Guild Wars 2

TheBravery.9615:

in the foreseeable future? … snip … Thoughts?

My thoughts? There are not going to be any new professions in the foreseeable future. Why do I think so?

Given ANet’s only-when-we’re-certain approach to content or feature announcements, the foreseeable future is not that far off. At this point, the only things we can say with certainty are that PoF is less than a month away, we know some of what it comes with, and that there will be Living Story chapters thereafter. It seems reasonable to assume that their release cadence will stick to a new chapter every 2-3 months, festivals, and a third XPac after Season 4. It also seems reasonable to assume that there will be no Elite Specs or professions delivered with Living Story chapters. Anything beyond that is outside the realm of what they have discussed, and thus not foreseeable.

Donari.5237:

LadyRhonwyn.2501:

The game opened on august 25th, for the pre-orders (28th for the rest of the world), not august 24th. So, they’re a day early.

Leap Day is why. We were a day “early” last year, too. In 2020 the earliest account birthdays will be Aug 23, since it seems to be decided by number of hours per year rather than by calendar day.

Are you all sure that’s it? August 25, 2012 was a Saturday. The game servers were up several hours before midnight (Pacific Daylight Time) on Friday, August 24. The only character on my account who got a present today was the first one created, and that was on 2012/08/24, at least as ANet reckons time in Seattle.

maddoctor.2738:

IndigoSundown.5419:

ANet did revisions to two launch game armies (Krait and Risen) a long time ago.

The first army they revised was the Flame Legion and the Dredge, in their Molten Alliance form. There were some excellent mobs in the Molten Alliance that were more mechanically heavy than core mobs, sadly they all disappeared when the Molten Alliance was defeated.

It is sad. They were more fun to fight than either of their parent mob types.

You aren’t going to get a better answer than killermanjaro’s.

ANet did revisions to two launch game armies (Krait and Risen) a long time ago. After that, they began focusing on introducing new armies whose mobs are more challenging, at least until players no longer have to think about them. I doubt they’ll return to buff older armies, especially given the initiative to produce ongoing LS content while simultaneously cranking out a new XPac.

MMO’s are all about wasting time. I can think of no greater waste of time in an MMO than virtual fishing. Sounds like a perfect fit for ANet devs to waste time implementing.

ANet went with Elite Specs for profession development. They’re not going to throw that all down the Mystic Toilet to put in dual classing such as was in the original GW. Given the time between balance passes and the complaints that that is too much time, I don’t think the player base has the patience for exponentially more build options — which could of course cause exponentially more balance issues.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Temple_armor

Berserker prefix exotic armor can be obtained at the Temple of Grenth in Cursed Shore when the Pact holds the Temple. they cost 42K Karma per piece, so you don’t have enough for a full set yet. You’ll want to read the wiki page, as these items are soulbound on acquire and one cannot salvage them to recover expensive runes if/when you want to upgrade to Ascended.

I don’t know of any Karma sources for Exotic Berserker weapons. The best sources for those would be specific explorable Dungeons (like Crucible of Eternity or Citadel of Flame), or just buy them for gold on the Trading Post.

Context is important. In the context of GW2, Minstrel means neither vaudeville entertainer nor medieval musician. It means Toughness + Healing Power + Vitality + Concentration. That’s all it means. None of the gear prefix titles are accurate to any degree when it comes to who or what a character is in the immersion sense.

If you cannot get over it, then live with your choice of Magi’s.

Perhaps the item prefixes are merely names to allow players to easily recognize what stats gear has by seeing the prefix. Perhaps it also allows for players to search the TP more easily.

I have at least one character who:

• Wears Viper gear, but is not a venomous reptile.
• Wears Marauder gear, but is not a pillager.
• Wears Rabid gear, but is not suffering from a pernicious disease.
• Wears Knights gear, but has not been knighted.
• Wears Soldier’s gear, but has retired from the Pact.
• Wears Dire gear, but is not warning anyone about a serious threat.
• Wears Assassin’s gear, but is not a contract killer.
• Wears Commanders gear, but has no Dorito over head.

As others have said, the prefix is not meant to evoke who your character is. If serious, I recommend you take gear prefixes with a grain of salt. If troll, I’ve seen better.

The OP is requesting that ANet warn players that changes to item availability might occur. They already have issued such a warning. There’s a clause in either the ToS or UA that goes something like, “…game conditions could change at any time, without warning.” Buyers or sellers who have not considered that clause, which is standard in MMO’s, ought to have.

I would be very happy if Elite Specs (going forward) all added five weapon skills. That would of course mean that if they wanted to add a one handed or off-hand weapon, they would need to add a second weapon as well to make up the five. As it is, some professions get five new weapon skills, some get three, others two.

Behellagh.1468:

Well whether or not it’s “a waste of dev time”, priority does set what a dev can do on the clock. So in the end it’s not as much of a waste of time but not having the time to implement some idea that’s the limiting factor.

This. No matter how involved or trivial the suggestion would be to implement, the devs will not be able to do everything suggested. Ahat people are really saying is that they’d rather the devs work on something that they want than something they don’t.

Why this is a bad idea:

1. The Cost: People who lose a name due to this suggested change and who come back to the game get angry. Maybe they deal with it. Maybe they submit a ticket (CSR costs). Maybe they write angry forum posts or badmouth the game elsewhere (bad publicity). Also, anyone whose name was dropped has to go through the annoyance of renaming, whether the name(s) they used were sought after or not. More annoyance leads to more upset, more complaints, and more bad publicity.
2. The Benefit: for each sought-after name, one (and one only) player will get that name. Anyone else who wants that name will be upset or angry. Some of them will blame ANet because the way ANet implemented the feature (the timing was disadvantageous to their schedule). For every sought-after name there will be dozens if not thousands of names lost that no one wanted.

The cost in public relations alone far outweighs the potential benefit.

Charrbeque.8729:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Kal Spiro.9745:

That depends entirely on you. But, the Ultimate edition is worth $93.75 based on the Gem cost of items and the dollar cost of Gems. The price difference between the Deluxe and Ultimate editions is literally the cost of 4000 Gems. I used the Gems to buy the 3500 Gem starter box, then bought another $50 worth of Gems. I don’t even feel bad about it.

Kind of this, although my perspective is a bit different.

Basic Edition is $30.
Deluxe Edition is $55.
Ultimate is $80.
4000 Gems costs $50.

Basic + Gems = $80, which is the price of the ultimate edition. Therefore, the discount is getting the extras offered for free. The extras are the Character Slot; Identity Repair Kit; Elon Pass and Spearmarshal’s Presence. Those items have a cost associated with them. One could say that the discount consists of what it would take in gold or $ to get the Deluxe upgrade. Or, one could say that value of the discount is whatever value one sees in those 4 extras.

You’re a bit off there. The only difference between the deluxe and ultimate edition is the ultimate comes with 4,000 gems. Essentially, you’re paying an extra $25 for 4k gems when normally they would cost $50, so you get the gems at half price.

No, it’s not off. You just misunderstood. Viewing the deal as half-off on the gem price is one way to look at it. One can also look at the deal as paying full price for the basic XPac and the gems and getting the addons for free as a result.

Looking at the packages the way you do makes the deal seem great. Half off on gems! However, it’s only half off on gems if you would be buying the Deluxe edition anyway. Since value and cost are not the same, the true value of the deal is determined by what value one assigns to the addons.

Rose Solane.1027:

I am surprised by the hatred against the idea of OP to give guild leaders the ability to tick a box allowing or disallowing members to multi Guild? It would just be an option available to the guild leader, not something that should be mandatory.

Here’s the objection. Were ANet to adopt the suggestion, they would be giving control over a feature that is part of another person’s account, to you, or any guild leader who would use the option. While I would just not join any guild that would so restrict me, there would be plenty of people who would join, then get angry. Guess who’d get the complaints? Hint, it would not be you.

Kal Spiro.9745:

That depends entirely on you. But, the Ultimate edition is worth $93.75 based on the Gem cost of items and the dollar cost of Gems. The price difference between the Deluxe and Ultimate editions is literally the cost of 4000 Gems. I used the Gems to buy the 3500 Gem starter box, then bought another $50 worth of Gems. I don’t even feel bad about it.

Kind of this, although my perspective is a bit different.

Basic Edition is $30.
Deluxe Edition is $55.
Ultimate is $80.
4000 Gems costs $50.

Basic + Gems = $80, which is the price of the ultimate edition. Therefore, the discount is getting the extras offered for free. The extras are the Character Slot; Identity Repair Kit; Elon Pass and Spearmarshal’s Presence. Those items have a cost associated with them. One could say that the discount consists of what it would take in gold or $ to get the Deluxe upgrade. Or, one could say that value of the discount is whatever value one sees in those 4 extras.

Deadeyes in WvW, from stealth, sniping a full rabid Engineer for 80% or so of health with a single shot while themselves using exotic gear. So looking forward to being sniped once they’ve got their full Ascended. /s

macro; n; . COMPUTING; a single instruction that expands automatically into a set of instructions to perform a particular task.

By that definition, macros are against the rules.

I’m unsure about the use of the Steam Controller and how it relates to the ANet rule about one control, one action. Does the Steam Controller require the trigger to reset to a neutral position between the soft and hard pulls. If so, then I would not see a problem.

If it works like a double-barrel shotgun with offset triggers where a trigger pull can fire one barrel, or both, that might be a different story. So, must the OP pull the trigger (or push the trigger button) twice using different intensity, or can he pull/push once (start soft, then hard) to perform both actions?

Responses in italics.

maddoctor.2738:

I’d love to hear everyone’s perspective on this:

Is it ever OK to kick someone even if they meet the advertised preferences of a group?

maddoctor.2738:

1) You advertise a training run let’s say for Vale Guardian. People join, they fill the important slots of it, you get two PS Warriors. You are at 9/10 and another PS Warrior joins, maybe you didn’t have the time to update your listing. None of the PS Warriors can swap to another build. All of them fulfill the preferences. Do you kick the one PS (to be fair, the last one to join)

Sociologically speaking (again), there is an implied assumption in choosing to play with others in a group setting. That is, that the group is willing to do what it takes to succeed at the content. All of the members benefit. The 10th person should recognize that kitten happens, the group did not update the listing before he joined, and that he is unable to provide something else that would work. The socially responsible thing for that person to do would be to voluntarily leave. If he does not, then he is acting contrary to the group’s goals. A kick would be in order, with a, “Sorry we didn’t update the listing before you joined.”

2) You advertise for a daily fractal run. People join, including a healer Druid. The last person to join is another support build, let’s say a support Tempest. None want to swap their builds, going in with 2/5 support builds isn’t very good, in fact on many fractals even one support isn’t needed. Do you kick a support if neither wants to swap?

Again, a statement that, “This is not going to work, we only have room for one support build and Healer of the Woods joined first.” should elicit a departure by Tempestuous Soul. If she digs her heels in, an apology and kick should be acceptable.

3) In an anyone welcome group, you get that one person who is always on the ground, dead. He begins to drag the team down, ignoring mechanics, wiping the entire group and refusing to change because “That’s how he wants to play”. That person is holding 4 people back and their fun is diminished by having him drag them down. Is it appropriate to kick said person?

Having been the unfortunate recipient of a Leroy Jenkins moment in WoW, I feel you on this one. Deliberate attempts to mess with people would certainly warrant exclusion. However, inadvertent poor play is another. In an “all welcome” group, if I could see that a player was trying but was just not playing well enough, I would more likely leave the group rather than initiate a kick. Why? Incompetent play does not violate the social compact in an all welcome setting. In fact, I might feel badly about leaving because the departure of 1/5th of their number might mean group dissolution. However, having been in a 3.5 hour difficulty 5 fractal run with such a player, I recognize that I am only willing to commit so much time to a group effort.

4) In the opposite situation that 3. You join an all welcome group and that terrible person keeps harassing team members. The team succeeds in the encounters but that guy still goes at it. Do you kick said person or take his insults and move on?

Deliberate rudeness violates most social compacts. I have been in friends’ groups with an unstated willingness to use insults as part of the social experience. Since this is part of the social compact in that group, it’s fine. There is no such social compact in a randomly forged group where a random stranger behaves in such fashion. A kick would be warranted.

From a social perspective, solutions to such problems would have to recognize that the individual owes as much or more responsibility to the group as the group does to the individual.

Sociologically speaking, what we see in the whole exclusion/inclusion debate that makes the meter such a charged issue is that we have different groups with different values and different expectations. The problem comes when people whose play preferences are for a “one big happy family” group which also suits their desires for convenience (call them the A’s) encounter a different community with shared experiences which fuel shared desires for a specific type of play (the B’s). Essentially, the B’s desires can be hindered if the A’s assume that the B’s are like them, whereas the fulfillment of the A’s desires require the B’s to act like A’s. Needless to say, this is a recipe for conflict, regardless of the rudeness of lack thereof by members of either group.

Of course, A’s and B’s are not the only groups. There is a third group (the C’s) who prefer a laissez-faire approach similar to that espoused by A’s, but do not share the A’s desires to elevate convenience over that laissez-faire approach. However, there is a fourth group which creates conflict for the C’s. This comes in the form of fringe B’s (call them the D’s), also driven by convenience, who try to join the C’s and then change the C’s groups into the D’s idea of what a B group should be.

From the perspective of being responsible for one’s own experience, the C’s have recognized that A’s and B’s (or A’s and C’s) should not play together. C’s are generally going to welcome A’s because they have shared values, which means that A’s are unlikely to interfere with the C’s desires. Whether C’s are also driven by a “nice guy” fixation is largely irrelevant, although some certainly are.

B’s also take responsibility for their own experience by attempting to limit their groups to members of their sub-community. It’s this behavior, which is objected to mostly by A’s, which is most controversial. While some may dislike the way they go about it, these people are by and large attempting to build their own community. That their community is antithetical to that of the A’s, while perhaps too bad, is a natural outgrowth of the different desires of the two coupled with the unwillingness of the A’s to avoid groups whose attitudes and behavior they demonize.

A’s and D’s are generally not taking responsibility for what they want. If an A does take responsibility, he becomes a C, and tries to avoid the A’s. D’s? They are no more socially responsible than A’s and are also likely to engage in things like kicking C’s from their own groups, which is not a depth to which A’s go. D’s are the real kittens.

Champions Online permits player duels in PvE areas. So does WoW. People occasionally use this feature while waiting for someone to arrive for instances. If you fight where there are mobs, sometimes the mobs get in on the fight. No one complains. The games do not break. And, as zengara said, if one is dueling to pass the time, one stops when the thing waited for in the first place happens.

As much as dual classing was fun in Guild Wars, I’m going to have to say no to implementing it in GW2. Why?

1. ANet has already spent a huge amount of time and resources designing the professions, reinventing the trait system multiple times and finally preparing the profession system for the addition of Elite Specs, which are intended to be character progression going forward. Reinventing the wheel yet again would inordinately delay the production of content (you can’t design the mechanics of content until you know the mechanics of characters). That kind of delay is not something an aging game which has already bled players multiple times to content droughts ought to be doing. The potential cost is high.
2. The potential pay-off in diversity is a pipe dream. When people say there’s no diversity, they’re talking optimal builds. So, sure, throw in dual professions and metas would change. They change with every balance patch, and will no doubt change with PoF. The number of optimal builds would remain fairly static, however. There’s only one best build. As to viable builds, there are already a lot more viable builds than people who make such claims want to admit. The potential pay-off would be low.

And that’s why I say that this is not a good idea.

maddoctor.2738:

“The overall design for Guild Wars 2 does not support fully open world PvP and it would take a prohibitive amount of work to even make it possible. World versus world is our version of open world PvP, and while it isn’t ‘true’ open world PvP for more PvP purists, it does contain many of the elements that make world PvP so exciting. Hopefully it will mostly satisfy people that want open world PvP.” — Mike Ferguson

Fully open world PvP and dueling are not the same thing. This quote does not mention dueling at all. The “prohibitive amount of work” refers to adapting a fully cooperative PvE environment to support fully competitive PvE. It’s right in the bloody quote. All PvE map dueling would require is a duel option, and the adaptation of costume brawl mechanics (which allow two players to fight with zero impact on others) so they could use their own skills.

So, why hasn’t ANet put in a dueling option? There was always an option to duel in WvW, albeit with the risk of others joining in. Since the first duel request hit right after launch, ANet has added two other options for dueling (custom arenas and guild halls). Why are they putting dueling players out of the sight of others? Duelphobia, plain and simple. They are trying to give duelers some of what they want without angering those who believe that dueling would ruin the game for them. Out of sight, out of mind.

I much prefer the current system. If a guild wants 100% rep, then they have to do something about it. I would be against a system where they could use a toggle and remove a consequence of their choice.

Obtena.7952:

I remember a time when players actually appreciated the challenges that build limitations offered them … and the feeling they got when they overcame those challenges with smart gameplay. Does no one want to play smart anymore?

I do. However, games have become, sadly, more about gratification than anything else these days. I want to blame Facebook games, but really that is only part of it.

I’ve never seen a game developer offer a free add-on to a product and then offer an exchange for something someone might value more. Doing so would put them on a slippery slope. Were they to offer an exchange for the boost, we’d see people claiming that they want to exchange the Identity Repair Kit, Spearmarshal’s Presence, or the riverboat pass for something else. Guaranteed.

I guess it doesn’t hurt to ask, but I very much doubt you’ll get anywhere.

Like Illconceived, I believe that having to make choices makes for a better game. One of the problems with the specs that came out of HoT was that one had to give up too little to gain a lot. This may not seem a problem to players who don’t want limitations, but it is a problem for the game, for the balance team, for anyone who is engaged in competitive play in PvP or WvW, and possibly for profession diversity in harder, instanced PvE meta play. So, yes, I like that there are restrictions.

Pifil.5193:

Yeah, if this Unidentified Gear was a bag that you could choose to either salvage or open (for free, whenever, wherever you wanted) then the idea would be largely be heralded as a huge improvement. There would still be the issue that you can’t choose to omit these from the list when you select “salvage all x” on your salvage kits. This means that you can’t just hit “salvage all” as easily if you’re planning on identifying them and is an actual loss of functionality but leaving them out of that list and adding a fourth option to “salvage all containers” would work.

Make UNID’d items (bags) salvagable and rare quality. Colored Champ bags have dropped a variety of rarities since they were put into the game. People could salvage all greens and below, then all rares (if they choose to). Or they could choose to ID the bags, then salvage rares (or whatever). Bag space saved. No cost, no fuss, no need to go to a heart vendor. The only changes to the current system would be the color of the UNID’d and the removal of the cost and inconvenience.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Yes it is, especially when I’ll continue to tell everyone how good this system is and explain it to people so they can profit themselves as well. There are those, though, that do not listen or understand and sadly, they are the ones missing out.

No one’s missed out on anything, yet.

Most of this discussion, including your assumption of massive profits accruing to salvagers is nothing but speculation. Many factors could influence profit margins. Lots of people could salvage, and mat prices could tank. ANet could decide they don’t like that and reduce drop rates. Consider that the price of silk has dropped from a high of several silver to below the price for mithril before the latest Legendaries were intro’d.

Alternatively, they could introduce even more massive mat sinks, which might keep profits for sellers high, but might be a negative for people who want what the mat sinks are about.

You can no more predict the future than I can.

Carighan.6758:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Essentially, while this feature might benefit the player who is cynical about loot in GW2, it kittens the player who likes loot.

Completely honest here: I hope that no one likes the loot system in GW2. It’s so annoying to the player, it really shouldn’t get any praise. Basically any other MMORPG has handled loot-to-inventory better than this.

That’s not to say that it is unusable. Clearly we play the game. But it’s the low point of MMORPGs, and it really is difficult to make it worse.

Removing a good 75% (or so, felt like 75%) of trash loot drops in favor of a currency I can “trade in” for either crafting mats or a gamble on skins would… be pretty cool?

Sorry to disappoint. I like loot. I’d like it better if I could vendor all runes/sigils with one click. I’d like it better if there was one bag type per rarity per zone so they’d stack better. However, after the implementation of salvage all by rarity I have no other complaints. And, since I’ve yet to play another MMO in which the loot experience did not kitten, I suspect that there’s a fair bit of grass is greener going on when people claim differently.

Small sample sizes, so your “felt” 75% was my “felt” 5%. As it stands now, I will be salvaging all the UNIDd items sight unseen. I like seeing loot. I hope there’ll be enough other drops that I won’t miss the ones I won’t ID because I will not be paying to see loot even if that means I never see another rare.

PookieDaWombat.6209:

The problem isn’t that the meta is condi, per se. The difference is that even when the meta was zerk, there was a way to counter play it.

Condi on the other hand doesn’t have a real counter play. If you get condi bombed, then you’re just dead. Full stop. Its why roaming in WvW is a joke most of the time and why the only meta these days is who out conditions the other, and its only going to get worse with the new elite specs.

There’s nothing wrong with condi attrition builds. There are counters to those in the form of cleanses, and sustain. If people don’t want to spec for that, it’s their own fault. What is counter-intuitive is condi burst, which in addition to being an oxymoron, is a lot harder to deal with than attrition.

Ashen.2907:

Do we know for a fact that unid gear is replacing anything as opposed to being an addition?

I got one as an event reward, and got nothing else, so yes, unless that was a bug or glitch.

Ashen.2907:

Do we know that unid gear, if it is replacing something, isnt replacing a blue or green drop that couldnt have been salvaged for any more than the unid can? In fact, since green gear can not produce ectos, precursors, etc do we know for a fact that unid gear isnt actually replacing something of potentially significantly lower value?

If an UNID’d replaces a loot bag, and if loot bags can drop higher tier gear (one can sometimes get a rare or exotic from a loot bag), then there is a potential that UNID’d loot replaced a chance at a higher tier item with a chance at a higher tier item with added inconvenience and cost.

As to single item drops (as opposed to bags), if ANet loot tables roll for rarity first, then for the actual drop and if UNID’d items are simply another option once green rarity has been determined, then a single UNID’d item is a much better drop than a single green item if one chooses to salvage. If one chooses to identify, we’re back in the realm of gambling, because the time and expenditure may result in that single green.

However, if UNID’d is rolled for as its own rarity rather than as an option under green rarity, then space had to be made on the rarity drop table for that option, which reduced the chance for other options. If that’s the case, it will depend on whether all other chances were reduced, or whether the reduction was done selectively, and of course which other option was reduced to make space.

Of course, If the tables do not use successive rolls (e.g., rarity first), then any change to a single massive table is going to impact other possibilities, and the impact will be determined by just how much weight is assigned to the new option.

tl:dr? We don’t know how ANet changed the loot tables, only that they did.

Assuming there are still “allowed” DPS meters (which seems like a safe assumption), how about a toggle when you make an LFG group? It would say, “DPS meter in use.” That way, anyone who likes them could join, and those who dislike like them could opt not to.

I’m going to assume people will say, “No!” to that suggestion. Why? Because I believe the real issue is that people want to be able to jump into any group that happens to be forming when they look at LFG. Impatience and entitlement are the real issues, and they occur on both sides of the divide, whether it’s someone joining a requirement listed/metered group or someone joining a casual run group and kicking the group starter because his DPS is sub-par.

That’s the real issue, not meters. Good luck getting people to drop the idea that their personal convenience trumps everything else. However, this would be a better game and a better community if we do.

Let’s face it, this is a gold sink. It may later be a means to entice purchase of an identify kit from the gem store, along with another shared slot to put it in. If the gold sink is needed, then it should not also come with added inconvenience, which may or may not later be partially circumvented by a gem store item. If they wanted to use gambling for items as a gold sink, they could have done something like they did for the Canthan New Year. But no, they had to mess with loot.

This is not a feature to save bag space for the entire player base. It may save some small amount of space for those who won’t bother IDing anything. The UNID’d item is just another unopened bag which can be salvaged. Other containers dropped for me in PoF, along with some blue and green item drops. Space saving was no better than getting stacking bags in HoT.

The only benefit for anyone that’s new is the salvage-without-opening option. If this was truly about saving bag space, all they had to do was use one container for a map rather than several. They also could have emulated the salvage option by adding a second item type whose only purpose was to be salvaged — no ID needed or possible.

No, they had to tie the two aspects of the feature together, in a way that adds time, inconvenience and cost to anyone whose interest is in seeing what loot they got. I have to say, I’m kinda … disgusted.

Power specs still deal as much, or more, damage as they ever did. That’s not to say that a particular spec hasn’t suffered, but there are power options that offer a kitten-ton of damage which is front-loaded. Condi was second-fiddle (or not even in the orchestra for 3.5 years or so). If it is now top of the heap, then the scales will not be balanced for another 2+ years, and that’s not even considering that power specs are a lot closer to condi results now than condi was to power before the changes to how condi worked.

Gaile Gray.6029:

IndigoSundown.5419:

The point is to mimic real life. Owning a cat can be very expensive.

This is true. You give them tuna-flavored kibbles, and they soon want kitty tuna in a can. From kitty tuna, they move to real-people tuna, and soon you’re purchasing hand-made sushi from the most expensive restaurant in Bellevue.

Been there, done that, but not in Bellevue.

Carighan.6758:

Harvestr.6052:

I think it just adds an unnecessary step. How does this improve the game?

Saving myself lots of steps to process my inventory is a big improvement, wouldn’t you agree. The majority of the loot is now done via a simple mass-salvage -> deposit.

I would not agree. It only saves you steps if you choose not to ID. If you choose to ID, it adds inconvenience and cost. If ANet were really interested in simplifying things for everyone, they would have done something different. They could have, for instance:

1. Dropped loot bags of less than green rarity.
2. Made all loot bags of the specific rarities remaining stack instead of having multiple different bags of the same rarity.
3. Put in a vendor-all option (potentially by rarity the way salvage works) for runes/sigils as an option on the inventory UI.

Essentially, while this feature might benefit the player who is cynical about loot in GW2, it kittens the player who likes loot.

The point is to mimic real life. Owning a cat can be very expensive.

Vayne.8563:

Djinn.9245:

I think that it’s obvious from the context that Anet meant that HoT “did not perform as expected” in the negative sense of that phrase. And so people are taking license with the language to say that “failed to perform as expected” is essentially the same thing. Which it is. So in that sense HoT failed. That doesn’t mean it was a complete failure, but I don’t think that most people claiming “HoT failed” have insisted it was a complete failure. We know that many people like it so it would be silly to insist it was a complete failure. But it obviously did fail to perform financially as expected, AND it was a failure to various degrees for many other players.

What Mo actually said was that free to play players didn’t upgraded to HoT in the numbers expected. Nothing else was every said explicitly about HoT failing or even not meeting expectations.

So you could say hot failed to sell to free to play players, which doesn’t mean it’s failed, anyway. That’s like saying a restaurant failed to keep vanilla ice cream in stock so the restaurant failed.

@ Vayne
The quote “did not perform as expected” was from the NCSoft report from Q4/15, published in January, 16. The report even went on to amplify that free players did not upgrade in the numbers anticipated. Nothing was said about expectations of paid players upgrading, but you can bet there were such. Somewhere in Q3/15 there was an article which cited 1,5M distinct monthly logins to GW2 prior to PFF, rising to roughly double that number after PFF hit. HoT sales at that time were closer to 500,000 than 1.5 million. Now, maybe seeing ~2/3 of semi-active accounts not upgrading was expected. Maybe laying the disappointment solely at the feet of free players not upgrading is over gloss.

@ Djinn
While I appreciate that you do not equate “failure” with “complete failure,” I suspect that you might be giving too much credit to random people on the internet, where assumption, exaggeration and hyperbole take center stage.

Djinn.9245:

Galactic.6453:

I feel like there there is a major misunderstanding as to what unidentified gear is.
There is no exotic or precursor “hiding” under there, it is simply a generic salvage item called “unidentified gear”. It doesn’t preroll anything.
You can either salvage it right there for profit or use it as a currency to gamble for good gear with heart vendors, which will on average always net you a loss. That’s how gambling works.

Identifying it on heart vendors is essentially the same thing as flushing your gear down the Mystic Forge, which gives you a chance of the next tier.
You’re not losing anything.

How are you certain? Do you have knowledge that the rest of us don’t from playing the preview? Please link it.

Galactic is engaging in the fallacy fallacy. Yes, it’s a fallacy that there is anything predetermined about what loot is in UNid items. However, the mistake (if anyone is actually making it) is irrelevant to the point being made.

When GW2 awards loot, the program “rolls” on a pseudo-random number generator. An UNID’d item merely postpones the roll until after the player meets multiple conditions (clear heart, go to heart vendor, pay coin). At that point, a roll is made. We do not at this point know what pseudo-random table is going to be used if we ID, but we can state with certainty that whatever table it is, it certainly could have been used for a random drop roll as well as for IDing.

Comparing the ID feature to the MF, however, is not that bad. In both cases, we know that salvaging is going to get us crafting materials, so the opportunity cost, while not exactly known, can be inferred with some degree of accuracy. In both cases, the outcome may be something desirable. Where they are different is that we do not as yet know the relative chances in the ID process, whereas we know that the MF chances are poor. Also different is that the MF uses a 4:1 ration and IDing does not. Finally, while the forge eats 4 to give one, it does not also charge a fee.

WvW is about quality, and quantity is a quality of its own.

I have not seen much in the way of lag issues here on the west coast of NA, except for once in the PoF demo. DC, though… I and friends are still getting DC’d regularly in instanced content.

Well I heard that we’ll be identify’n (fy’n)
Gonna have to go do the heart (do the heart)
‘Cause ANet found a a brand new annoyance
And decided that fun ain’t in the cards (aahh..).

So I’ll pull (I’ll pull) the game off of my hard drive (ooh)
And I’ll surrender my fan club card
And I’ll burn down the forum where we come to talk
Because this new feature fails hard.

You ain’t gonna see me identifyin’
I wish that they’d find something new
‘Cause I’d rather spend eternity eating Eggs Beetletun
Than give up knowing what’s in my loot

I guess I might seem sort of angry
ANet’s got me feeling like I’m not a fan
‘Cause I’m looking at something the opposite of fun
And there ain’t no way I’m gonna stand (fo-o-o-orr itt)

OK, so ANet, give me back my wallet
I’m not inclined to pay for this now
‘Cause I’d rather have a hundred thousand Charr sit on my face
Than ID any loot, and how.

I’d rather rip out my SSD
Than watch loot I could of had be salvaged
I’d rather slam my mace down on my face (yah)
Over and over and over and over again

Oh, can’t you see what I’m tryin’ to say, ANet…

I’d rather have my blood sucked out by Blizzard (Blizzard)
I’d rather play a Facebook game or two
I’d rather clean all the floors in the Black Citadel with my tongue
Than change the way we get loot.

Yes, I’d rather jump naked into Arah,
Or post comments on a fan site, so cold (co-o-o-o-old)
I’d rather dive into the piranha-filled hole in Tangled Depths
Than ID my loot drops for gold.

I’d rather Jenna ripped Logan’s heart out of his ribcage with her hands
and then threw it on the floor and stomped on it ’till he died
Than spend one minute IDin.

Disclaimer One: sincere apologies to Weird Al.
Disclaimer Two: This is a satirical attempt to let my feelings be known, the threats are not real.
Disclaimer Three: While I may or may not quit the game or purchase POF, this feature has managed to rile me as nothing else ANet has done in five years has.
Disclaimer Four: I know, don’t quit my day job.

More playing time is definitely a benefit. Even putting fun aside, which you seem to want to do, think about this. If you can earn enough gold in a week to buy a character slot, how much more gold would you have had pass into (and maybe through) your account wallet if you’d had the game longer?

The likely reason for this weekend’s affair is to get some preliminary feedback on how the new specs work out in competitive play. The mobs don’t care if the new specs are unbalancing or not, but players will.

Rikimaru.7890:

So no I’m not excited for the mounts, I’m just really curious why would ANET give in and listen to the community on this one? Because there is really no point in this game for them.

There are points.

1. Training the Masteries for them gives people something to do. Since MMO’s survive by giving people things to occupy (waste) their time doing, and since many players demand more to do, this point benefits a lot of players and ANet.
2. While I may not understand why, people like mounts, whether the reason is that riding is more immersive than teleporting, they like the look and feel of them or whatever else.
3. A lot of people asked for mounts. Giving them mounts tied to a new XPac will have an effect on sales.
4. ANet can sell mount skins, just as they sell glider skins.

To answer the OP’s question, we do not yet know how much weight the UNID’d items enjoy on the drop tables. There is too little data.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

It’s not going to “replace” anything — it is part of the reward. It allows people with low magic find to sell directly to people with high MF and earn more, for less effort.

Wrong. There is always an opportunity cost on drop tables in the form of what could have dropped instead.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Whether it’s “better” for the game (or for each of us individually) remains to be seen. There’s clearly too little data available, especially since we don’t know yet if ANet is using legit or fake drop rates (they might want to stymie speculation).

Right. However, at this point we can say that whether this is better or worse is likely to depend on whether we choose to know what’s inside. If we choose to ID, the new system is less convenient and more expensive. That’s indisputable. Whether we choose to ID or not, we could end up with more value than if we made the other choice. We can also know the downsides of the choice. If we choose to ID, we stand a chance to lose money. If we choose not to, we will never know what we might have gotten. It’s likely that the value to ANet of the system as a gold sink is the psychological impetus of the latter.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

DeShadowWolf.6854:

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

I’m wondering if we’re really losing anything. If unidentified gear stacks, then how can the game identify which one is an exotic and which isn’t? Is there a secret, unseen list that keeps track of the identity of the items that have yet to be claimed?

From the sound of things, unidentified gear is just another die roll that drops on top of the kinds of drops you would normally get. Is there any proof that we’re missing out on rare and exotic drops that we otherwise would’ve gotten?

There is no list, it’s more RNG. The phrase “missing out on rares/exotics” is to indicate that if we salvage unids, those might have ID’d into rares or exotic.

In that case, I do not see the problem. If something we previously earned is being taken away due to unids, then there would be a problem. But if it is an additional system added on to loot that people are complaining about gambling on, then that is strictly an opt-in system. I’m going to salvage all my unids and never look back.

I’ve yet to see a definitive statement from anyone which suggests that we will still get the normal chance at rares and exotics as we get elsewhere. All I got was blue and green normal drops, but that might be due to a relatively small sample size.

It’s the other way around. You’ll have to prove that we’re losing out on drops elsewhere with the unids. It is a bit defeatists to assume a new system is inherently ripping you off via hidden changes to loot ratios mentioned nowhere.

This is ANet we’re talking about, remember. NPE? Adept traits available at L36 that unlocked in L60 areas? “Every player by level 80 should have max stat gear?” Not enough MP’s to be able to fully progress and avoid niche content on HoT launch.

I always, always, always assume the worst. That way I won’t be disappointed.

For me, the system kittens kitten. If I got an Unid’d drop I did not get a regular one at the same time. Paying to ID plus do heart plus go to vendor makes it more clicking and more tedious. If PoF needs to resort to this lame gimmick to keep people playing, ANet has sunk to a new low.

NPE has no bearing on unids. That aside, it is obvious that unids would be dropped into the loot table, and as gear it would be exclusive with other forms of gear when they are dropped. I’m wondering about the dubious claim that we’re missing out on rares and exotics because of unids. If unids just occupy the loot space that fine and masterwork used to, or if unids occupy some other space like junk drops and bags, then the loot chance for rares and exotics will be untouched.

If anything, it means the chance to get rares and exotics will increase, since we’re getting both the loot roll and the unid roll to loot one.

Why you commented on NPE being included as an example of an ANet decision but not the other examples I gave escapes me.

I agree that UnID’d will have to occupy space on the loot table. Any speculation about impact on other options on the table is just speculation, except that there will have to be some impact. If nothing else is dropped to make space, then some small percentage changes in the tables will take place. If something is dropped, what that is will determine the effect. It might be nothing, it might not.

While it is certainly possible that the change for better drops will improve, it seems equally likely, lacking a larger picture, they will not. Since we cannot know at this point, the real discussion points ought to be convenience vs inconvenience, expense to get loot vs. no expense and speculation about what this is in aid of.

It ought to be clear to everyone that the new system looks to be more convenient for those who choose to salvage while it is a lot more inconvenient for anyone who actually wants to see what their loot is. Since I like to see my loot before deciding what to do with it, I object to the added inconvenience, and to the added expense. For me, the loot systems in HoT and LS3 maps were far superior and would be even more superior with a feature to vendor all runes/sigils at a merchant or even on the inventory UI.

Finally, ANet has not discussed the purpose behind this feature. Since we don’t know, I can only speculate as to what this is intended to accomplish. Since I can see ANet’s track record, which includes many failures to achieve the goal they set out to, I am dubious this feature is going to do more than anger a bunch of players to little purpose.

TexZero.7910:

The only people who legit think HoT failed are the same people who misunderstand the quaterly reports and look at a less than 1% decrease in Gemstore sales as a statement for how the game is currently running.

The median gem store sales before HoT (and during, based on NCSoft report including a statement that gem store sales were “stable” during Q4/15, the HoT launch quarter) were quite a bit higher than the new median since Q2/16. Referring to a “less than 1% decrease” is inaccurate when considering the entire period in which HoT has been the latest product.

However, despite the erroneous statement, the decrease is not necessarily all due to HoT. Other factors are likely also causes, and include things like:

• People achieving goals which require gold purchases who stop spending for gems to exchange for gold.
• The natural attrition all games suffer as they age.
• Gem store offerings not appealing to everyone, leading to reduced spending to get them. If people have what they want, and new stuff does not tickle their fancy, there is no need for them to spend.
• The “content drought” between HoT release in Q4/15 and the release of LS3 Episode 1 in Q3/16. What is most telling about the drought is that the first significant decline in store revenue since the HoT reveal in Q1/15 is noted in Q2/16, which was during the latter portion of the drought.

Then, there’s the ginormous gap between “HoT failed” and the official statement that “HoT did not perform as expected.”