find “their” name is gone. Cheesed off customers who want given name X, but only one of them gets it.
Too much disappointment and potential anger for too little gain.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
Okay let’s talk about how reasonable what you’re saying is.
What I’m saying is perfectly reasonable because I don’t expect to do everything ANet offers. ALL I’m saying is that I can understand the complaints.
The harder you make content the more likely people are going to try to get an advantage by being on a full map.
That’s true only so far as rewards demand that players do that harder content. What’s more likely is that most people will gravitate towards whichever content offers the reward they’re after. If the reward does not entice, the harder content will be ignored for the most part.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
… and seriously, you’re saying you can’t log in once to try a meta event once, because you’ve decided doing so is jumping through hoops?
That’s not what I said at all. What I said was that I will not plan my life around a game’s schedule. I don’t look at timers because I don’t want that information in my subconscious. If I happen to log in when a meta is going (or about to get going) then I participate if the mood strikes me. There’s no can’t involved. Maybe that makes me the poster child for drop-in gaming. I’m sure that players who play MMO’s as a hobby (or in some cases even more fervently) may find such an attitude perplexing (or even irritating). Still, I’m glad that it’s a play-style that ANet seems to have returned to supporting in LS3.
I am not anti meters, if people feel like they prefer them, then they should be able to,
I do think the larger issue is the reason why people want them. I think that the raid content was designed with high DPS in mind, which I think is a flaw in and of itself.
If DPS didn’t matter, and your success in the content was based on difficult mechanics… Like complete challenging mechanic or fail the encounter, then it would have a much better design, and the entire debate wouldn’t even come up.
It makes me wonder, where did high DPS = high skill cap originate? They are not always synonymous.
If I had to guess, I’d guess that there are two aspects to performing in raid content that people like. One is, certainly, dealing with mechanics that require skill to conform to. The other is likely demonstrating the ability to use the character’s capabilities — not just movement, but the execution of its skills in the most efficient manner possible.
One of the stated purposes at the time for HoT in general was to get players to use more of their character’s capabilities. This was undoubtedly in response to complaints about the core such as “face-roll easy” and “spam (sic) 1 to win.” If the persistent world content was intended to produce greater use of the capabilities ANet built into character skills, how much more likely would it be for raids, intended to be harder, instanced content requiring skill and coordination, to use more of what characters can bring to the table.
Like it or not (and it would seem you don’t), the buffs which lead to maximized damage are part of the GW2 skill system. Thus, bringing as much damage as possible to an encounter is part of what indicates both knowledge of the profession skill systems and the skill to use them. It should be a no-brainer that in games where players fight enemies, doing damage is a significant part of the game.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
While GW2’s (timer stuff) might not be as strenuous as those imposed in some other MMO’s, yes, that would be letting the game dictate what I do when…
What I find curious is that while core GW2 also has timed meta events, there’s one starting about every 15 minutes around the clock, so whenever someone logs in, s/he could do one if so inclined … In HoT, the zone meta comprises a much greater percentage of what there is to do than in core, and doing those metas often requires one to log in early and use the LFG work-around. That means that HoT is less friendly to drop-in gamers …
I’ve jumped through hoops in MMOs before too this is NOTHING like that. I only need to get on the full server if I absolutely want to do the meta. If I don’t care about the meta I just log in and play as I’ve said many times. There are still enough people in zones not doing the meta to do content.
On the other side of that coin, timers have been in this game for years, way before HOT ever was. So if you wanted to do the fire ele, how did you do it without using a timer? Or Tequatl? Or anything else?
You either used a timer, or you missed out….long before HOT had come along.
On that note, this is about mastery points, and there are very very very few mastery points specifically that I can’t get solo.
I’ll concede the mastery point thing, although there are some tied to meta events, which matter more if one also dislikes mini-games, but that’s also another topic.
Other than that, perhaps you did not read my post before you commented. I’ve culled out all but the relevant points, above.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
You can’t be troubled to show up to the map 15 minutes ahead of the meta and keep an eye on LFG until you secure a spot on an organized map? That’s what you call “tailoring your life to the game”?
I play GW2 when nothing else is going on. I’ve jumped through the timing hoops of MMO’s before. I’m not doing it again. While GW2’s might not be as strenuous as those imposed in some other MMO’s, yes, that would be letting the game dictate what I do when, when I want it the other way around. That usually means metas, which last a lot longer than 15 minutes, are usually in progress when I log in.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about that. I actually don’t give a rat’s behind if I get to do a meta event in Zone X today. I can see, though, why others are complaining.
What I find curious is that while core GW2 also has timed meta events, there’s one starting about every 15 minutes around the clock, so whenever someone logs in, s/he could do one if so inclined. There’s also a lot of other stuff going on in core beside those meta events. In HoT, the zone meta comprises a much greater percentage of what there is to do than in core, and doing those metas often requires one to log in early and use the LFG work-around. That means that HoT is less friendly to drop-in gamers like me. Drop-in gamers were a demographic that ANet, once upon a time, stated they wanted around.
It’s kind of a moot point until we get to XPac 2, though. HoT is not going to change at this late date. BSF and EB are designed to include drop in gamers. I’m curious to see which way ANet will jump in the new pack.
Tons of people do not state the requirements though and get annoyed with peoples builds, what people need to state is viable builds but do not have to be meta if they are interested in that and so on.
I completely agree that more communication is better, and that people who assume they don’t have to post requirements even though they have them deserve what they get.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
Use the lfg feature.
Doesn’t work unless you have a lot of patience.
You don’t need a “lot” of patience to use LFG. You need a bit of discipline though. Which is different from patience. That is to say if you can follow a timer and set an alarm,you can get to where you’re getting early and do other things in the zone, while waiting for a specifiic meta. There’s plenty to do in each zone, including events that lead up to the meta.
It may be discipline to you. To me, it’s, “The tail (the game) wagging the dog (the player’s life).” While I’ve made my peace with the idea that my completing a zone meta in HoT is going to be a matter of happenstance, I am not going to play a game based on some timer, nor am I going to play as much as you seem to, to where using a timer is simply a matter of altering where in the game I’m playing.
I suspect, also, that the patience referred to is related to the use of Join In which results in a Zone is Full message. If one refuses to tailor life around game, that happens all too often. Now, maybe an MMO is supposed to suck your life away for you to get things done. Been there, done that, never again.
Regardless, BSF is an indication that ANet is moving away from HoT event design — although I’ve no idea if they’ll ping pong yet again (or if they did in later LS zones).
Besides, as mentioned, there are runesets and consumables that used together can reduce condition duration by 45%. And yet, people do not use them. What do you thing it means?
It means people are unwilling to accept the opportunity costs if they change their own build, and have become accustomed to thinking that if enough people complain about things, the developer will make changes to suit their unwillingness to adapt.
Again it is clear you were never the target audience for Raids, yet you want Raids to be changed because you don’t fit into the target audience, again you don’t have to group with the people running dps meters, you can even ask the group leader if they are even using Meters in the group before joining. Oh no but that’s logic.
If there is a “target audience” for raids, then why don’t they have a separate mastery track?
Because ANet did not plan Masteries with the idea that once all tracks had been maxed, XP would revert to a Spirit Shard reward on post-cap tick. They added that later, in response to player complaints, and once again either did not consider the ramifications for non-completionists, or because solutions that would either split Raid masteries from HOT ones — or allow XP to be allocated to a post-cap tick even if one had not finished all Mastery tracks were not trivial.
@ thread
Just what is hostility? Is it kicking people who join a group knowing they don’t meet the expectations of the people who started that group? Is it establishing requirements in the first place? Or is hostility rudeness and the use of pejoratives when telling people why they’re not welcome — or striking out at people who set requirements because someone thinks — and says — that that makes them horrible people?
My personal take is that setting and enforcing a requirement is neither hostile nor “toxic” (whatever that means). The whole point behind being able to join a group which has no requirements is to be able to complete content as one wants to. Well, the people who set requirements are doing that very thing.
Would it be nice if all groups just took everyone with no questions asked? Sure. It would also be nice if people who post requirements did not have to deal with people joining them and ignoring those requirements. Owning the game entitles one to attempt content. It does not mean others must accommodate you in doing so.
And to bring this back around to the topic, the meter is not at fault. The issues have been around long before the meter, and would not go away were the meter disallowed. The solution is obvious — if you don’t like the meter and the so-called elitist behavior you say it fosters, do what the so-called elitists do — start your own group. Say, “No meters, all welcome”. Then if people join and start talking meters, kick them. Why don’t people do this? It’s not convenient to do so.
Can we do something about mastery points?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
One has to wonder if Anet fully thought out the consequences of their design. I certainly hope not because its pretty bad if they designed it this way on purpose.
Going back to the original GW, a lot of times ANet would just throw content, skills, maps, etc. out there. It seems like they expected the community of players to come up with a way to deal with stuff. And that’s what happened.
Even in GW2, I recall (good luck finding it on these boards, though) an ANet dev commenting that when they released the revised (harder) Tequatl the Sunless meta event, they had not yet beaten it in testing. The community beat it within a short time. Not long after, everyone was beating it. Notably, it was the first content that kind of required LFG/Taxi.
I have little doubt that ANet expected the GW2 community to come up with the best way to do things. That’s what happened. There are no pointers to the player-devised solutions in game (other than the LFG tool itself, and the Join In feature) because: the timers are on third party sites, and ANet has never advertised those sites in game; and because (imo) ANet expects a certain amount of initiative and experimentation on the part of players. At least, they used to.
I believe that the old servers with limited populations allowed for a more interesting experience as far as both challenge and greater initiative on the part of players go. I believe that in the server paradigm, initiative was for the most part focused on completing the events, while in the mega-server paradigm initiative has shifted to getting to the organized map, leaving the in-game initiative to a much smaller subset of the player base.
I go back and forth with the whole megaserver/LFG/dead v. full maps thing. Servers meant more maps (I believe) completing events, but with fewer players. However, to return to that paradigm, convenience features like mega-server, LFG and Join In would need to either be removed or reworked to be less convenient. I believe that any attempt to do so would be met by far more backlash than we see over dead maps.
So, I would say that the current system, while imperfect, is probably better than other alternatives given the game’s history. I have no problem expecting players to figure stuff out, even if the figuring out is for the most part a meta concern. The only thing that sticks in the craw for me is that if Anet is expecting players to figure this method for finding maps out, why did they go to such extremes to invite players to the game that really don’t want to figure stuff out (and yes, that is a rhetorical question).
Since I have chronic altitis, I decided to use different builds on professions I have more than one of. This allows me to save on bag space (gear only for the active build), and allows me to play different characters when I’m in the mood to play a particular way. I also play different characters in different content. I don’t, for instance, use the same character I do boss meta trains with to roam in WvW.
Iirc, players in Torchlight had a pet or follower or something that could be sent off to town to sell stuff. It was kind of cool.
It’s been my observation over the years (in this and other games) that LFG is a mixed bag. Sometimes, you get in with decent people, sometimes you don’t. This is so regardless of whether the game has a DPS meter or not. The Dungeon Sub-forum regularly featured complaints about (so-called) elitism and bad behavior long before ANet allowed damage meters. The only logical conclusion is that people inclined to act that way are going to find a reason to do so.
Tl;Dr: It’s not the non-organic tool, it’s the organic one.
Disclaimer: The above is meant to apply only to people who are rude and insulting. I offer no value judgments about things like exclusion, having preferences and the like, all of which are complex issues, usually with more than one side worthy of consideration.
MMO developers are in a way caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, they need to make game-play itself fun for a lot of people. If their game-play is not fun, they will loose people fast. That includes the game’s content. Interesting mechanics and interesting enemies make for a better game. A lot of people have fun with both game play and content.
On the other hand, an MMO thrives by keeping players playing long past the point where new content ceases to be engaging, and players are playing by rote. MMO developers use rewards to keep people playing past this point. Some (I’d say many, if not most) players find gaining rewards to be fun.
So, what we see in MMO’s is that people do play for fun. However, different people are going to have different ideas of what makes the game fun for them. The OP seems to find theory-crafting and number crunching to not be fun. He specifically mentions raids. The thing is, raids (at least before WoW came out with LFR) has always been dominated by theory crafters and number crunchers, and the players who did not do the work but want the same results. Generally, that’s because raids are content that is definitely kept alive by the pursuit of rewards.
Tl;Dr: While it may seem that other players are not having fun because they take a different approach to the game than you, it’s likely they are enjoying themselves, but value different things about the game than you do.