As to why they haven’t implemented the feature the OP mentions…
It’d be my guess it’s because players can already look in the wardrobe feature in the bank to ID skins they don’t have.
Adding 2 options, which I would consider a minimum if they were going to offer options at all, would mean 120 actors per line. :O
I would like a universal currency and a universal key. I don’t think that’s in the cards. Players taught Anet over Karma that any universal currency will result in significant numbers of players playing the content getting the currency is easiest in and ignoring everything else. Since they then get what they want faster, they’re back demanding new stuff sooner.
This also means that new content will be done once, then the repetition will focus solely on the path of least resistance. This means fewer people to populate content that requires a lot of players to complete. This can be a problem for the longevity of group content.
A better solution to my mind would be to implement an account key chain which would store these items. They’d not take inventory space, and they’d be available on any character you cared to play at any given time. This would allow ANet to keep the benefits of content-specific currency without players having the annoyances in the current system.
HoT Price Feedback + Base game included [merged]
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
I still don’t understand how people are willing to pay 50 dollars for such a lack of content.
While you can list stuff in one games’ XPac v. stuff in another, it’s not so easy to equate whether that list represents a straight comparison. Consider the Legion ad you linked. Hundreds of quests… Using the term hundreds in adspeak generally means low hundreds. Get into high hundreds and they’d be saying “close to a thousand.” Then, how extensive are those quests? Some WoW quests are quite involved. Most aren’t. Then count DE’s in HoT, DE’s being the GW2 equivalent of quests. There are over 50 in VB alone. That’s only counting night quests once rather than the multiple times they happen across the zone. Also, DE’s are repeatable whereas quests are only so on different characters.
Current WoW XPac’s don’t cost $50. They cost $50 + ($15 * [number of months -1] playing them). Objectively, I paid much less to play through HoT than I did to play through Wrath, and that was a $40 box price.
Finally, value is subjective. If one values what WoW offers more than what GW2 does, then WoW will look like the better deal. The opposite holds true for GW2/HoT.
HoT was comparatively priced to WoW’s expansion, which is the only MMORPG daring enough to price their expansion at 50 dollars. Unless of course you can name another MMORPG that priced their expansion at 50 dollars. WoW: Legion also has…. I would say about 10 times the amount of content that HoT does.
The first two DLC for ESO cost approximately $50 combined price. Each offered one zone and some peripheral stuff like dungeons/PvP. Arguably, ESO, being B2P is a better comparison point than WoW.
By this point, you’ll probably argue that Anet doesn’t have the number of employees that Blizzard does, and therefore doesn’t have to meet the content that WoW: Legion has set.
Nah, not gonna do that. I encourage critical analysis of value. I did not pay full price for HoT, after all.
And I will say: Well, they compared the price of their expansion to that of WoW’s, so did Anet just forget to compare the amount of content too?
Companies will consider two factors in pricing a product. (1) How much does it cost to produce; and (2) what the market will bear. Generally, the latter has to do with what one must pay to get a competing product (note: not a comparable product, a competing product). If the company’s product costs them more to produce than the expected sales * the cost the market will bear, they’ll lose money. They might go ahead anyway if they can recoup the cost via other price methods, like a virtual store. That’s how F2P games work, but it’s also why the quality generally isn’t all that great in F2P games.
Think about what you’re saying here. “Expansions also never contain the same amount of content as its core game”. True, but that DOES NOT warrant a 50 dollar price tag. You pay 60 dollars for a full game, and then 50 dollars for not even 1/10th of the content of the 60 dollar game? Logically, that’s a rip-off.
So far, I’ve played GW2 about 500 hours since I bought HoT in December. Most of that time involved the use of Elite Specs or Rev even if I was playing in core Tyria. The last time I bought a full RPG was DA:O, it cost $50 (It would be $60 if it came out today because the market price for games has increased since DA:O came out). I played it for about 100 hours. So, had I bought HoT at full price, I’d be paying $10 more (release retail) for a game like DA:O for 20% of the playtime.
Some games offer more playtime per dollar. Arguably, the best dollar value is the F2P game. What you have to ask yourself, there, though, is, “Does the business model also provide enjoyment?” For me, F2p games are annoying, not fun.
It’s pretty obvious to me that you don’t value what HoT offers. However, that doesn’t mean others cannot value it much higher than other games. That’s the subjective part. What can be objectively compared is a great deal less cut-and-dried than you make it out to be.
(edited by IndigoSundown.5419)
HoT Price Feedback + Base game included [merged]
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
In what world is £35 an acceptable price for an expansion with so little content? I would have paid £10 max for this, as I have already sunk £30 into the core game. Having no cheap upgrade option has put me off indefinitely. What’s more is Anet have said each future expansion will be similarly priced, so if I wanted the first two expansions I would end up paying £30 core game, £35 expansion 1, £35-40 expansion 2 or over £100. This shouldn’t be acceptable just because it is an MMO- thousands of other games offer the same amount of playtime.
Buy every other GW2 XPac. Since they plan to bundle core and the older XPac into the next one, you could get two for the price of one. Or buy Hot from an authorized retailer offering a box at a discount. That’s one advantage of coming late to the party.
Also, you cannot name an MMO that isn’t F2P (with all the annoyance and inconvenience that comes with F2P) that offers more for that amount. MMO’s with subs certainly charge more, and the other B2P MMO’s charge similar amounts for content additions. If you can get as much playtime from non-MMO’s as from MMO’s, you’re unlike a lot of other players, and are thus ahead of the game. More power to you.
I agree with you, particularly your last line. And I agree with Anet swinging like a pendulum (nope don’t get the reference)
I guess it dates me. Google England Swings.
But I believe there’s a reason why they swing like a pendulum. We’re seeing things in real time, they’re seeing things in dev time. When people ask for more challenging content, all that stuff takes time to create. A lot of time. A long time. And during the time, the other easier content isn’t really being worked on, because Anet doesn’t have enough staff to get everything done at all once. so they move this way and everything gets done then they move that way and everything gets done. From the outside looking in, it definitely looks like wild pendulum swings, but from their point of view, they’re just playing catch up all the time.
I have little doubt this is the case.
In a perfect world there would be time and staff to work on everything, but I see Anet as adding content to the game for the most disenfranchised portion of the game.
But, they do this selectively. WvW-only players have felt like tail-end Charlie for much of the game’s existence.
For years now, casuals like myself have gotten their way almost all the time. They finally give something to harder core people and yes, it’s taken 9 months, but I don’t see where I can complain being that I was the target audience for three years. Now it’s someone else’s turn.
I agree with that as well. Harder, instanced content has been almost as neglected as WvW. I didn’t and still don’t oppose raids. Fortunately, ANet seems able to provide raids while also working on other stuff.
Now that the hard core guys got their raid, there’s going to be more living story. It’s my turn again. Sure it looks like a pendulum but in the end, it’s just taking a long time to get to the next bit.
Except I don’t think that LS was delayed until the raid was completed. I think the raid just took that long, and the 3-4 month gaps between wings is what allowed the raid team to finish those encounters. I suspect they dipped into the 30-dev support pool some, but that the XPac 2 and the remaining 114 Live team devs were doing their own thing. Also, ANet has explained that the lead time for story is lengthy. I suspect it was delayed more due to HoT revamp than anything else.
That said, while raids are getting hate now, there’s still the issue of HoT persistent world, which has gotten more hate than raids, at least over time. As you pointed out earlier, Anet has been upping the ante on challenge in the persistent world since, well, Karka. There’s two things about that:
- Harder encounters have been added to core a lot. As far as it goes, though, they’ve backed off on it some and people got used to it some. Challenge in PvE is always going to suffer from diminishing returns, even when the challenge remains the same mathematically. Thus, the bar is always moving.
- Despite harder encounters added to core persistent PvE over time, there was always something people could do that was current, and at least relatively easy. While this is still true in HoT, it’s less true, and finding that easier stuff is not that easy if a player doesn’t like navigating the maps or has to fight his/her way through harder mobs to look for it. Yet, HoT is the game going forward. That’s why we see complaints from some players. The easy stuff in core is just as old for them as it is for anyone else. They had to buy HoT to get access to LS, but they don’t feel like the maps offer them anything.
Thanks for the interesting read. Ponder away, oh pundit.
As to Sigil of Bloodlust. It’s expensive because it appears in several of the builds on Metabattle.
‘hot ruining GW2’ is childish hyperbolic self centered nonsense that you see a lot in this current culture of self entitlement. This is how it should go, if you don’t like the Hot elements, avoid them and play the parts you do enjoy, if you don’t enjoy anything, take a break or move on. It really is that simple.
No. It’s not that simple.
HoT is supposed to be the game going forward. Ongoing updates tied to HoT guarantee that. HoT definitely does not appeal to everyone, but it should have if ANet had any interest in maintaining interest among the group they repeatedly dumbed the vanilla game down for. That’s what’s perplexing to me. They nerf the base game over, and over and over and then have their pride stung by the accusations of lack of challenge. They ought to make up their kittening minds who their target audience is.
The idea that HoT is “how it should be” is every bit as self-centered and entitled as the opposite. There’s no “should be.” If ANet decides to reverse course — again — then you’ll be the one that’s hyperbolic-- unless your agenda is that ANet can do no wrong no matter what they do.
I think you’re simplifying this. Anet didn’t dumb down the base game to make it so that it’s braindead easy and ignore anything getting harder. They’ve constantly added harder content in. Drytop is harder than core Tyria and so is Silverwastes. Many of the mobs in Silverwastes are similar to HoT mobs.
The Living Story got MUCH harder as it progressed. Anet mostly changed the earlier part of the game to make it so people could get their footing, but make no mistake, elements of the game did get harder.
There were several challenging fights in LS 2 and achievements for that are a lot lot harder.
Anet changed the beginning part of the game ot try to stop people who couldn’t do even that from staying with the game. They didn’t change Arah path 4. They made Shatterer harder, Tequatl harder and introduced Triple Threat.
What about the Queen’s Pavaillion? That was hard content too, particularly Liadri.
No, Anet has added hard content to this game all along. They simply want to add enough of it for the most disenfranchised group.
If I’m simplifying, so are you. While there’s been an effort to add challenge, there has also been a contradictory initiative to subtract it. Then we get HoT, where the easy stuff is Tigers — who are more like Tiggers.
The problem I have is not that ANet adds challenge, it’s that the core game is very poor preparation for HoT, both in terms of teaching the use of mechanics and preparing players for the idea that they ought to use them. It’s also that the company has sent mixed messages about what it’s offering. This can (and maybe has) become a problem when they expect all their active followers to keep buying their XPac’s to stay current. It’s not like HoT was a side track for your “disenfranchised group.”
You know as well as I do that ANet swings like a pendulum do (props if you get the reference). We don’t at this point know how they’ll swing down the road. Personally, I expect mob difficulty to be consistent with HoT, but for them to iterate things like map design and maybe things like map meta’s so there’s more for small groups or solos to do. I could be way wrong, though.
I just don’t care for points like the one I responded to. There’s no right or wrong, no “way it should be.” It’s just a game, not physics where there are natural laws.
Its nobody’s fault if you are outnumbered. don’t blame everything to the company.
The Outnumbered condition has been a perpetual state of affairs for WvW since the game mode was in its infancy. It’s the result of the interaction between design decisions which enable it and player desires to stack the deck in their favor. Since ANet made those design decisions, the situation is at least partially their fault.
The part that’s human nature they can’t fix. People complain in the hopes that ANet will fix what they can. However, to do so they’d have to reverse the design decisions that enable “outnumbered.” That’s not likely.
“Outnumbered” is fine if there are fluctuations in who’s outnumbered during the course of a play session. It’s not fine if it’s the state of affairs pretty much throughout a match. It’s just not a lot of fun.
At the end of the day, this is a game, and games need to be fun. I’ve been on both ends of the outnumbered thing. There was some degree of fun in having an overwhelming numerical edge. For me, at least, it didn’t last. After a bit, the satisfaction of winning didn’t hide the fact that constant roflstomping is kind of boring. There was never very much fun being on the side that gets roflstomped.
T2 is boring. 5 of us will try to take a tower and 50000 JQ will come “steam rolling” around the corner.
…
6 more weeks of this sounds painful and boring. It’s just going to drive off more players the more anet lets this continue.
It’s discouraging to feel that you can’t go anywhere on any of the four maps without being met by overwhelming odds, particularly if that’s a regular occurrence during your peak hours of play.
As a member of FA right now I don’t even want to log in during certain points of the day.
Balance has gotten worse if anything with the server merges
Even if all you could do was flip a few towers back and forth for 40 minutes, that’d be a little more interesting that getting scouted and blobbed for trying to do anything.
Food for thought.
Down in the depths of T4 NA, the first iteration of server match-ups was at least interesting on occasion. With the second iteration, one server (CD) pretty much does the scout/blob thing and their eventual victory is a forgone conclusion. You’re lucky if you can trick them into thinking you’re going after the 3rd server’s stuff and then get back to try to retake one of your towers.
Couple 50/60 v 20/30 with the boon-share meta and the outnumbered almost never have a chance. I don’t believe there is any way for an outnumbered stat boost to address this without being ridiculously OP, which would be not only unlikely but unwise.
Unfortunately, I think ANet has painted themselves into a corner, just as they have in PvE. The enabler of server stacking is the ability of players to shift — in WvW, to transfer from server to server, in PvE to taxi from a partially full mega-shard to a fuller one. Both leave the abandoned groupings light on population, but in WvW this means less coverage, whereas in PvE it “only” means dead maps. I don’t think that they can remove or even limit the transfers more than they already are, and as much as I think there are holes in their grouping algorithms, I don’t think they can fix them as long as population can shift at a whim.
I doubt this is a popular position, but I was having more fun in WvW when FC would fluctuate between T7 and 8. At least I got into interesting fights once in a while, and roaming was fruitful. Now, WvW is 10% OK and 90% frustration.
It’s unfair to the people who don’t know better.
You, yet again, ducked my question. HOW IS IT UNFAIR??????
If someone is doing none of the work but reaping the benefits, well, that’s considered leeching. Even actively participating in some dungeon groups — if you aren’t playing meta — is considered leeching and can result in the alleged leech getting kicked. If people think it’s not fair for one player to reap the benefits while only participating to an extent, how more unfair is it for players to benefit from doing nothing?
Now, that’s not how I think — but I do think that some others think that way.
1) I don’t give a toss how many unofficial pages mentioned it. I shouldn’t have to find GW2 info on other sites.. So stop bringing up Reddit, MassivelyOP, Dulfy, Site Yada yada etc etc etc… They don’t count. End of.
Good point. It’s hardly a new thing that ANet did not adequately communicate.
2) I for one do not feel the changes of Gift of Battle acquisition should be placed under that headline, but under something more in the lines of LEGENDARY CRAFTING CHANGES which I’m sure more people would’ve actually read.
That’s a good idea.
4) I can’t see how effectively “forcing” people into WvW (especially if they’re already “finished” the part they “had to” before) rather than enticing them is going to have a positive effect on the game.
This will offer no comfort at all, I’m sure, but it’s highly likely ANet does view this as “enticing.” rather than forcing. It’s very hard for a creator to expand their PoV enough to encompass that of people who don’t see things as they do. Since WvW is their baby, they may see it as a good game mode that more players would appreciate if they gave it a chance.
See italics.
The existing choice is a skin buy. The price is likely what they would charge for it were it “only” a skin.
Why is cultural armor rare? Probably because ANet realized that if they’d made it Exotic — which was BiS at launch — there would have been a mass of complaints that it didn’t come in someone’s preferred prefix — and they didn’t want to have 15-20 options for each piece, which would have been the only option to forestall those complaints.
Actually, yes, your basic argument for this thread was “don’t improve professions because we need content.”…
Nope. “Don’t do yet another complete system rework.” and “Don’t improve professions.” are not the same thing.
If you haven’t noticed, you are getting new LS content and a full xpac of content as well… Anet is also capable of working on multiple things, or are you unaware of that as well?
Well, if I was unaware of either, you’ve now told me three times, so I’m certainly aware of it now. Yes, Anet not only is capable of working on multiple things, they are doing so— including general PvE, raids, sPvP, WvW, collections, etc. Despite that flexibility, major gameplay system reworks take a lot of time and effort and can stall other development until the systems the content needs to interact with are determined. I don’t think that taking that risk is warranted, especially for a revamp that would be worse than what we have now.
I brought a suggestion so either like or dislike the suggestion, but dont act as if profession development is not important or that even more content needs to come to a complete halt if the devs work on other areas…
You keep asserting that antipathy to a complete trait rework is the same thing as saying that profession development is unimportant. It isn’t. I’m fine with profession balancing and the expansions to professions that are Elite Specs.
I’ve said multiple times now that your suggestions remove opportunity costs — which is a major consideration in RPG build design. If ANet, in its infinite wisdom, were to decide to do another trait revamp, I would hope it would be to add opportunity costs, not remove them, and that your suggestions would be disregarded.
Your basic argument is… “Don’t improve professions because we need content”…
Nope. It’s, “The game needs a system for regular, sustained release of playable content more than it needs to fix something that is not broken.”
Well there has been 4 years of feedback on professions, and much of it goes ignored…
Much of the feedback on professions is ignored because it ignores the fundamentals of MMO class design much as your trait revamp ideas ignore the idea of opportunity costs.
You are getting your content that’s being produced as we speak, so no need to act as if things aren’t coming down the pipeline or that arenanet is some impoverished game company that can’t at some point make improvements to professions.
ANet has acknowledged the need for a sustained release cadence, and have yet to prove they can pull it off. They took 6 devs off the LW 2.0 team with the stated purpose being that they better served the game’s needs working on content. This move delayed the provision of a feature that people spent money on HoT to get access to. What does that suggest to you about ANet’s willingness to split their resources too much?
Convincing you? I’m not here to appease you so feel free to look up all the feedback on balance, useless traits and skills, certain disparities between professions, other glaring issues…
Why would I need to be appeased? As to convincing me, if you can’t convince me that your proposed revamp is needed, you sure aren’t going to convince ANet. I’ve seen loads of comments about useless traits and skills, disparities between professions, etc. As before, a trait revamp would have little to no impact on the volume of such complaints.
There are many facets to the game, but to swoop in here and say professions don’t need work, given all the feedback, is obviously you not paying attention.
Strawman. I never said that professions should not be worked on. There’s a lot of room between, “Let’s completely revamp the traits system and ignore opportunity costs so players can have what they want,” and “There should be ongoing efforts to balance the professions and tweaking traits should be part of that effort.”
Spend some time digging through the profession forums for your trait and other feedback.
I already spend too much time there, but thanks for the suggestion. Mostly what I see re traits is either advice on a build, or balance suggestions. Trait Balance is part of ongoing profession balance efforts and does not in any way require an out and out new system. Again, you have not proved that your suggestion is either needed or wanted by any more than yourself and maybe a few others. Address that issue, if you can, and want to advance your agenda._
Professions and combat are the main core game elements, and almost everything is designed around these professions and how combat unfolds… These areas are greater than your content drought…
More work on systems would only be justified if the current iteration is broken, which is not the case. If you think it is, what makes you think ANet will get it right on the 4th try if they blew it on 1-3?
You are silly if you think the devs can’t work on multiple things…
Yes, you said something like that before. Restating it as an ad hominem does nothing to refute my counter, so I conclude you’ve got no counter.
Edit- spend some time on the profession, pvp and wvw forums and you’ll see the complaints that far outweigh this content drought.
I see the same balance complaints in the PvP mode boards one always sees and will always see. If you think a trait rework will fix that, you’re wrong.
Edit 2- and your content is coming on the 26th. Your content xpac is being worked on by 100 devs. Your raid content is being worked on… You may not value profession improvements, but there are players who do, so don’t think this team is not capable of fulfilling important requests like these too…
Content needs to be more regular, which means a sustainable release cadence. Anet is aiming for that, and they’ve allocated dev resources to that idea while also prepping for a future XPac. It’s yet to be demonstrated that they will achieve that goal, and if they do, what resources would be left over for systems work.
Please do demonstrate that your suggestion is important and valued by enough players to warrant consideration. Hint: just your saying it’s important doesn’t cut it, whereas the lack of a groundswell of support for your suggestion speaks volumes. You seem to want to remove opportunity costs. That’s a horrid idea. Please do prove me wrong on either count, but the proof is going to need to be convincing and not just your opinion.
Disclaimer: Feel free to ignore me. After all, I’m only expressing my own view, just as you are. Do note though, that I’ll actually admit it if I’m in error, which makes me an easy audience. If you can’t convince me, you’ll be unlikely to convince other forum goers who don’t already agree with you.
Hell no. What would happen is that people will pair the classes with the highest damage and lowest survivability with the classes with highest survivability and lowest damage. It wouldn’t be remotely balanced. Classes that you can’t kill that also deal far more damage than anyone else can possibly deal.
If you visit WvW, we have that now. It’s all without dual professions, but afaics, it’s all due to Elite Specs.
- snip -
Well the history of this game indicates that professions need a lot of work. Professions and combat are also the central core to every part of this game. Profession designs and combat systems are content, but have recieced the least amount of development over the course of 4 years…
Bullgravy. Game systems are not content, they’re the means by which players engage with content. More bullgravy. WvW has seen the least amount of attention, followed by PVP, followed by dungeons — all of which are playable content. Professions have seen two trait reworks already, plus many skill balance patches. Think what you like, but you’re living a fantasy.
You are fooling yourself if you think that Anet can’t work on professions along with other content.
Sure they can. Why did every system rework mean a longer time between content patches? Every single one. Because you cannot design content until you know the systems you’re designing them to interact with.
Profession and combat improvements are also marketable, generate interest and increase retention rates.
Show me the volume of complaints about existing systems to match the complaints about content drought — which are so prevalent that MO referred to a “content drought” in his recent post — and I’ll believe you. Until then, no, you’re incorrect.
- What region and server are you on that you find no other players?
- Are you aware that by taking camps, claiming land and killing yaks that you can advance the reward track? A zone without opponents is ideal for this. What I’m faced with is the fact that roaming in ones and twos is less viable, as there are too many opposing players running in groups of 4 and up_.
- I unlocked the CoE reward track the other day. I’m a third of the way through it after playing for 1 hour two days ago and about 2 yesterday. Nine hours of active play doesn’t seem all that onerous.
- The Gift is one item. You couldn’t sacrifice the crap from a single slot in your bank to get it before? Really? You made an assumption. It proved to be erroneous. Too bad.
I’ll re-emphasize number 3. ~9 hours. 9. If that’s too much to ask to rectify the mistake you made, then it seems to me that the problem is more with you than it is with the game.
But everyone is on an even footing. Everyone can show up late, because we have a time. It’s the same time for everyone.
So, in other words, nothing prevents a player from showing up 20 minutes into VB night and just doing the bosses, while leaving the day and first part of night to others. How is that different from SW, again?
The fact is, if the AB meta weren’t being gamed, it would be very different because if they made it player driven, you could keep getting the same chest over and over, like Silverwastes, which they didn’t want to do.
It’s like that in VB and TD. You can’t really get the same reward over and over.
So, what. If I do VB multiple times in a day, I can’t harvest nodes with crowbars over and over? Bosses don’t reward drops if done more than once/day? How is that different than SW?
AB is bugged or it would be like that too.
See italics, above.
Has there been an acknowledgement that AB is bugged by ANet? Otherwise, it isn’t.
We may have to agree to value different approaches differently. I prefer SW style content because — unless I show after the VW has been defeated and before the next cycle — I can move things forward no matter who’s in the zone or when I log in. I really don’t care if people show up later just to do the VW. This less possible in VB, even less in AB, and afaics, impossible in TD and DS. In HoT zones, if I show up at the wrong time, or have to use the abomination that is taxiing to have a chance to participate, I tend to just leave because I will be wasting my time.
I abhor timers because I just don’t play as much, or as long, as you seem to, and I really abhor the idea of basing my life around the schedule of events in a bloody game. I much prefer to log in and be able to do rewarding stuff regardless of how many people there are in a zone or when I log in than to have to find the 1 or 2 viable zones and participate in timed bull-crap that sucks the spontaneity out of playing.
They need an option to buy pvp unlocks for the expansion. 50+ bucks for someone that only pvps is not worth it imo. Also it wasn’t some fluke that all elite specs ended up outclassing their core counterparts.
See, now this is a reasonable expectation that I could see Anet actually doing.
Don’t want the whole expansion? Fine, pay 20 bucks just to unlock the specs and reward tracks in PvP.
Or $10 to unlock one Elite Spec, if that’s all you want.
As to monetizing sPvP, what do LoL/DotA sell that keeps those companies afloat?
- I’ve no idea whether the design intent behind Elite specs was to make them more powerful serve as an incentive to buy. I suppose that’s possible.
- Then again, it’s also possible that ANet either did not foresee combinations involving the Elite spec lines and core lines, or that they’re still in the process of attempting to balance the possibilities so that Elite Specs are horizontal rather than vertical progression.
- It’s also possible that the numbers match even now, but that the options afforded by Elite Specs either do not have, or do not yet have effective counters available to a core-lines-only player.
- What I have experienced, however, is that in WvW, every time since the server merges that I’ve seen a character with a huge amount of sustain also doing very high damage to a core bunker build, the character name bar has an Elite Spec icon, not a core one. Every. Single. Time.
Please, no more systems reworks. The game needs the devs to focus on a sustainable release cadence of new content. They’ve already reinvented major aspects of the game’s systems multiple times. Sometimes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Why not? A system rework may be far easier to balance around.
Because in the history of this game, major system reworks derail content production. The health of the game is dependent on keeping people engaged. New content on a sustainable, relatively frequent basis will do that far better than yet another system rework that may (or may not) be easier to balance and about which so few players seem to care.
I think the system is fine as is. Also, the reworking of systems that aren’t broken, e.g. the New Player Experience, along with taking time to go back and gut old content in the starting areas, combined with destroying existing content, e.g. Lion’s Arch and the Zephyrites, contributed significantly toward the lack of content in the game now.
This. There are times that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Please, no more systems reworks. The game needs the devs to focus on a sustainable release cadence of new content. They’ve already reinvented major aspects of the game’s systems multiple times. Sometimes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
There is an objective value factor related to the contents of a product.
That value is still subjective because it only has value based on the desirability of the product to a consumer with the ability to pay for it.
The John Carter of Mars movie was lengthy, it had a lot of content. Every bit as much as any other movie of comparable length…and yet it lost money where others were profitable.
When individual consumers are evaluating a product and deciding whether to purchase or not, their subjective opinion is indeed what matters. It was not the length of the John Carter movie which sank it, it was the perceived lack of quality. That’s not to say that posters don’t attempt to attach objective justifications to their subjective valuations. They do. So do critics. If a critic pans a movie because of objectively verifiable holes in the plot (i.e., any reasonable individual would see the same lack of connections), those critics are expressing a subjective opinion based on objective evaluation.
With games, it’s also possible to count the number of features, zones, professions, skills, sets of armor, etc. offered by a gaming product. It’s possible to compare them and to say that — independent of what any given possible customer likes — one offers more than the other for the same price. Since no one can make that subjective evaluation for someone else, then, whatever objective facts can be gleaned provide the only possible options for argument.
Why does objective comparison matter? Because it allows a consumer to see how different companies’ offerings compare. People do this all the time. A beer drinker may buy Bud Light rather than Guinness even if they think Guinness tastes better, because they can get 30 BL for the same price as 12 Guinness and their budget won’t allow the extravagance. Sure, they are now expressing a preference, but it is a preference based on an objective criteria (amount of drinking per dollar).
Sure, subjective value matters most, but don’t discount objective considerations. They matter, at least to some people, too.
The problem with player driven maps, a problem Anet was trying to get away from, is the problem of people just going from map to map that’s ready to pop, leeching, while a couple of people do the events on those maps, to progress the meta.
The Silverwastes maps are a perfect example. A few people who don’t know sit on a map and play it, until it’s about to pop and then everyone jumps in and cleans up the rewards. People stand around leeching the whole time sometimes, afk and never do anything until it pops. This is a problem for those of us who actually play the game.
That wasn’t working. There were complaints about it. Anet tried something else.
Now, since these events are on a timer, everyone knows when to show up and they show up if they can.
That has obvious issues as well. And now, with the AB loot meta gone crazy, people will do that over and over again, which means other zones don’t get as many people coming to them. 10 maps filled at AB most times and only one map full at TD because why would you ever leave farming AB?
If people wouldn’t exploit or just go for their own personal gain, Anet wouldn’t have to do stuff like this. I wish it were different.
The thing is, people still show up later in the time cycle and still get the lion’s share of rewards. I see it in VB and AB. It’s better since April, but it isn’t fixed. We also have Tarir multilooting, which I cannot believe was intended. I’m not saying that the SW issues you cite are trivial, but the solution has not really solved them, and it has also created its own problems. In SW, it’s a lot easier to drop in, participate and have fun, whereas in HoT if your timing is off you might as well not show up. Also, the abomination that is taxiing was less of an issue in SW for the same reasons.
Product value has both objective and subjective components. There is an objective value factor related to the contents of a product. That is, “How does it compare to its competition?” Then, there’s the subjective value, as in, “How much of what’s offered actually appeals to a given consumer?” Thus, you can have cases where a product might not offer as much quantity as a competing product, but a given consumer values what it does offer much higher than the competing products greater amount. You can also have a case where a product blows its competition out of the water for quantity or even quality (e.g., better graphics) but a different consumer values what it offers not at all.
So, one can comparison shop, and one can look at whether the product appeals. Different consumers will approach the issue from different viewpoints. HoT, for instance, has taken knocks on both quantity (an objective measurement if in comparison to other offerings) and in whether it offers what a given poster wants.
The thing is, most posters aren’t going to think about the objective versus the subjective value. They’re going to look at whether the product has value for them, and then justify their position based on more objective comparison points. Thus, you see comparisons like, "ESO offers its DLC for $20-$30 dollars per (fact) and it has more content than all of HoT (personal valuation). There’s also a possibility of mixed objective/subjective comparison, like, "Each ESO DLC offers one zone, 2-3 dungeons, X quests and X amount of new PvP stuff (facts), whereas HoT offers 4 zones that have almost nothing to do besides the meta, a few exploration objectives and some events (opinion).
You’re not going to find a truly objective evaluation of one game XPac versus another from an internet reviewer, never mind from a random fan on a forum. So, I believe that both Vayne and Ashen make valid points, and thus both are correct, to a point.
I agree with the OP.
- I should be able to choose whether someone has access to more info about me/my status/etc. than is available simply by seeing my avatar in game.
- Followers/friends requests should require my approval.
- If this is too bothersome for GW2 stream personalities with large followings, then they should ask for an option to turn that privacy protection off — but the default should be privacy.
- Blocked status should offer no information to the blocker other than the name of the blocked.
1-6 July 1 – Sept 15
Mad King and feature pack
7
Winter’s Day
8There you are, all cleaned up.
1-6 were on a 2 week then festivals got in the way. 8 was release after WD though you’re quite right.
Season 1 and 2 were without question on a FAR more brisk pace than we are going to see for 3.
Ep 1: Gates of Maguuma: July 1, 2014
Ep. 2: Entanglement: July 15
Ep. 3: Dragon’s Reach, Part I: July 29
Ep. 4:Dragon’s Reach, Part II: August 12
Ep. 5: Echoes of the Past: November 4
Ep. 6: Tangled Paths: November 18
Ep. 7: Seeds of Truth: December 2
Ep. 8: Point of No Return: January 13, 2015
I, and wiki, remember it differently.
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Living_World_season_2
What’s more important, in my mind, is just how much will LS3: Ep 1 contain when compared to LS 2, and will it include a new playable area like the SW in addition?
The point is stop trying to get rid of HoT it is not goin anywhere and its part of the future of this game. The core game is also part of that future, and I am trying to explain why it will be relevant as the game progresses.
I doubt anyone expects ANet to kitten-can HoT. Some posters hope to get ANet to make changes to some game-play elements, whether those be related to difficulty,
perceived grind, etc.. Others hope to convince ANet that making another XPac which is exactly like HoT in terms of difficulty, grind, amount of content, platforming, etc. is not a good idea.
The issue of paying for revised game systems is an interesting one. The hope, from the point of view of the consumer, would be that the game systems would be incorporated in the design of the original game. Paying ANet to revise those systems and provide some content, rather than paying the same amount for less or no revisions and more content — while it may be necessary from ANet’s point of view --, is going to be a bitter pill for some consumers. Come to think of it, that’s another thing that some posters have been trying to communicate — that it’s time to live with the existing systems and get back to providing entertainment.
I repeat myself again but it’s needed:
People are like this in fractals.
People are like this in dungeons.
People are like this in open world.
People are like this in WvW.
People are like this in PvP. (Oh yes, they hell are! ^^)
People are like this in achievement groups, for example LS2 achievements.
Don’t attach “toxicity” or insulting players to raids. That isn’t true at all. You find such players everywhere and definitely not contentrated around raids.
In my opinion the raid playerbase is much more helpful with build hints, gear issues, tactics than any other playerbase. I’ve never learned more than from speedrunners, highly-addicted dungeon and fractal players and raiders.
Even in open world chat you get at least one ironic, sarcastic or a useless answer if asking a question.That is why I included examples of the toxicity in my replies. Yes, a bit of this existed before, but never at this level. You can choose to not believe that or not see it, but I do.
Which makes it a matter of opinion. I realize that. That is why it is important to have the conversation openly on the forums. So that the community – and ANet – see both sides of the issue.
Whether rudeness has increased due to raids or not is likely very much a matter of personal experience. I can say with certainty that I have seen far fewer complaints on this board about exclusion and rudeness than I used to back in the heyday of dungeons.
Also, Vinceman raises an important point that imo needs to be pointed to and expanded on.
“In my opinion the raid playerbase is much more helpful with build hints, gear issues, tactics than any other playerbase.”
This stands to reason. If someone is offering to teach, or taking on guild members and getting them on board, or even just discussing the encounters, why wouldn’t they want to be open and/or helpful?
I can think of two scenarios where that openness might not be there:
- Someone joined a group while not meeting posted requirements.
- Someone has joined a group that offers to take on less or inexperienced raiders, but is not open to the advice being offered by the people sponsoring the group.
In either of those cases, I know where the rudeness started.
Meta builds are chosen as meta because they seen as are the best option not only to do specific things, but to do them in specific ways. For instance, the WvW Pirate Ship meta requires certain professions with specific builds to do specific things in fights. It those builds are absent, the Pirate Ship is likely to sink, because the game-play elements that make it work are to some degree absent.
Thus, it’s hardly surprising that players clustered together doing WvW, PvP or PvE are using meta builds. The tactic they’re involved in using works best. This does not mean that a different tactic with different builds wouldn’t work. It just means that if the content being done is hard enough to require a tactic in the first place, then a mismatch between the tactic and the builds that make that tactic work is seen as bad.
The thing about build diversity is this. If there is variety in how one plays, that’s seen as good. However, some people seem to expect that players should welcome any build no matter which tactic the group is using. That is not only impossible, it’s not desirable. For true build diversity, certain builds have to work better in different circumstances.
The so-called “berserker” meta was reviled specifically because a given tactic performed best in way too many circumstances. While all-out glass direct damage builds are still useful in many circumstances, they no longer perform best in quite as many circumstances There might in fact be more room for different cases where glass is sub-optimal, but game balance is always a work in progress.
The other misconception about build diversity is that all builds should approach being equally effective in all (or most) circumstances. This is a misconception because, in order to justify its existence, a build (or gear prefix) need only be useful to certain play styles in certain segments of the game. The only way to approach equal effectiveness across builds in all circumstances is to make the builds so similar as to be boring.
Builds that are broken? Well, I’d say that bunker builds with insane survival ability that also hit like 18 Wheelers are what’s broken.
Maybe my English is horrible but if I understand correctly:
1. Today there will be no new content…
2. Still we don’t know when will be new content…maybe in 2 weeks or maybe not
3. We don’t know for what content we are waiting for such long time.
4. Now we have confirmation that there will be new content in unknown future…like we didn’t knew it before…I feel people are overhypeing this.
The facts are that there have been a series of posts about lack of communication. Posters have been begging Anet to, "Just tell us something, even if it’s just, ’We’re working on it but can only tell you this and this.’ " So, ANet posts, offering what info they feel they can.
The reactions I’m seeing break down like this:
- Some pooh-pooh the announcement as being “not enough.” This is hardly surprising, as some posters do this with anything ANet does, from a brief FYI post to HoT itself.
- Others are thankful that ANet said anything. While perhaps unnecessary, thanking someone for taking the time to communicate hardly seems inappropriate.
- Some few are perhaps making too much of it. This is also hardly surprising, either.
Also, your number 3 is wrong. We’ve known for some time that LS3 was what’s coming. MO’s post does confirm that that is still what’s coming. Given that a March FYI was about an indefinite feature postponement, that is at least something. Oh, you meant specifics about the first LS3 release. We’ve never gotten that except about a week or two before it popped. That suggests we might not be seeing LS3 Episode 1 in 2 weeks, either.
@ MO
Thank you for the FYI. One of my main concerns has been what I perceived to be the need for a sustainable release cadence that players can look to for ballpark ideas of when to expect new content. I expected ANet would see the need for this also, and am pleased that you say you do. Thanks again, and I hope you blow our socks off.
There is no LS3 hype cause its probably not going to be free for the playable chapters. Anet got their Money for HoT and I’ll be they want more money for LS3. My prediction is no Hype Train cause each playable Episode of LS3 is going to cost 600-800 gems.
Otherwise we would see some sort of PR data from Anet. Blogs or otherwise. Why else would they be so tight lipped about it.
Well, two things:
1.) They have said they want to deliver and then hype, not hype and not deliver.
2.) LS3 isn’t going to be free. It’s been said before that LS3 will require HoT. Which is not free. So, if you’re a F2P player, then you won’t get LS3. If you’re not, you’re going to get LS3.Totally missed what I was talking about.
yes we know LS3 is going to require HoT, but I’m saying (For the sake of entertainment mind you) whats to stop them from charging for LS3 as if it was another expansion but in installments instead? They charge for LS2 for those that did not logon for those 2 weeks, so what if they are just planning on charging for the playable chapters (Ingame events and open areas cant be packaged like that, not really if you think about it)? They could charge 600-800 gems per chapter, and Honestly at this point I can seriously see them going in that direction.
I can’t. After advertising that LS3 would unlock via HoT purchase, the accusations of ANet double-charging for that content would only fail to hit epic proportions because the game has already bled players. A company can only survive so much negative publicity.
As to the OP, wait… We know that hype builds expectations. Now, we’re expected to believe that lack of hype builds expectations, too? If that’s so, then developers might as well do as they like. The outcome — some players will be disappointed — will be no different either way.
In this mindset a 200kg obese man should be able to compete in the olympics and finish with a medal regardless of his performance because now more people can enjoy being in the olympics. This is a vaste improvement for the olympics because more people can enjoy the olympics now. The fat mans golden medal totally has the same value as the extremely trained athlete that won his golden medal in a higher bracket right? Golden medals don’t suddenly lose its value because fat people get golden medals in lower brackets right?
While I’m a supporter of raids getting harder, not easier, this analogy fails on enough levels that it does not serve your argument.
- Olympic athletes are both supremely talented, and work their tails off to get to the pinnacle of their sport. For every gold medal winner, hundreds — if not thousands — of world-class athletes fail. If that’s the bellwether for raids, then the argument that anyone can complete them if they put in the effort fails. Since that argument is one of the most telling in raids-as-is defenses, this is not a good thing.
- Any sport in the Olympics can be and is played at many tiers, where the competitors are less skilled and the training requirements to get competitive are lower. That argues in favor of tiered raid difficulty, not against it.
- An Olympic Gold Medal is coveted because it represents beating the best in the world at that sport. Winning one is recognized as an achievement by the world at large. There is no direct competition with other raiders who can beat your kitten face to face. There is only competition among groups vying for “firsts,” or a self-imposed competition for items where raiders compete with non-raiders, most of whom don’t give a kitten. The prestige of a first means jack outside that small circle.
- Raiders aren’t overcoming other raiders, they’re beating a computer encounter that was designed to be beaten.
- Nationalism plays a large part in the Olympics (or any international sporting competition). People participate vicariously through the athletes who represent their country. No one except maybe other raiders roots for raiders, and those raiders represent no one but themselves.
So, please do argue in favor of raids remaining exclusive, but you might want to find an analogy that does not fall flat. I’m glad you enjoy raids, but putting raid completion on the same level as winning an Olympic medal? Come on.
If the unlimited harvesting tools are account based, what’s my motivation to buy shared slots?
Just successfully completed the Melandru Temple chain in CS, then went to the statue/Hero Challenge near Harbinger Torch on the Grenth peninsula. The statue icon on the mini map was gray, the temple was cleansed (obviously) but the vine effect which applies cripple and bleed was still active and the undead were still around the statue (no elementals). The effect zone near the temple itself did change, but not this one.
A build could be said to be “good” when it achieves the task assigned at the level of competence expected.
Given the wide range of possible expectations by players, this is the only thing that makes sense.
On my GW2 box, I still remember it saying something about “Pay once, and that’s it”. Well that idea obviously got moved aside.
No, it did not. The game content that came with that box, and more besides, is still available. That promise does not mean they have to provide new content ad infinitum.
This games economy was designed from the very start all those years ago to be broken and unfixable without the entire thing being taken down and all the items removed from the cash shop and recreated.
It was seen at the start of the game and nothing can be done without a complete overhau or rather a simple change.
The Auction House system is were the fault lies in this game because unlike the system that works in every other game Anet decided to change what wasn’t broken at all. There is no 12h, 24h, or 48h auction limits the whole point of an auction is that it isn’t eternal your buying time to try and sell your goods and in Gw2 once the listing price is paid that item stays up for an eternity people who have literally quit the game ages ago still have items on the auction house. Items which are set to the highest points of inflation the economy in this game doesn’t breath it’s not free and isn’t a real economy.
It will never right itself and the inflation will never stop until the missing basic function of every auction house real or otherwise is added to this game. That being your auction can actually fail to sell thus mailing the items back to you.
There are no auction time limits because BLTP is a commodities exchange, not an auction house. Given the way RL economies work, this is more appropriate than an auction approach. As to items priced so high they remain on the TP, never selling … well, those have zero impact on item prices unless the supply of the item dries up. Not only is this unlikely, all it would mean is that that item now has a chance to sell.
If they follow the 3 month release schedule…
1) Late January (1/26)
2) late April (4/19)
3) would be late July (???)
If I’m ANet, what’s my motivation?
- If I lower the gem cost of items, this means that players spend less money to get what they want.
- If I lower the gem cost of items, people need to spend less gold to get gems to get what they want. If the amount of gold in the exchange drops, then gem buyers get less gold for their RL money. This is a disincentive to buy gems to exchange for gold. this is the opposite of what I want.
- If I lower the price of gems instead, the same issue in #1 occurs. Also, if it takes less RL money to get gold, then fewer gems go into the exchange. The cost of gems in gold goes up even over what it is now.
To make up for the revenue lost by implementing either of the OP’s ideas, many more players would have to spend money. The amount more would depend on the reductions. Thus, the benefit hinges on the OP’s assertion that more would buy if prices were lower.
This is counter to the psychology we see in the real business world. Reduce prices on basic goods, sure, but on luxury items — no. Luxury items are priced at what the market will bear. This enables the revenue spikes seen during sales, when those prices are temporarily reduced. People spend more on sales because the normal prices are high.
Anet may have been promoting their “Megaserver” tech but they never explained the need for “Taxi’s” to overcome the shortcomings of this wonder.
Map Taxis are a player-found solution to the player-caused problem of Map Taxis. The Megaserver generally does a decent job with evenly populating the maps. But then people take the tools that are supposed to allow guilds and friends to play with each other easily, and then abandon the maps by megaserver made to over-stuff a few.
This. Taxiing, the supposed solution to mega-server problems, is actually a contributing cause, if not the primary cause, of those problems. This means the mega-server problem will never be fixed, because to do so would require removing the tools players use to play with friends. The kitten-storm which would ensue should ANet do so should not even be imagined.
I’ve covered that.
ANet would get ZERO benefit in any player continuing to play a mode that he knows he does not enjoy. To deliberately offer players incentive to repeatedly do content that this player knows he does not enjoy, they would have to be sadists, and I don’t believe that’s the case at all, I believe that they just made some mistakes because “everyone else was doing it,” and haven’t yet realized their error. It works entirely against their business interests as well.
So no, it is reasonable to set rewards up as long term goals, such that whichever path you take, it’ll be a while before you get there and they’ll have plenty of time to add new things to chase. This keeps people invested in the game, keeps them playing the content, assisting other players in a mutually beneficial way, and keeps them away from the filthy competition because they just won’t have the time.
It’s also reasonable for them to add items to the game designed to entice you to attempt specific content, to increase the odds that every player will give every game mode a decent shot, and minimize the chance that any player will miss out on content he might actually enjoy. But putting these items dozens, if not hundreds of hours deep, this is at best troublingly misguided, because it stands to reason that at least some of the players seeking this item will not enjoy the associated content, so why would anyone want them to be playing it?
Therefore, it only stands to reason that you position these items at a location designed to “catch and release.” Lure players in, make sure they try the content and experience it, and then say “hey, if you enjoyed that, you can keep doing it as much as you like! And if you continue to do it, you’ll be able to earn ‘The Widget’ much faster than doing anything else! But hey, you weren’t having fun? Continuing to do this for the next six to eight weeks would be sheer torture? That’s cool, we get that not all content is for all players, so here are a few other ways you can shoot for that item that might take a bit longer, but hopefully you’ll enjoy one of those more.”
That’s best for player good will, that’s best for the developers consciences, and it’s best for their company’s bottom line. Win-win-win.
So, you think that ANet — and the whole industry — is just misguided and will sooner or later come to their senses? Good luck with that.
Of course, there’s also developer pride in and love for their creations. ANet doesn’t think about your supposed hordes of players who want what you want, they think that what they’ve built is some good stuff, and that people will like it if they would only try it — thus the carrot.
Either they already think they’re doing what’s best for them, and the players, or they’re seriously deluded. So, who is right, you or them? Al least they’ve got metrics. While metrics don’t always tell the tale, what is it that you’ve got?
I don’t speak about quality and the fact that those maps are rather complex. They are of course. But still, it is just too few content. In WoW you get 2 raids, 8 dungeons and about 7-8 maps to explore, and 2-3 months later there is another 1-2 dungeons, a new map and 1 new raid. I mean it’s so much more content it really hurts.
What I don’t get is why don’t they do what people want? Just push out more maps, make them simpler, people don’t like fancy and gimmicky stuff as they had to realize when Aetherpath failed. Anet always has this dream of re-inventing the wheel and fail at the people’s expectations. It is a noble intention, indeed, but at the end you have to deliver.
Sure, WoW delivers more maps. They also charge more, as in an XPac fee and the game rental fee to be able to play it. You pay the same fee as HoT, but a month later, you’re paying again. Those first three months of XPac play costs $80, with $15 due each month after for as long as you care to play.
You’re right, though, that ANet has tried to provide something different. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing, though. Copying WoW has hardly proved to be a resounding success for most games, even though WoW copying earlier games was the industry’s biggest coup.
It’s my hope that, with the change in game direction, ANet will prove able to deliver decent amounts of new stuff at somewhere around a 3 month release cadence. It’s also my hope that they’re done with new or re-imagined systems, at least until regular releases are and continue to be in the pipe.
What I don’t expect is that ANet will be able to keep up with the new content demand from the forums. Why would I expect that? Not even WoW does that. The only time anyone seems to think that Blizz releases are adequate is when they’re being compared to others.
Oh, perhaps I misunderstood what he intended to mean. I thought what he meant was that hard mode raids could be aimed at hardcore players, but easy mode raids could be aimed at casual players, and that’s ok, the hardcore players should not get upset that there exists an easy mode that they never have to play if they don’t want to. Everything does not have to be aimed at everyone.
If he meant something different then I may not agree with him.
I’m sure we both agree and disagree. Easier content does, can and certainly should exist. Harder content does, can and should exist also. No arguments.
However, I’m sure we’ll disagree over whether rewards need to be aimed at everyone. You seem to believe they should be. However, that belief is centered on the idea that the sole purpose of rewards is player enjoyment. While that is part of their purpose, it is not all there is to it.
From the developer’s perspective, rewards are incentives, not just to play the game, but to play specific aspects of the game. I get that you think that should change. However, universal accessibility to rewards regardless of play choices has not ever been part of this, or any other MMO which I’m aware of.
At the end of the day, there are fundamental issues of human motivation at work with regard to this issue. You can state your opinion as much as you like. However, you’re up against an industry (and a developer) that has taken heed of the other side. Your opinion that it would be better for ANet to pay heed to your view hinges on the idea that it would be better for them. It’s demonstrable from their behavior that they don’t believe that.
As a social phenomenon (or antisocial if you prefer to think of it that way), I’ve yet to see an MMO where harder, instanced content does not include barriers to late entry in the form of random grouping demands for experience, conformity, or both. I know there is at least one game where players are grouped randomly with others in raid groups, However, I’m pretty sure WoW LFR no longer qualifies as harder, instanced content. I’ve also seen random dungeon grouping (in Rift) where minimum necessary stats are a requisite to even queue, and there was still exclusion (kicking) going on.
In short, there seems to be a sort of Catch 22 situation with such content. Latecomers can’t get in without experience and they can’t get experience without getting in. While I understand the frustration in such situations, there are solutions. One can find a teaching group, or one can form one’s own group.
The problem with this from a social perspective is that MMO gaming has evolved to be much more about convenience than it was years ago. In short, it’s not convenient to have to look for a specific group, and even less so to make one’s own group. However, those solutions are possible if someone is willing to make the effort.
That’s the thing about convenience with regard to LFG raiding. Some players seem to think they ought to have the convenience of getting into groups. Sure, they may have time issues, or whatever other factors get in their way as regards to playing. However, what seems to escape them is that it may well be inconvenient for those other players to accept an inexperienced unknown. Other people may well have similar time, or whatever, issues.
So what’s the difference when it comes to a convenience v. convenience conflict? Well, who made the effort? Who started the group? Should not the player who is hosting the random grouping have the right to set criteria? After all, nothing stops the latecomer from doing the same thing — except his unwillingness to make the effort.