(edited by Nokaru.7831)
Why Raiding?
- In my opinion, there is only one advantage raiding has over smaller group combat. It’s not “challenging content”, because I’ve played 5-man content that is equal to or exceeding the difficulty of what most people would consider “end-game raids.” The main thing raids can bring to the table (outside of the social experience) is that it brings more players, and therefore more possible builds.
Taking Advantage of Raiding:
- Content for raiding should be approached differently than dungeons. Dungeon cannot assume that players have access to certain things without actually making group requirements too strict. With 10-20 players, however, this becomes possible. Here are two examples of things I hardly ever see in Guild Wars 2 PvE: (Note that the things I suggest are not class-specific. I wouldn’t recommend something like Mesmer Portal since that’s only for Mesmers, but more general roles.)
- Interrupting: Not taking Defiant into consideration, these are very rarely used because all dungeons can be completed without them. Tootsie from Dry Top is a good example of a creature taking advantage of the fact that players in PvE interrupting things is something we should really expect.
- Conditions: The Partially Digested husks on the Triple Trouble encounter show how to make conditions necessary for success: Just add creatures with high toughness and low health. This is something that can be used.
Difficulty:
The main thing I wanted to bring up is this: People need to distinguish the difference between “learning” and “challenging.”
- Learning: The best example I have is this: If a player is carelessly standing in an AoE which gives them 15 seconds to escape from, and this spell happens to kill them immediately, this is not a question of difficulty; it’s about ignorance to the mechanic. The player underestimated the ability, or did not know it existed.
If this mechanic was tuned for someone who did not understand the mechanic, it would be much more forgiving. Imagine what a different fight Liadri would be if her Shadowfall only dealt 500 damage instead of immediately downing a player! It might be “unfair” or “cheap”, but it’s definitely not “difficult.”
- Challenging: In my opinion, balance should assume the player does in fact understand the mechanic. It is only through assuming this that we can accurately measure how difficult it is. Using the Liadri example again, if Shadowfall gave the player 15 seconds to escape from, it would be much easier than one that fires every 4 seconds. This is only information you can gather when you balance around the assumption that players must grasp the mechanic, or they will fail/suffer dire consequences.
Raid Difficulty:
- Regardless of what the difficulty is tuned for per se, raid encounters should assume that players have a basic understanding of the encounters. This learning might come through trial and error, or through doing research and being guided. (Which most will do over time) There is already plenty of content that allows players to participate without needing to know everything that’s going on and with little to no personal responsibility.
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
Scaling:
- You cannot achieve perfect balance without fixing the raid size. However, fixed raid sizes have always been an issue with accessibility. These two factors are simply irreconcilable. The more accessible you try to make a raid, the less perfectly it will become balanced.
For example: Let’s say that a raid could scale between 10 and 40 players. There would inevitably be some “sweet spot” difficulty that would be considered the easiest. (i.e.: 23) The community will recognize this and raid groups would then only fill up to that amount. Even though they could take in more players, they know this makes it more difficult for themselves, and therefore won’t. This happened during the Boss Blitz and also Tequatl on the turret defense teams. This has happened in other games as well that have attempted this.
Suggested Raid Size:
- It should be between about 10-15 in my opinion. The group should not be so large that fights become “zergy.” I believe making raiding accessible is important, even though there will inevitably be some “easier” or “harder” size. However, it should not have a huge range, and should definitely not creep into the “zergy” territory. There comes a point where it begins to not matter what an individual is doing anymore. (“Spamming 1”) It also becomes incredibly more difficult to actually kill players because of how many revives there are potentially.
Should raids be restricted to the guild level that require some form of guild activity/currency to activate/enter, or should they be accessible by anyone? What are your thoughts on that specific?
In my opinion, the challenge of the raid itself should be the only gatekeeper. Locking a raid behind some sort of currency or activity creates an arbitrary accessibility requirement. One of the biggest problems I saw with Wildstar was that there was a twelve-step attunement players had to do just to have a chance to attempt the raids.
I’ve seen time and time again this just stunts raiding communities as a whole. (Like it did with Wildstar) If a group of highly skilled but unguilded players decide to play together, they should have that choice. There are many games with pick-up-group raiding, with a recent release being Destiny.
Anet has said repeatedly, that, #1: they don’t care about dungeon sellers getting scammed.
Wrong. I’d ask for your source, but I know you don’t have one. Here’s mine: (Source)
2. We terminate accounts permanently for defrauding (scamming). If you are found to make a deal to trade (say, sword for gold) and not hold up your end we will investigate and terminate. If you are the victim of a scam you should submit a support ticket and provide what you lost and the time and date as accurately as you recall. This is usually all we need to research the event but we will ask you if we need more info. You do have a right to know the outcome of these investigations but be aware these take us a few days to resolve.
You don’t get the gold for the deal, but the scammer will be punished.
probably it is ANET’s way of saying “we do not encourage this dungeon path selling thing, but we won’t ban you either. do it at your own risk”
EDIT :
oh found this. exactly what i thought.
You’re quoting someone from ANet who was incorrect and his statement was clarified to have nothing to do with getting booted from dungeons. The “risk” he was talking about was selling things without using the Trading Post.
This is where it came from: (This thread)
Now, in regards to getting booted -
It is not allowed and we will take action against accounts we find doing this. This is monitored in-game but if you are able to report please do so as thousands of eyes are better than a team of GMs.
The fact that there are people doing this simply sucks and needs to be corrected and I want to assure you that my team actively takes issues like these to production to raise awareness (as do other devs that frequent the forums). I have been approached by multiple leads on ways to correct and curb this behavior and the conversation is happening.
He also said this with regards to scamming:
2. We terminate accounts permanently for defrauding (scamming). If you are found to make a deal to trade (say, sword for gold) and not hold up your end we will investigate and terminate. If you are the victim of a scam you should submit a support ticket and provide what you lost and the time and date as accurately as you recall. This is usually all we need to research the event but we will ask you if we need more info. You do have a right to know the outcome of these investigations but be aware these take us a few days to resolve.
Yes, this includes selling dungeons as well. If you agreed to pay for a dungeon path and then boot the seller, you will get punished. The seller won’t get his gold though.
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
They don’t bother nerfing farming spots until it becomes toxic. That’s why you can’t have nice things.
This post is the worst kind of hyperbole.
Using hyperbole to discredit hyperbole. Hm.
Share your opinion about how to improve the end game in (roughly) 100 words or less.
- Extend levels of Fractals of the Mists to 150-200. (Let the scaling Agony damage be the gate; not a hard cap)
- Gambits for explorable dungeons. (Increased difficulty for rewards)
- WvW siege UI element for siege. (Unlocking siege skins for WvW)
- Dungeon hard mode → Start with Story Mode dungeons. (Make an actual good Zhaitan fight)
It’s at best free to try.
That’s what it is: Free to try. I don’t agree with your assertion of pay-to-win though.
Do you know why it’s free to play? Because in Korea when it was pay to play, no one played it, and eventually it had to go free to play there to get players.
New subscription-based MMOs do not succeed anymore, especially in the east and especially in Korea; free-to-play is much bigger there than it is in the west. I don’t even know why you’re bringing this up because this wouldn’t be the first MMO to retrofit itself into a free-to-play model after its failure to recoup development costs under a subscription.
Patrons leveled faster, so they’re higher levels, for one thing.
A higher level player can potentially beat a lower level player. Patrons can potentially level faster than free-to-play players. However, it is fallacious to assume (or, as you are doing, to espouse) that the potential to do something assures the actuality of it happening. Depending on the level difference, the lower level might win just as the playtime of both will determine who will level faster.
All I have to say is, if you think ArchAge is a pay-to-win game, then you’re lucky that you’ve never actually played a game where you can actually buy power. (Maplestory anyone?)
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
But since patrons can get to 50 faster and then make other people actually lose experience, in theory you can stop someone from getting to 50 for a much longer time, during which time you’re farming them.
The encounter you described has nothing to do with free to play versus patron. A free to play player can grief a patron the exact same way you’re describing. In practice, it’s not likely. If someone is really getting harassed to the point they are incapable of leveling, they should seek out a guild and make sure they don’t level alone. Leveling solo is never a good idea in an open-world PvP game.
Patrons level faster, both in 10% experience and through more use of their labor points. However, a free player in ArchAge can still reach level 50 (and many have) and experience some of what the game has to offer. The main reason free-to-play players have limited labor is because without it there would be hundreds of accounts being made funneling labor into one person.
The labor point system in AA is by far the most insidious thing I’ve ever seen in an MMO. It’s set up so that they can really tweak it later on but even now, if you want to report a player for botting lets say, you’d have to spent 25 labor points.
Apparently even use of the report function in AA requires labor points. lol
If you played the game, you would know that you get your labor points back with a bonus if the person is actually a bot and banned.
With AA you’re screwed because no matter what you do as a free player, paying players have an advantage over you.
Sorry, but can you explain what the advantage a Patron has over a free-to-play player? A level 50 free-to-play player versus a Patron in equal gear are going to be on the exact same playing field.
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
If they were a clear majority, what’s the reason that Anet hasn’t made that or anything like it?
Yes, ArenaNet always acts in accordance with the majority. Haven’t you seen the New Player Experience? It’s met with nothing but universal acclaim!
So, as someone that loves his warrior and never PvPs due to total apathy and lack of anything that can even be considered interest…my Pv*E* utility has been smashed. Because a single group of screeching, bunnyhopping attack mashers had their little girl panties in a wad over warrior being mean to them. PvPers scream, PvEers pay.
I thought this /wasn’t/ World of Warcraft?
The hyperbole is strong with this one.
If we care to be constructive, we shouldn’t just leave it at that. We should try to understand why people feel there is no endgame, when there is factual evidence to the contrary. Why are people who loved this game – theory crafted and strategized and competed for record dungeon times in this game- why are those the people leaving?
It’s very simple really: While it’s true that there is a lot of content for players who are still in the process of learning their procession, there is a definite lack of content out there that challenges those who have already skilled at their profession and still want to feel challenged. This is especially true for organized group content.
The furthest they can go though is just doing existing content faster, some of which has been in the game for over two years.
But if I open Arah LFG and all I see is 5 dungeon selling groups + Arah story group – this is NOT OK.
Oh! It sounds like you don’t know this, but did you know you can make your own groups too? It’s true! You can make your very own group for Arah – or any other dungeon in the game.
Here’s how:
- Go to the Gates of Arah, enter it and select (Explorable Mode).
- Open up your Contacts & LFG window.
- Go to the second tab (from the top) for the Looking for Group [BETA] tab.
- Go to the DUNGEONS tab.
- Select Arah.
- At the bottom-right, you will see a button: Advertise Your Party.
- In the description, make sure you concisely describe the group and its objective.
It’s that easy! The only hitch is that you must have defeated Zhaitan in the Personal Story in order to unlock Arah (Explorable Mode).
It’s probably quite different with different professions. No problems at all on my post patch ranger for example, but I could see where some professions might have more trouble than others. Rangers are just in a really good place now.
That’s to be expected for two reasons: (1) The ranger has been buffed a lot this patch, and (2) the ranger isn’t as affected by this phenomena since their pet makes up a good amount of their damage. The pet is still increasing in stats every level, unlike the ranger itself. Rangers have historically had an easier time with leveling than most professions since the pet often gets aggro on monsters.
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
Issue of Restricting Siege & Commanders:
- The problem with restricting siege is that Commanders frequently throw down most offensive and some defensive siege. Any restrictions that inhibit siege trolls would likely inhibit legitimate Commanders. There is also no way to really distinguish between a true Commander and a troll.
My suggestion is not a low-hanging fruit one for this, but here it is: Make a way to distinguish between a true Commander and a troll.
Empowering Commanders & Possibly Progression:
- The simplest solution I have is to make some sort of mechanic whereby joining a Commander’s squad would then give them the ability to bypass some of the restrictions in place on maps. Players would not join the squad of a trolling Commander, and then they’d therefore be powerless. Players would however join a good Commander’s squad.
They could get a different buff that would exempt them from this if they had enough supporting them.
Marking the builder
The problem with this is that the siege doesn’t remember who the owner is if they happen to leave the map.
One flaw here: if your keep has 5 omegas for defense purposes trolls sometimes destroy them on purpose by jumping of the keep walls.
I was referring to rules with regards to supply, siege cap and building. It’s a good point that you bring up though.
Golem Suicide Griefing:
- One person should not be able to get in multiple golems and toss them off the side of structures killing them. Taking significant or sustained falling damage should prevent a player from using a golem again for an extended period of time.
Equal Enforcement:
- Whatever solution is reached, Commanders should not be exempt from them. I’ve seen dedicated trolls who are themselves Commanders that intentionally divert the army in a hazardous direction.
Crippling Edge Cases:
The first thing I’d like to bring up are some edge cases that should never be possible. One person should never be able to have a hugely adverse effect on the map. Here are some of the worst cases I’ve seen:
- Draining 100% of a Structure’s Supply: I have seen cases where one person will build Ballista on mass in a fully upgraded keep and draining all 1,700 of its supply. This should not be possible for anyone to do. I don’t know a good number for this off-hand. As an example, this is a rule that would help curb this behavior: A keep would, for example, only allow one person to drain 400-500 Supply per hour at the very most.
- Siege Capping a Map: It should be impossible for one player to fill an entire map up with siege by themselves. Let’s say the total map cap for siege is 150 per team. It should not be possible for 1 player to have more than 50 pieces of active siege on a map. There is virtually no case where one person would need to do this.
Think about it like this: Offensive siege (dropped frequently by Commanders) is usually destroyed, and therefore is constantly decreasing from the cap. The siege that remains on a map is usually defensive siege which is protected behind walls and gates.
- Flame Ram Trolling: Flame Rams should rot after 15 minutes if they have not dealt damage to anything. This will destroy 100% of all troll Flame Rams built inside structures, while leaving legitimate ones unaffected. I’ve seen players refresh many Flame Rams in an effort to try to siege cap a map.
Creating the wrong type of siege to hit area siege caps
- Build Site Confusion: This problem can be first addressed by distinguishing between different build sites. How many times has someone thrown down a build site at a gate, only to find out it’s a Trebuchet? It would be great if each build site looked unique in some way. A simple idea would be to give the siege a floating icon of its type above it, even when it’s a build site. Also, when building siege, it would help if it said: “Build Trebuchet” instead of just “Build.”
On Golems:
- One thing to keep in mind when making these rules is that Siege Golems can be exempt from most of them. They are expensive and don’t count towards the local or map-wide siege cap, and building them en mass is usually the way they are deployed.
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
Players who are no longer “honorable kills” (someone who has been killed recently) should have a buff to convey this. This buff should be visible to the enemy team; not to the player who has their buff or their allies. This will allow the enemy to know what’s going on and prevent those with the buff from feeling discouraged or gaming the system with it.
Eh, some rage and hyperbole is justified
I find it unhelpful since there are solvable issues that can be discussed rationally. There’s plenty of other threads that are out there where people can vent their frustration. I’ve seen many identifiable and fixable problems become buried by those kind of posts. I know it’s not our job as consumer’s to have to frame our feelings constructively. It just would help a lot.
The Reason for the Anger:
Even though the NPE is controversial for a variety of reasons, at the heart of this matter is the fact that it should have been the priority of the NA/EU NPE team to minimize the jarring difference between the old leveling experience and the new leveling experience as much as possible. It’s safe to assume that due to the large scope of the changes, players would be unhappy with something, so as little as possible should have been changed. Whether or not we will see any sort of dialogue on this remains to be seen. In my opinion, this is the source of the rage:
Fixable Problems:
What we can do is focus on fixable problems by seeing what the NPE changed and then propose something else. Here is an incomplete list of things that you can look at individually and propose improvements for:
- (1) Changes to the 1-15 zones
- (2) Changes to the Personal Story (Keyfarming, My Greatest Fear deletion, etc.)
- (3) Weapon Skill Unlocks
- (4) Utility, Elite & Profession Unlocks
- (5) Various Account-Based Unlocks (UI for WvW, sPvP, etc.)
- (6) Miscellaneous Unlocks (Downed State)
- (7) Stat Unlocks (Resulting in “Stat Burst” & “Stat Slump” Effect)
For example: With regards to (7), it is a big problem but it is easy to fix. The stats which are gained every 6 levels should instead be distributed every single level.
This is something that should not be compromised on. Distributing stats at every level is the way to fix this problem; anything less, such as every 2 levels or every 3 levels is simply a worse fix with the only justification being the intangible benefit of providing a “more rewarding leveling experience” with a “burst” of power. To that, I reply that the loss of power experience right before such bursts outweighs the benefits of the feeling of empowerment.
If we’re actually going to have a thread discussing the NPE, can it actually be full of constructive criticism and suggestions instead of just rage and hyperbole? This thread looks like it’s already going south, so I hope this won’t be the place to talk about it.
I’m going to just re-post this here: This is not an opinion piece. Here is perhaps the biggest and most subtle problem with the NPE that’s technically “working as intended” – The “stat burst” and the “stat slump" effect.
- Stat Burst: With the original leveling system, players would receive a small amount of stats each time they leveled, which made their character slowly get stronger each level. With the NPE changes, after level 4 the player will received a large chunk (or “burst”) of stats every 6 levels. This was likely to make certain thresholds feel more rewarding and fun. (“Stat burst” levels: 4, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52, 58, 64, 70, 76, 80)
- Stat Slump: The problem is that the “stat burst” power did not come out of no where. The power is redistributed from prior levels. The result is that players feel weaker than they did before during certain windows of leveling. This is being remarked as the “stat slump”, which is typically 2 to 4 levels prior to each threshold.
- The problem? If a player tries to fight a creature 1 or 2 levels higher than themselves, the “stat slump” complicates things. A level 9 creature is more powerful than a level 8; but a level 9 player is not inherently more powerful than a level 8. This is because the stats come in bursts for players, but gradually for monsters. This is not intuitive at all, and it makes it difficult for a player to judge how difficult a fight will be.
Prior to the NPE, a level 8 player would size up a level 9 monster and conclude that it is only slightly stronger than themselves. With the new change however, this creature is actually 5 levels higher than him since the player is effectively level 4 stat wise. This problem continues all the throughout leveling during every “stat slump”
It comes as no surprise to me that players are noticing that certain Personal Story missions are feeling much harder than they used to, even with all of their skills unlocked. This is a result of the “stat slump”, which is making players feel lower level than they actually are. (Because they effectively are a lower level)
More information is on this subject on these reddit threads:
In Conclusion (TLDR):
- Since you gain stats every 6 levels instead of every level, if you could not kill a creature at level 40, you will not be able to kill it at 44. A level 44 player is exactly as strong as a level 40, sans any gear changes. This phenomena happens frequently, and it has greatly changed the pacing and feel of leveling in GW2. Most offensively about this system is how subtle and non-intuitive for players to not stronger every level, yet creatures do. This change, more than any other, is the most dysfunctional one in the NPE, in their effort to create a “rewarding feeling” but instead it difficult to size up challenges now for players leveling.
The ideal fix would be to un-do this redistribution and give the stats to the players gradually as it did in the past.
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
Yeah well, I prefer Staves to be the plural for a Staff, but they went with Staffs instead.
There were some good things that came from NPE, such as account locking WvW access and sPvP. I thought the little dodge tutorial was cute as well.
You can immobilize Vapor Form.
If by “nerf” you mean “fix” then yes.
A fix can be a nerf if it was a widely used “bug”.
Name one thing that is immune to your damage from Cloak and Dagger but still grants you Stealth.
If by “nerf” you mean “fix” then yes.
This is such a good post, can it be typed out and mailed to Arenanet?
How would Anet go about fixing this issue (assuming they won’t revert the changes)? Could they apply this stat burst model to the monsters in the different zones and personal story so that they match up to the players’ current level?
Thanks for that. The fix is just undoing their redistribution of stats, spacing it out evenly every level as it was before the NPE. The effect of “stat slump” and “stat burst” is a systems issue, so not many people can identify it as the problem. Most will just say, “I found this Personal Story mission hard!” and then it will be dismissed as a “L2P” issue.
If you want to read more about this, here is where I got the information from:
Sadly, a lot of discussion about this is being buried by other issues.
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
I haven’t gotten my new character all the way through to be aware of all the changes, so I apologize for that. What skills are still locked at level 20? I remember before the update your elite skill was still locked until level 30 anyway.
The first trait is unlocked at 30. Elite Skills unlock at 40. The second utility unlocks at 24 and the third at 35. Elementalists unlock Earth Attunement at level 22.
Joining into a dungeon using the LFG should work like joining in with a party: Players should have the option to deny or accept them.
Opinions aside, there are some bold-faced objective problems that have surfaced from their questionable implementations of the NPE. For example: The “stat burst” and the “stat slump.”
- Stat Burst: With the original leveling system, players would receive a small amount of stats each time they leveled, which made their character slowly get stronger each level. With the NPE changes, after level 4 the player will received a large chunk (or “burst”) of stats every 6 levels. This was likely to make certain thresholds feel more rewarding and fun.
- Stat Slump: The problem is that the “stat burst” power did not come out of no where. The power is redistributed from prior levels. The result is that players feel weaker than they did before during certain windows of leveling. This is being remarked as the “stat slump”, which is typically 2 or 3 levels prior to each threshold.
- The problem: If a player tries to fight a creature 1 or 2 levels higher than themselves, the “stat slump” complicates things. A level 9 creature is more powerful than a level 8; but a level 9 player is not necessarily more powerful than a level 8 one. This is because the stats come in bursts for players, but gradually for monsters. As a result, players are reporting that certain Personal Story missions are feeling much harder than they used to. This is a result of the “stat slump”, which is effectively making players feel lower level than they actually are.
Furthermore, when a player levels up in an area they are downscaled in, there is a high chance they will actually become weaker. This is because downscaling will reduce their stats, and leveling up doesn’t necessarily increase them to offset it. While this has always been a possibility due to gear, it is now magnified due to base stats not increasing with each level.
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
So yeah, unless you can come up with an MMO more popular than World of Warcraft, I think we’re done here.
Oh so we’re appealing to popularity now, are we? I’m fine with this, actually. Did you know WoW went and revamped its leveling experience in the Cataclysm expansion and that expansion is touted as a failure primarily as a result of it? It ended up not bringing in new players as they expected.
For all of their billions-of-dollar success, Blizzard does not have unlimited labor and resources. Their focus on revamping their leveling process ended up hurting the quality and quantity of their raid content. Their first raids all had bosses that were buggy or easily exploited; their second raid had only seven bosses; and their final raid had most of the instance set in a zone from a previous expansion, with most bosses not using unique models.
ArenaNet is a much smaller company than Blizzard. However, they decided to revamp their leveling experience in less than two years after their launch; WoW did it six years after theirs. Just like WoW, revamping the leveling experience came at a cost to creating content for veteran players.
Did you know: Previously, when a player leveled, they would gain a small amount of stats every level; now you gain a lot every six levels starting with level four. This is what’s known as the “stat burst.”
These stats had to come from somewhere though. It isn’t a bonus; just a redistribution. It’s an illusion of “rewarding leveling” because the reward is denied and given later on. Players now experience another phenomena called a “stat slump” where they are the weakest a few levels prior to their “stat burst.” This has pretty severely compromised the leveling curve. Before, it was fine to tackle a creature one or two levels above you. However, if you try to do so now during a “stat slump” it can be the equivalent of fighting something 3-5 levels higher than you. This is why for some players there are Personal Story missions that seem much harder now than before.
Most of the changes made were done in haste. Don’t believe me? Did you know that bulk amounts of Apples and all sources of Green Beans were simply deleted from their game as they carelessly removed Karma items from the starting areas? This shows there wasn’t any system in place to even check once if there was any sort of consequence to their action. (Heaven forbid they try double-checking!) ArenaNet has become renown though for deleting things, like entire Personal Story chapters inexplicably.
New flash: Poll data is worse than looking over large sample sizes of metrics.
Plot twist: I think looking at metrics is stupid as well.
Point is a good solution does not ignore people, it considers them, and if at the end of the day everyone hates your solution, its not a success, even if you thought you had really good reasons.
If you look at that thread, it sure looks like pretty much everyone hated res-rushing being removed. Guess what? They were all wrong.
Take a look at this thread: Dungeon Patch Discussion 1/28
Wow look at all of those people upset! If only the designers listened to them! What a blunder! The thread is full of people complaining about them removing “res-rushing” in dungeons.
If this game was designed by the community, this garbage would still be in the game, where players throw themselves at bosses over and over again until it dies. Sometimes designers have to do what they think is right, even if many players disagree with it. If it pans out: Great. If it doesn’t: Learn from your mistake, and try something different. (Or hire a new designer)
The fallacy you are making is you think a popular decision is the correct decision. Most of the time it isn’t.
Good on never seeing the Tequatl revamp. I kittening hate that content. It used to be fun, now it’s just a big pain in the kitten and a constant frustration.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I am glad this game will not be designed democratically. Because people like this outnumber everyone else.
We’d just see completely stupid things like “OMG QUAGGEN PLAYABLE RACE!!! OMG SKRIT PLAYABLE RACE!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!”
But would you prefer a game designed such that it makes 80% of the people who play it disatisfied?
democracy may not be perfect, but leadership that enflames 80% of the people usually leads to revolution.
The best argument against large-scale democracy is just watching 2 minutes of Twitch Plays Pokemon.
If this game was designed democratically, we’d never see things like Liadri or the revamp to Tequatl and the Crown Pavilion.
If you want to change the game, then enter the gaming industry and become a designer. This might come as a shock to you, but It takes more than just having an opinion and clicking on a poll to actually make a good game.
The last thing I’d want is a game designed democratically.
Siege Disabler can be projectile block and reflected. If you Swirling Wind right next to a gate and someone tries to toss a disabler against it, then it will absorb it. We have knee-jerk reactions, everyone should try to counter it and let it settle down for a while.
Apologises we didn’t realise you owned dungeons.
The amount of ignorance you emit is painful to read. Are you really suggesting that a pair of players has the right to join a dungeon in progress and then purge the group of its players because it belongs to “no one”?
In actually good games, this kind of behavior is called griefing and offending players are harshly penalized. People are afraid to grief in other games – good games – because there are actual consequences to their actions.
What a surprise – they aren’t afraid to do so in Guild Wars 2.
Listing a group on the LFG tool is opening it up to a public realm and you do so at your own risk.
Customer Service will not be able to support any interactions that involves group formation politics.
So you saying players listing a party in the LFG resulting in two griefers kicking the entire group is a “risk” they took? And no consequences will befall those that do this?
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
It’s not hard to say at all. We had a couple devs saying it over the last few weeks. Chris was kind enough to give us the truth, that they just don’t give a kitten.
My issue is that they are obfuscating the issue by focusing on the gold transaction part of this, which is just intellectually dishonest.
If they don’t take a heavy hand when dealing with griefing, then malicious players will abuse it until they actually get burnt. Either (1) take steps to systematically punish all players griefing, or (2) make the punishment extremely severe when they are caught. (such as: a permanent ban)
This is a good way to interpret what I said.
Edit: ^lol interoperate, thanks auto correct
The issue here is that players are kicking others maliciously and selfishly. How can this not be considered anything less than griefing? Is it really that hard to say, “We take griefing very seriously and the offending players will be punished as severely as possible.”
This same situation can and has happened when a party is looking for more to fill their group, and then gets kicked by two who then join in.
(edited by Nokaru.7831)
Goodbye :<
There are people who don’t know that you can trade gems for gold. Gold seller prey on this ignorance. This button being there is a good thing.