^^ Exactly why Ohoni’s idea of having people farm their T6 mats instead of buying won’t work. Under a scheme where the unique element of crafting a legendary is NOT the boundary to ownership, then something else becomes that boundary. Anet would basically have to increase all other mats orders of magnitude. That’s not to ensure it stays cheap, that’s to ensure that all the other items like armor, etc… stay within a reasonable range of purchase price for entry level players.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
He’s not implying they are a gemstore item.
Nowhere … I didn’t accuse you saying you wanted precursors for free. I used an extreme example there. In no way should Anet reduce ANY of their valuations just because of some perceptions players have of the state of the game. THAT is nonsense. There is NO link to reducing people’s concerns over the game state and selling something for less or cheap.
There is a VERY clear goal for precursors because there is a market value attached to them.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Thanks for agreeing with me that right now forging precursors is cost intensive.
That was never in doubt by anyone, the point is that it doesn’t have to be.
Right now, you can pay 100 bucks for gems to buy a precursor.
Give me 1 reason why Anet should devaluate their product just because they have the posibility to do so?For their reputation. I myself don’t buy any gems because I think their game is, at its current state, not worth my money and I’ve seen dozen of threads with many players claiming the same. And the acquisition of precursors isn’t exactly a poster child for this game.
It’s not that it should be particulary easy, but a clear goal rather than just a RNG chance would be cool.
No, that would actually damage their reputation. There is a very real effect where people associate quality with value. If Anet were just giving away stuff for almost nothing after the valuation they have put on their items, I would have VERY real concerns about the state of the game.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
How on earth does actual costs of production compare to game where there is no such thing?
You’re taking his example too literally. He’s not making a 1:1 comparison. His point is simple. People want luxury goods for cheap and it’s because they don’t understand how stuff is valued.
Can I claim a charitable donation if I buy gems? This is a not-for-profit organization right?
There isn’t anything crocky about it. The comparison makes sense regardless of the item is virtual or physical. The desire to own something expensive is the same.
MF doesn’t work if you’re expectations for how it should work isn’t how it works. Make sense?
magic find is supposed to be a stat that increases your odds of getting good stuff. But the game is changing so less and less stuff comes from enemies.
Hence magic find is becoming a more and more useless stat. It would be fine if only certain goods were not involved. But more and more often we see monsters with no drops.-also i think the bag versus magic find thing was a system created for a different time. Its an issue, but so far it still has use.
That just depends on the content being done. MF still works, it’s just not working on the things people want it to work on … hence my statement. For the content I do, MF is amazing and has a noticeable impact to my earnings.
Illogical or not, it’s the way it works. This is not debatable. Anyone that understands how players are rewarded in this game would not make such a remark. The random nature of loot distribution ensures that there are very few opportunities in this game to target and farm a specific material or specific level of material. Even in the instances where their is a target for specific mats, that doesn’t change the fact that it is not more efficient to farm them than it is to farm gold and buy them.
Should it be different? Maybe … that’s a different thread though.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Yes, would be nice to have a ‘switch’ to change fields but then the hammer would be OPed. That’s more of a field issue, not a Hammer one.
I think your ridiculous. You complain about getting ‘robbed’ because you used a risky method to sell your stuff, then QQ about taxes on the safest way to sell your goods in the game.
MF doesn’t work if you’re expectations for how it should work isn’t how it works. Make sense?
Most? Perhaps you should look at the actual items that you need before making that claim and using it as an argument.
I have, and it remains true.
How do you figure that?
Because it’s easier to farm for the non-Pre ingredients of a high-demand Legendary than it is to farm for the pre, I don’t know how to explain it better than that. Why does this confuse you?
Why? because it’s easier to make money that it is to farm targetted materials … money comes from doing anything AND selling materials you don’t need, which you would have in way more abundance than the equivalent value of targetted ones you are after.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Yeah I think there is a little of “if it’s not in the 99% of awesome, it’s crap” going on in the thread. Is everyone actually aware of how much damage a hammer does in 5/5/0/4/0 setup? It’s one of the highest if you aren’t swapping weapons. I’m assuming we aren’t debating the usefulness of hammer in WvW here.
AA chain is slow but … balanced for what you get from hammer. My big issue with hammer is how situational the other skills are. i.e. it’s a pretty boring weapon.
Even if it became impossible to buy T6 mats on the TP, it would still be easier to farm for those than to get a high-end Precursor at current prices.
How do you figure that?
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Really? And in what way would you be unable to play the game if there were a complete economic collapse? Which activities would be impossible for you without a functional economy?
I like the irony of your question: a great example being the exact thing you claim it would fix. Crafting legendaries
Perhaps so, but then how can you claim for a fact that the existing economic meta is more important to the average player than better legendary availability? You’d have to at least poll the population to get data on that.
I don’t claim it and no poll is necessary. The game is not a democracy. Anet will implement what they feel is best for the game. If they thought more legendaries were more important than the economy, then you have to ask yourself why they don’t have a legendary dev instead of an economy dev … and similar questions like that. The answer is pretty obvious for people with their heads in open air. This is a consumer product; your ‘vote’ is how much you patronize Anet playing the game.
Just because you define the game as getting a legendary, that’s not any more true than someone that defines the economy as the game.
Well, if you’re going to go that route, there is a badge on the character select screen for having earned a Legendary, none for having made a lot of money. There is an achievement for earning 5 of the Legendaries, and another for having two of the same type, while the only achievement directly tied to gold maxes out at 200g, less than 1/5th of one Dawn. There’s another to purchase armors, but that’s only 128g, so 328g total to max out the money achievements.
Achievements and starting screens are not indicative of the rank of importance that Anet places on elements of the game … and in fact there IS an achievement for earning money BTW … so get your facts straight.
The bottom line is that the economy has to ‘work’ in order for the game to work. It’s not something that you seem to think can be ignored or sacrificed at the expense of players’ whims. ON the other hand, legendaries do not affect how the game works at all. They could be removed and it wouldn’t impact game play. The fact you compare the importance of the economy to legendaries indicates how little you seem to understand about the mechanics of the game.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I have no doubt that the changes I suggest would have economic impacts, and correcting for those might involve work on their end, but at the end of the day, this game is far bigger than the economy, the economy is only a small portion of it, and the game as a whole takes priority, the economy has to figure out its place in that whole.
While the game is bigger than the economy, Legendaries are no more ‘the game’ than the economy is. Just because you define the game as getting a legendary, that’s not any more true than someone that defines the economy as the game. Therefore to change one at the expense of the other and claim it’s what is good for the game is nonsense.
Also, JS rightly identifies the economy as PART of the game. Your accusation that he’s too focused on the economy to make his opinion matter beyond it is also nonsense.
Wait a minute … you mean this game isn’t just a big experiment in philanthropy? OMG!
Nothing I’ve talked about has been out of line with changes they’ve already made to the game, or impossible to implement while keeping the economy as stable as it has been overall.
You suggested Anet should allow for disorder in the market and that players would just ride out any chaos that ensues in the market from increasing precursors and mats to appease their desire for legendaries. That is completely out of line with changes Anet have made in the game and market stability. Implying it’s not is just foolish.
While that might be like the word of god to you, it doesn’t necessarily mean that to everyone. To some it’s just his opinion, just like you have yours and I have mine.
Considering he has his finger on the pulse of the economy in this game, his opinion is as close to The Word as we are going to get.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I think the trade off between cast time and recharge is quite well balanced. I don’t think any changes to the symbol would encourage more use than it is now. It’s hammer-light and until healing is more of a ‘thing’ in PVE, it simply won’t get used more often than it is now, regardless of cast times, etc…
Maybe if symbols got some cool PVE-related traits, Mace would be more popular.
I would expand it with an additional concept that would be much more self focused. Heck, I could even imagine that it would diminish or deplete other people’s powers to enhance their own.
To be fair, with you involved, it’s not really a discussion. You’re simply imagining scenarios not likely to happen for the reasons we’ve discussed. Your position is so far fetched based on the current values that Anet expresses and exhibits through their development of the game that it’s simply not worth considering anything you have to say beyond a purely hypothetical, academic discussion.
No one here is really mocking you but I think it is clear that it’s hard to respect what your saying because it’s so hypothetical. There is no value in discussing a scenario where Anet embraces anarchy for the markets and that then this would naturally allow everyone to somehow obtain cheap mats and precursors to make all the legendaries they feel entitled to own. Why? Because they DON’T embrace anarchy in the market. It’s like you don’t even play this game, which I seriously question more and more as I read your posts.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Yeah it’s like that hell freezes over thing … physically, there is actually a non-zero chance it could happen but I don’t think anyone is betting on it.
Anet could decide that they no longer value stability in the market and implement precursors/legendaries for the masses. Based on what they say, how the game operates and some other factors, it’s just as likely as Skating on the Hades. It’s just obtuse to make an argument for a change with the premise that a controlling body will completely go against their values to make that change. It’s simply nonsense.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I’m aware that they have an economist on staff, but still, the game’s economy exists in service of the players, not the other way around, so if someone up the chain says “ok, they’ve suffered enough, let’s give them more Precursors,” then it’s not the economist’s job to tell him “no,” (or at least it shouldn’t be), it should be the economist’s job to say ok, if we’re going to do that, then here is the best possible route that would fulfill that goal with the minimal stress to the economy. Look at Ascended crafting and account bound dyes as an example of this principle in action.
That’s a nice story … that doesn’t change the fact that Anet isn’t going to purposefully introduce anarchy into the market to appease players when they dedicate specific and valued resources to ensure destabilizing effects on the market are avoided and minimized.
The economy is not the game. Many of the issues around this sub-forum stem from a misunderstanding of that fact.
Funny, the exact same thing can be said about legendaries.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
There is evidence that they do listen, they have changed numerous other areas of the game as they’ve gone.
They will listen if the ideas don’t directly oppose their goals and values. They strive to minimize the impact game changes have on market stability. Your suggesting they do whatever is necessary to appease players regardless of consequence to the market stability … it’s completely obtuse.
It would be like pushing for democracy in N Korea.
How awful.
That’s another obtuse answer. My point is that it’s simply not going to happen by the powers that be … just like current Anet isn’t going to allow anarchy to reign in a segment of the game where they value stability. Do you even realize they have hired well educated and knowledgeable staff to simply monitor the economy and suggest adjustments to minimize instabilities? All the signs are there, you just ignore them thinking there is a chance in hell someone at Anet listens to you.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Well when I saw videos of the Guardian reveal before launch the concept was really cool. You had these huge glowy weapons that followed you and devastated your foes. You had this awesome attack with your sword that sent out a wave of death in front of you. You had an awesome looking shield that not only looked amazing but seemed to offer tons of playability.
No one said hey your spirit weapons will disappear after a few moments or be killed in 1 hit. No one said your sword 3 rooted you in spot and was easily dodgable. No one said your shield was perhaps the worst offhand in the game. Seems pretty misleading.
What I am currently playing doesn’t seem like the class I signed up for. Nor do the concept videos say ‘You can buff your friends with marginal spells so they can have fun.’
Nor do they say ‘You can move really slow so that people with the right spec can fight you can kill you at will, but you will never be able to do the same.’
That’s a very fair complaint … I don’t feel Anet does a good job being explicit about what players can expect when choosing a class. For me that’s the biggest problem because if I knew up front how the Guardian plays out based on what the devs think it should be, I probably wouldn’t have ’main’ed as a Guardian; issues about what the class doesn’t do become irrelevant. The other problem is that PVE doesn’t even prepare players for that, along with other things like dungeons, etc…
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Just to be clear, what I’m saying is simply my interpretation of the messaging that Anet has been putting out, primarily based on the Ready Up where they spoke about class balance. My interpretation could be wrong but I haven’t seen anyone really have their own interpretation of what was said there either.
I agree with that 100% … if the devs are so focused on giving us stuff to fill our role, why bother with alternate specs? This just comes full circle to what I’ve already said .. is there something lacking in the concept for the class? I think there is.
But that’s not the only role a guardian can play. Meditation guardians play a completely different way than a support guardian. Where sticking to your target to put melee pressure is crucial. You can’t just sit in the middle of a point spamming 1 on staff. Fundamentally they play completely different, and with that they have different needs.
True, but team support is the role the class was designed to play and that’s why it’s such a focus of this discussion. You could decide to play another role but to claim the toolset is lacking because it’s necessary to fill that arbitrary role the class wasn’t designed for doesn’t make sense. That’s putting the cart in front of the horse.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
That’s just sensationalism … A medi or support build is not critically dependent on the runes so to make that statement just indicates your being disingenuous and just want to argue or not understanding the significance of the toolset has on any build you make. I don’t think anything being said can address either of those options.
If you have a valid reason for getting runspeed in the Guardian toolset, then please state it. If it makes some sense, then there is value in a discussion.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Not “ignored,” “fundamentally disagree with.” It’s Anet’s second most offbase public stance, right there behind “we refuse to talk about systems that haven’t been implemented yet.” If we aren’t willing to consider that ANEt might change their mind about things then why even bother participating on the forums. If everything they think is automatically the right call then the game would just work out without our involvement.
Nothing offbase about them supporting a system they designed and implemented. There is little point making suggestions that go completely against the things they value. They want market stability and your suggestion is to allow for complete chaos. It would be like pushing for democracy in N Korea. You don’t recognize there are suggestions that are simply unreasonable considering the statements we’ve already been given. Yours is one of them.
Fight moves on, you cant catch up, you cant support.
This really isn’t an issue because getting RS to avoid this is a build choice and every class has access to RS for whatever build they want to make. I’m pretty certain that’s why the runes exist; a few classes don’t have this in their toolset.
The real issue you have is why we can’t have RS as part of the Guardian toolset instead of runes. That’s been covered by the devs explanation of how the Guardian class concept works. I think it’s also part of the greater game approach; team co-operation is predominant so it’s not unreasonable to think that people organize to drop RS buffs for those that need it. In fact, this happens without organization. There are lots of angles that cover your concern without adding RS to the Guardian toolset directly.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Forget the runspeed … it’s a dead-end solution for engaging. It won’t be supported because it’s not key to the class concept. If someone has a REALLY awesome argument for how the class concept is insufficient to compete, that’s exactly what is needed to influence change.
So what is the class concept? Stand on a point till you die? IMHO that is a pretty stupid kitten concept to have.
I doubt very much that a 25% run speed trait/signet would help a lot but at least it would give you some options. It might even open up Med guardian as viable in the top meta. ATM it just can not rotate fast enough to be of use to top teams.
Maybe but it seems to be part of the concept the devs are pushing on us. Like I said in my post … if the concept can be demonstrated to be flawed/deficient, we might have some worthwhile case to push for a new direction.
While being a trait or signet are just more options, they would no doubt be as or more compromising to a build as having the rune set. Personally, I think the runes are the best option.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Let me try a different way … is there another issue people have with the class where a lack of runspeed is the symptom and not the illness? For me there is no argument; if the concept is team support, runspeed is not needed. So why does everyone want it?
I think the fundamental problem with the class is that supporting the team doesn’t have the same sort of direct feedback for player satisfaction like a class that instagibs someone or instaheals another player. It is pretty underwhelming to not know just how important supporting your team is; that measure isn’t as obvious to many players as killing someone. People think that their impact is more measureable with runspeed because they feel they can get in the fight more effectively with it. To some degree, they can, but it still doesn’t change that immeasurable ‘team support’ impact. Basically, people are re-inventing the class role because they don’t really get satisfaction and we know that runspeed can take this class part of the way through that transformation.
Forget the runspeed … it’s a dead-end solution for engaging. It won’t be supported because it’s not key to the class concept. If someone has a REALLY awesome argument for how the class concept is insufficient to compete, that’s exactly what is needed to influence change.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Phased out … that’s an interesting perspective. Are you suggesting that Guardian’s performance has actually dropped in PvP since the point they had lacked runspeed and that downgrade is an intentional move by Anet? I think that’s a difficult position to support; it would suggest that Guardians were actually better even without the runspeed in the past (which would challenge the whole notion it’s even needed now).
It’s my opinion that Guardians never had a very good source of selfbuffed runspeed, continue to fill the role Anet designed them for and that role is still very relevant. That doesn’t lead me to think the class is phasing out or that the ‘solution’ to whatever the problem is happens to be runspeed. I think we need a more fundamental range closer or grapple move but that’s not really the point.
edit: Gotta say, I’m giving you my best right now. If people think we need runspeed, the QQ about not having it after 2 years ain’t gonna do it. We’ve heard it, it’s been addressed. If it’s going to change, people need to think a little more about why we need it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I don’t believe that’s the case at all. As I’ve stated above, you can’t make a profession that’s slow, can’t control anything and has very little health all in one. It makes absolutely no sense. This is especially true if it’s a melee-centric profession.
Yet people use Guardians successfully in PVP … how can that be?
The thread itself is misleading … what is the actual complaint about if it’s not about having runspeed to choose engagement? If we don’t need runspeed, why complain we don’t have it? Is this one of those “players should get want they ask for, no matter what it is” threads?
Who says we dont need it? The complaint is that making a rune set mandatory kills our build diversity. This is nothing new, this has always been the complaint about us lacking said trait.
Again, these complaints have been addressed by Anet’s concept for the class. If you want to make a case for why runspeed is needed despite the fact it’s not inline with their concept, then it needs to consider how the concept doesn’t work in the game. That’s going to be a pretty hard thing to do considering Guardians are very good at the role they have been designed to fill and that role does have a noticeable impact on success.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
The thread itself is misleading … what is the actual complaint about if it’s not about having runspeed to choose engagement? If we don’t need runspeed, why complain we don’t have it? Is this one of those “players should get want they ask for, no matter what it is” threads?
This is wrong. Precursor availability is not more important than a core element of the game world.
No, but it is more important than the trading post. People around here insist that making precursors super-available would wreck the TP like Scarlet wrecked Lion’s Arch, and maybe they’re right, but even if they are right, it’s a change that needs to happen. Let the damage come, let the damage be repaired, we’ll move on.
That’s exactly why it won’t happen … while you may think this anarchist approach to the economy is OK because we will recover, it’s not the philosophy Anet has for it. Clearly, you have ignored the statements made by JS about how Anet values market stability and factored this into your thinking. This is why your position on the topic is considered to be a joke.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
@Obtena: If the Guardians aren’t supposed to do DPS, they should change all the traits and skills that don’t provide team support. There’s no point in allowing Meditation Guardians to be a viable build if that doesn’t fit the Guardian class concept.
You’re normally more intelligent than this. Do you really believe Guardians should only be allowed to be good at team support? That Guardians should only be allowed to be effective when they’re surrounded by allies?
And even if we grant your premise, we’d still need runspeed, because lagging behind your team isn’t going to give you the best chances to support them.
I didn’t say they shouldn’t do DPS… I said DPS is not a CONCEPT for a class in the sense that it’s a defining trait of what a class ‘does’. It’s like saying emotes is a class concept. Don’t read so much into what YOU think I think here. My perspective here is based on what Anet devs said about the concept of the Guardian class. That is all. It’s wholly irrelevant what I think this class should be; my point is simply that Guardians do not require runspeed to do what the devs intend for the concept of the class and that’s why we don’t have it (along with the fact that they already explained this). This isn’t meant to be an argument. I was under the impression the OP was legitimately unaware of why Guardians don’t have runspeed.
You’ve certainly put the support guardian on a pedestal Obtena. …
I’ve never understood why you’ve been so fixated on concept either. More than one class can do support well, why should that one class be limited to only support?
I’m not putting anything on a pedestal … it’s what Guardians are DESIGNED to do through Anet devs OWN admittance. I’m fixated on the concept because its the only thing relevant to how the class works and what it’s meant to be good at.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I see your business economy and raise you game design.
Game design doesn’t dictate it should rain endgame loot on players. In iether instance of economy or design, there isn’t a case to push for more accessible precursors, especially considering the long and short term consequences on the economy.
Besides, the whole point of this thread is that a legendary weapon is VERY accessible. There isn’t a cost barrier to it; it’s simply a matter of doing the work.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Both soft cc and mobility are sorely needed on a dps guardian.
Just playing Devil’s Advocate here …
1. What makes people think that DPS is part of the Guardian concept, or even that DPS is a conceptual ‘thing’ to begin with.
2. Even if it is a ‘thing’ why do players conclude runspeed is sorely needed for that concept?
My thinking on this is that the Guardian concept is simple … team support. From that sense, I can see why runspeed isn’t necessary for the class to fill its conceptual role … almost necessary to be relied on to be in immediate team vicinity. I don’t think that’s too far off what the devs are thinking here.
My thinking on Crowd Control is a little different though again, I can see why it’s not necessary. If you are a team supporting profession, it is your team that is a source of tools you might be deficient in.
Choosing a profession isn’t just about the idea of playing something that has pets or using bows. The concept of that class comes along with it. Better description of what a class does is where I think Anet needs to make better implementation for New Player Intro … which they haven’t.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
It’s not advisable to run the same build for those activities. They are fundamentally different. If you want to be decent at either, you should have specific builds for each. There is no reason not to since it’s free to reset your traits.
You have missed the devs talk about profession balance in the video about … 7 months ago? Devs were pretty clear in that video update about this. Ask all you want, it’s not happening. Guardian class concept is get in, stay in and be last out; Runspeed is not needed for that concept. No, I’m not just making this up. If I had the video link, I would post it so you could see for yourself. It’s also the same reason we don’t have strong ranged weapon.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Someone makes them so your whole post seems irrelevant.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I’m certain he was referring to relative demand. Even if he wasn’t, the devs have little reason to change demand anyways. This isn’t another debate about wanting cheap precursors … clearly this thread demonstrates they exist.
Okey from the preview skill changes the devs are rly rly ignoring the guardian pvp discussion wep skills acces and i find it near perfect ignorance towards the guardian shield skills and now engy and warr share a same skill use,
the bane signet (do enyone of you use it ever at that colld ?)
mace + warr
non guard
a small good news we get ,,Retreat reduced from 60s to 40s’’ good ?
I would really want to get a vip preview on the skill changes(guardian) to start crying till the changes patch are up
You came to these conclusion based on two skills getting an improvement? I would say you jumped the Grand Canyon to get to it.
Guardians are well balanced over a wide range of game elements. I think the primary issue is we don’t get much variation over the things we are good at so play is predictable, stale, etc…
What do you mean by bad mobility? A 5 Guardian team could have all the stability and speed they could possibly want. Guardians supporting other Guardians in a team … probably one the most solid makeups you could ask for, even with a lack of ranged damage.
The only weakness I see in the class that can’t be addressed with numbers is a lack of stackable damage conditions against a strongly bunkered team.