Guild Wars 2

Nick.6972:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but, doesn’t less farming places/methods equate to lower gold/gem conversion rate?
Less gold, less gems bought, gems cost less.

I do not see that as the desired outcome. I have not run the theory explicitly, but my instincts reject a lower gem cost as the desired or even necessary outcome.

John Smith?

when I apply this analog to the Tyrian economic ecosystem rationale (all kittens can chase and catch the Legend of Lazer pointing):

Arbitrated Competition is to The Economic Ecosystem
as
AC Bias is to The Recording, Transmission, and Playback of Music

i see the obvious lack of a playable DC economic signal

edited for clarity

For me, an interesting part of the ‘index discussion’ is that we technically don’t need an index. Because we can view the Tyrian economic ecosystem from the outside, we can measure system totals for available currency and workload. When John Smith says inflation is not a critically dangerous issue for Tyria, I do believe him.

Only players need an index, a way of measuring the efficiency of ‘their’ currency. When measuring the efficiency of our currency holdings, should we ignore the fact that our currencies have native efficiency when finding parity with workload?

edit:
I think current Precusor pricing demonstrates the compounding effects of low supply/high demand and a maturing (amount and efficiency of application) supply of Tyrian gold. I see Precursors selectively saving the effects of inflation over deflation.

When considering the accuracy of this statement; keep in mind, that we want Tyria to offer us Legend and we are responsible for nurturing that Legend.

There is a vast difference between pointing to a dictionary and writing a book.

John Smith describes how to build an index when measuring the effects of a single currency economic ecosystem. Tyria employs a triple currency economic ecosystem.
In the quote you posted, John Smith is not describing the Tyrian economic ecosystem.

An index discovers where and how a currency behaves most efficiently. Tyrian Karma is most efficiently used to cover the workload of everyday needful things in Tyria up to and including Exotic level gear. Tyrian Gold is most efficiently used to cover the workload of luxury goods.

edit.

The principle difference between single and multi-currency economic ecosystems is the effect of selection bias when calculating and applying competitive currency efficiency.

Ayrilana.1396:

Psientist.6437:

‘Yachts, mansions, Bugatti’s, Louis Vuitton purses, and so on’ are not Tyrian system rational equivalents to Precursors.

SNIP!

edited for syntax
edit The work load we would generally index for a single currency rational system would find parity with Tyrian Karma.

No.

Please show your work behind that ‘No.’

Will an ‘economic ecosystem’ using one currency express the same ‘currency valuation landscape’ as an ‘economic ecosystem’ using 3 currencies?

While Baseball and American Football share the common definitions of physics (gravity, motion, etc), they express very different scoring landscapes.

Your proof for that ‘no’ will demonstrate how to score a touchdown on a baseball diamond.

Ayrilana,

Rationality is a very abstract concept and definitions (analogies) for it are treacherous. A good start would be to define rationality as remaining system rational. When presented with two systems be sure the systems are similar before using ‘how something works in one system’ as ‘how something works in all systems’.

a treacherous analogy applied to the Tyrian/Earth supersystem

Tyria is to Earth
as
Player is to State
as
Precursor is to plutonium

It would be easier to answer what a mirror is to a kitten than answer what luxury in Tyria is,

‘Yachts, mansions, Bugatti’s, Louis Vuitton purses, and so on’ are not Tyrian system rational equivalents to Precursors.

You make Bugattis out of Yugos with information not work.

In Tyria everyone has access to all the supply lines, material and information,for Real World rational luxury goods equivilant to a national space program. Tyrians just need to pay or pedal. Which is awesome, Thank you Tyria.

The work load we would generally index for a single currency rational system would be indexed against karma in Tyria.

Again, Thank you Tyria

edited for syntax
edit The work load we would generally index for a single currency rational system would find parity with Tyrian Karma.

John Smith.4610:

LordByron.8369:

You are wrong.
There are some reasons why inflation coesn t take in account value of alpacas in France.

For the same reason should not take in account all the stuff that has almost no (real) demand.

While T6, Precursors, lodestones, gems, etc etc etc should be the best indicators.

@Wanze… i won t answer since i don t find most of your comments “useful”.

First off, there is a huge amount of demand for alpacas, they’re pretty awesome.

Short and sweet:
If you think inflation is a major issue in Guild Wars 2, you should do more research on MMO economies and general economics.

When applied to economic ecosystems, the terms ‘inflation’ and ‘deflation’ apply to the direction in change of state of the system parity between available currency and energy available to do work.

I am going to use analogies to demonstrate currency at work. Analogies can not be complete descriptions of complex abstract systems and should always be approached defensively.

Currency is to an economic ecosystem
as
Electron Flow is to the real world electric grid, from power plant to toaster

The analog is true enough to demonstrate the role of inflation. If power plants decreased the output of electrons, work would slow down.

Real world economies struggle to maintain an efficient work slope for system parity and the will to work is provided by just humans.

How would Valhalla handle currency when every deceased Viking gains access to pedal and coin powered Star Trek replicators?

None of what I said changes the truth that a system rational Tyrian gold is a luxury currency and Precursors are a good index for Tyrian gold.

The price of Precursors describe the nature and nurture of luxury.

opened edit but made no changes

Bombsaway.7198:

John:

Let me respectfully call you out on your answer as being well intentioned but IMHO misguided. Without getting into a credentialing match, I think both of us have had our share of economics, analytics and theoretical modeling. I am shall we say amazed by your answer.

I struggle with your answers as if somehow an MMO can be looked at as an economy when there are no actual limitations (you can simply change them on a moment’s notice by whatever delta of change your choose). Hence, the economy is less economic and more of a loyalty tool (a sophisticated CRM if you will).

Indeed, CRM/loyalty is the only purpose of that “economy”.

This is why I find your posts utterly frustrating, because they warp the economics of a real resource constrained system with a game that has no such restrictions. In doing so, you focus on somewhat senseless charts versus gamer expectation, perception and ultimately interest which is a far better measure of if the “economy” is working.

In short, this quest for “efficiency” is meaningless despite its “correlation” to economic theory IF it doesn’t accomplish the goal of loyalty/fun/name it what you will. The only thing the economic model can do (if well marketed) is create a “sense” of fairness.

The perception of inflation is more important than the reality in an MMO. The segmentation of that perception of inflation if it leads to a frustration or a “I can’t progress” attitude won’t change because your charts say it is wrong. The net result is the same.

If the goal is to create a sense or perception of fairness, but increasingly there is a trouble or “sense” that the “economy” is “off” even if only to one or more key customer segmentations, the mission is a failure despite pie charts and line graphs.

You keep trying to prove things are not as they seem to the customer. I wish you would quit telling posters to “learn economics”. Trust someone who clearly has, you are chasing the wrong issue. You are using an unfamiliar language to most of your consumers of the game to mask a very simple consumer issue:

To many it simply feels, right or wrong, that the economy is “boxing them out”. “Proof” is not going to replace the need to fix the perception. I dare say the customer and OP is far more “right” than you are. In an MMO, it matters not if you are economically disenfranchised, it only matters if you feel disenfranchised.

In short, I would be very hesitant to jump in and alter the conversation that the OP had. The value is the discussion over whether the “economy” “feels fair or different” rather than overwhelming the poor OP telling him to learn economics which may truly stifle the very conversation as a consumerologist I would suggest ANET would definitely want.

You mean well. I hope you realize I do too with this post.

The symbiotic connection between morale and market can not exist without a rational economic ecosystem and I dare any economic ecosystem to not try being rational.

Talk about meaning too well

Astralporing.1957:

Mojo Gris Gris.5941:

Color me confused about one thing for sure. Why is this being implemented in cities at all?

To hide the fact that on lot of servers they are, let’s say… “suffering from low population problem”.

I believe the more accepted term is “population challenged”.

I wonder how the MegaServer will respond to 125-150 players from one guild counting down in voice then WPing into a zone? If the algorithm is designed to look for this it could also be designed to spawn a new map rather than using those guild members to fill up existing maps. Any players that lose their way could use the join function.

The current overflow spawn system is imperfect, the MegaServer is likely to be imperfect as well but still as game-able. My gut tells me we will discover a way for guilds to get a zone to themselves at the same extent we are able to now. Since we will be able to spawn mega super bosses at will, we also have more time to get the zone to our guildselves. Since bosses are now on a universal timer, there are now windows of time that zones will be scarcely populated, times they will be most susceptible to guild take over.

RoyHarmon.5398:

ExAstris.8527:

perilisk.1874:

Psientist.6437:

Based on my understanding of the MegaServer (all hail!), no one will earn influence in the zones being tested. This may lead to players actively avoiding low population zones. I understand the need to test the MegaServer feature before implementing mechanics that are based on the MegaServer, leaves you in a chicken and the egg situation.

Where did you hear that people wouldn’t earn influence in MegaServer maps?

I second. Source?

Due to the official statements that you’ll earn guild influence for the guild chapter on your home server, I’m also skeptical.
From the original blog post:

For players in guilds, the world your account uses as its home world is the same world that will receive your guild influence. That system has not changed (for now).

If it were a snake…..I was even looking just for that information.

I don’t think kill-credit duel results are random, just often decided by very slim margins. The algorithm, and the philosophy it justifies, must be very difficult to balance as well.

GW2 PvE is competitive. Before you reply that it is not, ask yourself whether some professions, stat combinations, weapon sets, and play styles have an earning (XP/loot) advantage during events.

Based on my understanding of the MegaServer (all hail!), no one will earn influence in the zones being tested. This may lead to players actively avoiding low population zones. I understand the need to test the MegaServer feature before implementing mechanics that are based on the MegaServer, leaves you in a chicken and the egg situation.

We are so getting news about guild influence and WvW bonuses for PvE within the next 2 days!

Skipping the process evolution is a sure sign that past process evolution CDIs worked! The proposal format and design philosophy statement help a lot. My only concern with the proposal format is that it doesn’t foster discussion within the thread, which could be seen as both positive and negative. Perhaps splitting discussion off into another sub-thread will continue to work as it did with the Ranger CDI.

I think a TP CDI would generate ideas, which is what the CDI is all about. However, a TP CDI could evolve/devolve into an Economy CDI which would cover just about everything in-game. Perhaps limit the discussion to TP features only?

I vote for a fishing CDI, because fishing.
Or
Mounted fishing!

TheQuacken.9548:

This is possibly the WORST thing to do! You will only have around 5% of you guildies in one map which means entire guilds will be torn apart just so PvE can be more active… Screw that, guild missions will now be stupidly hard to organise plus this doesn’t even balance out the WvW numbers problem so what is the point? You’re changing a system that me and many others have never encountered a problem with! I just hope when they implement it in the starter zones that they see how terrible the idea was before they ruin the PvE world and lose players!

Hello,

Think you misunderstand the the quoted +5% guild population per zone. Rather than limiting the population to 5% of one guild per zone, the Megaserver will get 5% more players from your guild into a zone. Of course that is only an estimate calculated from a player population interacting with the current system. When the Megaserver goes live player behavior will change and the percentage changes will likely change.

Following is not a response to TheQuacken.

One metric not listed in those probability changes is the probability of being on your home server. If population per zone increases by an average of 225%, then the number of active instances of a zone must decrease. This will raise the probability that players will be in zones not linked to their home servers.

I would expect to see changes announced over the next 2 days to how guild influence is awarded and to how WvW bonuses are applied to home servers.

Can’t remember where I saw it, but I remember something describing a tutorial system for the China release. That may be what “Foundations” covers.

Some other ideas…

YOLO:

Player and guild housing
Commander badge changes (leading into friendly play)
Guild Influence changes (leading to friendly play)
Fishing (because fishing)

FML

Now that we have all slots for Ascended covered (the Foundation) we get Legendary for all slots

Frustrating that the change to the Gift of Color recipe was not released at the same time as the new dye system. I wonder how much of the panic buying was from players crafting or expecting to craft GoF.

For the record I have not bought or sold any dyes since the blog post.

CC Danicia.1394:

Elysium.8703:

With the removal of Dye’s from the random drop table will there be any change to the requirement of 250 dyes for the Gift of Color?

Yes. We just received verification from Dev that we will be reducing the amount of unidentified dyes needed to 100.

This information would have had a tremendous impact on how the dye market responded to the new dye system. This information belongs on the blog post.

Hi Ravion,

While the threshold for XP and The Loots may be different, players would still need a way to measure whether they meet that threshold. If we don’t have an indicator such as earning XP, how would a player adjust their play style to maximize The Loots?

GROMIT,

I don’t know if you are new the game or not but what folks call tagging is more accurately described as kill credit dueling. To receive XP and qualify for a chance at loot, a player must do a certain share of damage and foes have only so many shares. The more players attacking a foe, the more competition for those shares. A low level or less well geared player can be shut out. Astral Projections advice is good advice and I would like to add another tip.

If you are participating in a group event, join or make a party. If members of a party attack the same foe, their damage is pooled more and they duel less.

Lilith Ajit.6173:

Tigerlily.3765:

I just wish, for the love of God, they has mentioned this so I didn’t throw out three stacks of the spinal shards because I did not want the backpeice. I mean come on .

I saw pictures of people destroying them, and i bet anet did to, so they coded this in real quick to giggle.

Sorry though! That stinks.

Isn’t that what everyone wants from a game developer, childish malevolence?

On a more serious note, why would they choose to end the first season of the LW with the planting of the gear gating seed?

DeWolfe.2174:

Firstly, going into L.A. again and again is farming. No matter if you are saving citizen’s, doing events, running heirlooms, or just sight seeing/afk.

It’s fairly simple to see why the animosity toward farming events has increased. In L.A. farmers are, by the design of the zone, a wall that blocks 1200 from occurring. You simply can’t have too many saving citizens for 1200 not to occur. But, you can have too many farming that will prevent 1200 from occurring. That is a serious design flaw imho. The other large issue is all of the rewards from saving is given to everyone else on map. If a global reward is to be given, all rewards need to be global. A global reward is an either or proposition. This mixed approach leads to a lot of bad feelings.

OT: A larger concern is that I have a deep suspicion that a percentage of the developers design with the intent to cause this bad blood between players. To troll us as hard as they can without being completely overt about it. As if it’s a design philosophy that if we’re malcontent, we’ll buy gems to make ourselves happy.

As much as I dislike the effects of RMT on GW2’s design, I think the last paragraph is unfair. Rather than supporting intentional monetized animosity; the pillars are broad enough, vague enough to support discordant content. In my opinion what we are seeing with the LA achievements and reward paths is the result of content designed by committee and built on an assembly line. Hopefully, a longer LW release cycle will translate into less dissonance.

Or do we not have the tools needed to cultivate emergent self-organization?

I think this LW season will end the same way most TV series end their season, on something of a cliff-hanger. We will defeat the Knights, capture Scarlett, and get a glimpse of what is under the drill. We may or may not be able to stop the drill, but we are likely unable to stop what Scarlett has set into motion.

Or…..Tyria is hollow and the drill pierces its shell, sending the planet deflating through space.

pswendel.8179:

Maybe each kind, but surely not every single one in the 40 minute evacuation. It’s a map wide effort.

The rally defense events are staggered so it is easy to go to every one of them.

OP I have gotten that event message as well but never the Triple Play achievement. I have also gotten the same event message even when there was a failed rally defense when I entered LA, which I think is linked to either a too slow or failed entrance into LA event. I am not sure what that event message is for.

DarcShriek.5829:

I tend to believe the heirlooms and supplies are with us until the 18th. The majority of the next update may occur primarily in the drill itself, which would leave LA relatively untouched.

It’s possible that the drill interior may be treated as a temporary dungeon. Of course it could be ToN redux. Either way, it would allow the current quests to continue much as the marionette did.

I agree with you. I do not think we will reclaim LA during the next update. Scarlett will find whatever it is she is drilling towards and it will be big. LA will likely not be ours for some time.

thefantasticg.3984:

Psientist.6437:

thefantasticg.3984:

Stus.5327:

Also to anybody complaining about the pet being removed I don’t see where this proposal says that the pets are gone. If you want the pet then just don’t stow it away. nobody is forcing you to not use your pet, it just gives people that don’t want it a viable option.

This. I don’t know why people who get all kitten about “removing” pets keep reading “removing” instead of “option to not use” which is CLEARLY spelled out REPEATEDLY meaning they can still use the band-aided pet if they want to. There is no reason the reason of the sane population that still have a Ranger should be forced to use a band-aided class mechanic as well. That goes to the “If I have to suffer you should too.” mentality.

With all due respect to Arghore or anyone else describing a permastow plus aspect buff, what they write is irrelevant. Arenanet will not support a profession with two distinct, mutually exclusive and equally complex profession mechanics.

They should support it since they aren’t going to support properly fixing the class mechanic… It’s not far off from initiative and steal for the thief. They’re pretty much equally complex profession mechanics. I think the initiative mechanic might be about a hair more complex than the steal, but that’s it.

To be clear, I am not arguing that pets function properly or are as functional in PvX as other profession mechanics. If the developers can not get pets to a point were they are as dependable and functional as other profession mechanics, then they should pursue evolving the Ranger’s profession mechanic.

Your comparison is flawed. The complexity of balancing Initiative + Steal = the complexity of balancing Pets or any other whole profession mechanic. The complexity of balancing two ant hills is not equivalent to the complexity of balancing two mountains. We have to be realistic and honest here; this is not an instance where we can have our cake (Pets) and eat it too (perma-stow Pets for a permanent aspect buff).

thefantasticg.3984:

Stus.5327:

Also to anybody complaining about the pet being removed I don’t see where this proposal says that the pets are gone. If you want the pet then just don’t stow it away. nobody is forcing you to not use your pet, it just gives people that don’t want it a viable option.

This. I don’t know why people who get all kitten about “removing” pets keep reading “removing” instead of “option to not use” which is CLEARLY spelled out REPEATEDLY meaning they can still use the band-aided pet if they want to. There is no reason the reason of the sane population that still have a Ranger should be forced to use a band-aided class mechanic as well. That goes to the “If I have to suffer you should too.” mentality.

With all due respect to Arghore or anyone else describing a permastow plus aspect buff, what they write is irrelevant. Arenanet will not support a profession with two distinct, mutually exclusive and equally complex profession mechanics.

Arghore,
BlaBla the green?!?! One moment while I suppress my nerdrage…….Radagast the Brown.
Just kidding……. mostly.

I am torn on the issue. Ranger pets are currently a 3 legged-blivet, depending how you look at them they never quite work. If the development team decides to pursue perma-stowing of pets, then they would indeed create a profession with 2 distinct profession mechanics. Is that fair to other professions? Would that be more work than fixing pet AI and evolving their function?

I think the aspect of the beast mechanic as you describe it would be the end of the end of the pet mechanic. As much as I find the dedicated pet class compelling, I have to admit that an Aspect of the Beast/Wild would better embody the trope ArenaNet is trying to capture.

Pet perma-stow and an aspect of the beast buff would effectively give the Ranger 2 profession mechanics.

I don’t think this solution would address Rangers being a selfish profession either. There is a Legolas quality to this solution.

That being said, an aspect of the beast buff does not have to be linked to pet perma-stow. It could be linked to (I hunt with 2 four-legged companions in the real world so this is uncomfortable to even say) ‘animal cruelty’.

Perhaps sending your pet into a downed state gives a limited duration aspect of the beast buff to the party or party equivalent.

I don’t think casual fishing would function within the densely populated zones of Tyria. If you consider WoW or LotRO casual fishing, you can’t ignore their less densely populated zones. Perhaps something more dynamic would work because those Coho Salmon need to be fished!

A rod and net as new weapons with full 5 slot skill bars?
The rod for fishing from the shore and a net for fishing underwater?
2H rod and net?
1H rod and net dual wielded?

Game Mode:
PvE

Goal of proposal:
To never hear "Rangers put your pet on passive’ again and that advice be sound advice. The Marionette Warden 2 encounter design made a passive pet arguably the most useful pet. Of course Pet AI should not be designed around one encounter but I think that encounter demonstrates the limitations of the binary on/off functionality of Pets.

Proposal Overview:
Expand Pet stances to include something like Passive, Active Offense, and Active Defense.
The Stance would determine how the Pet behaved and what its skill bar included.
The respective skill-bars could be completely different or versions of the same core skills.
Pet Attributes could also change according to the stance.
The choice of skill auto-cast should also be determined by the player.

Proposal Functionality:

If a Pet’s attack generated aggro threatens the success of an encounter or puts its life in too high jeopardy, then the player changes the pet’s stance without losing the benefits of the pet.

Associated Risks:

Increasing the effectiveness and number of bunker builds in PvP
I am sure there are plenty that I can not see.

I would suggest forming a group with other players who need the achievement. When you are in a group, your efforts are pooled and you are much more likely to get credit. I would also suggest keeping the path the ogres take as clear as possible prior to the event starting. This would limit the likelihood of you killing a foe that is not associated with the event.

If you kill a foe associated with the event, stay within the event area of effect, the event succeeds and you still do not get credit; file a bug/support ticket.

Nike.2631:

Because the level of flame-resistant protective gear required for a Dev to safely touch that topic requires longer to put on that the stuff the Devs hosting the other threads are wearing .

Thanks for the laugh and very likely true to a degree. I also suspect that they wanted to see how effective the proposal format would be in general. I have to say there is a marked increase in how organized contributions have been presented.

SirMoogie.9263:

The event could be fun if rewards were better designed. This has been a problem with GW 2 (perhaps MMOs as a whole) for quite some time. The rewards get in the way of the content and sometimes become the content. I was in Hooligan’s Route with a small party rescuing civilians and noticed several players were just running by. I took a good look around the cavern and soon found my answer. There is a rubble pile needed for an achievement (one I haven’t bothered with) that they run to instead of helping with civilian rescues. This was made worse by the fact that the cavern is filled with elites and veterans, and every time they ran by they would train the mobs on us just to get their precious achievement points. We wiped once due to this inconsiderate game play.

Kitten those players and kitten Arena Net for introducing achievements that actively encourages game play that hinders playing the encounter.

In a mmorpg, balancing group and individual reward objectives will always be challenging. I agree with you that the heirloom reward objective is out of balance.

Is someone who participates in only one really defense leeching off of someone who participates in every rally defense? They both get the Triple Play achievement. Same goes for Triple Threat.

What I see here and in LA mapchat isn’t a discussion about cooperating to achieve multiple objectives. It is a discussion about the primacy of someones favorite objective. Remove the Ultimate Civilian Bag, or even just remove the past LW rewards and very few people would focus on saving civilians.

The LA map is filled with overlapping objectives. To achieve as many of those objectives as possible, we must depend on others. Except for the players afking of course. Kitten them.

Perhaps the Ranger discussion could be staggered?

Phase one would be a discussion of strengths and weaknesses, phase two would be a discussion of ways to address those weaknesses. I don’t see a reason the phasing couldn’t happen within one thread either. It would just require us to stagger our input.

Lost Witch,

The format I described would be for the CDI thread itself.

Post 1 would be created by the thread owner, in the next round of CDIs the developers will own the threads and the folks best able to describe the design philosophy behind the existing content being discussed. For instance, Tyrian Rangers are not Tyrain Warriors burdened with a pet.

Post 2 would look a lot like the proposal format Chris Whiteside described in the first post of this thread. As players generated ideas about each heading, those ideas would be logged.

Posts 3-x would likely not happen for this next round of CDIs. I picture them being used in the future. They would be inserted after the thread had run its course and provide a way to measure popularity of ideas with up-voting.

I strongly disagree with anything that would cultivate bias, especially a unique icon for player posts. The reward of participation should be enough. The reward of playing content that we helped in designing should be enough. Please never reward players with anything more than a ‘shout out’. For instance, Kitten had a great idea about fishing and the game is better for including that idea.

edited post coffee for spelling and grammar

I did 3 runs yesterday, tried to get Triple Play and Trader’s Forum defense each run. On each run, when I entered LA immediately after succeeding the entry events, there was always one rally point already occupied by the enemy. I believe this is caused by entry events succeeding at different times due to different populations at each entry event. If the map is counting those auto occupied rally points as failed defenses then low population servers/ under-organized servers will have a difficult time getting Triple Play.

There may a design flaw in the event chain/ achievement interaction. The fact that overflows are not experiencing this could be evidence, since their spawn rules are likely different.

Lost Witch,

I think all of the above is the …‘easiest’ solution. If we converted your descriptions into a Venn diagram, all the descriptions would share a lot of overlap.

My suggestion would be to keep the summary format/style as plastic as possible, able to evolve to better fit the evolution of each CDI thread. This approach is more work, but I think more profitable.

My structural suggestions:

Post 1
Introduction to the topic and goal of the discussion. Most importantly, a description of the design philosophy behind the topic. (What is a Tyrian Ranger)

Post 2

A log effectively describing player generated ideas, with links to more detailed descriptions. The description should include pros and cons.

Posts 3-x

These depend on the tech behind the forum. These posts could be set up for one idea with pros and cons = one post. Forum participants who do not want to post an opinion can up vote the ideas they like the most.

timmyf.1490:

Instead of summaries, per se, what if Chris did something like this…

Topics/proposals that have seem to run their course:
<list with high-level “understanding” that was reached… e.g. Ranger sword autoattack is clunky and shouldn’t root you in place>

Topics/proposals that are interesting and could use more discussion:
<similar list as above>

Topics/proposals that aren’t being discussed that I’d like to introduce:
<list>

Instead of just giving us a “this is what you said,” it gives us closure on some items and provides a path forward for the next 3 pages (and beyond.)

From my understanding, ‘high-level of understanding’ is the widget the CDI produces, NOT content changes. Content changes may be a byproduct of that widget. The summary is the general form of the widget.

From my perspective, the weight of demonstrating a high level of understanding falls on the developer. The forum will never lack for players trying to demonstrate a high level of understanding. The developers, being of one voice, also have an easier time demonstrating a high level of understanding.

The principal con to having the devs compile the summary, imo, is that it opens them up to accusations of not understanding or caring when there is a delay in updating the summary.

Placing the summary as the second post was brought up in the past process evolution threads. I would consider using that idea just as a test of the effectiveness. Updates to the summary would need to be time stamped.

I think the responsibility of summary should tend to fall towards the owner of the thread. Maintaining an unbiased summary is work and demonstrates a commitment to the topic.

Perhaps the format could be used as a template for the summary and adjusted if needed.

Do we know if the events outside LA affect the spawning of Rally Point Defend events? I did two today and it took us a while to get into LA.

I wonder about this as well. Many people died fighting for their lives, fighting to defend the lives of others. If heroes are measured with dead villains, and villains are in turn measured with dead civilians and innocents,…then heroes can measure themselves against dead civilians and dead innocents as well.

I think a funeral fits an evolving world and could be designed celebrating compassion and valor. Recognizing the efforts and sacrifices of the NPCs would strengthen the principle pillar of a living world; that the story is the world’s story.

Perhaps an escort event that starts from each Vigil entry point and progresses along the roads towards their respective headquarters. Players defend the funeral progression collecting rewards towards memorializing the fallen.

The size of the memorial could vary (Order, Race, Lion Guard) or be a single server wide memorial.

How the rewards are collected is very flexible. I would love to participate in an event where participating changed all the items I received in the zone into a currency I could only apply to the memorial.

I think using the format will make up-voting more valuable a metric. Perhaps a note encouraging up-voting proposals before or instead of posting.

The format may increases the opportunity to engage in quote combat. Perhaps quote combat is grounds for post removal.

The format will also speed up the discovery of good ideas. Will we continue to use a summary every 3 pages and if so, who is responsible for compiling? The players or the development team?

Thank you

IndigoSundown.5419:

Psientist.6437:

Todd.8162:

It’s the perfect response to having your home, your family and your life destroyed in fire by an army of creatures.

We like our tea & cookies North American lifestyle, believing that we’re better because we’ve read a good book. But when the zombies come up from the sewers and you’re having philosophical debates with yourself, the barrel of my gun will already by hot from pointing it at the face of everything that comes near my home and doesn’t look like me.

Sublimated sociapathy at it’s ugliest.

Not sure, here. Either this poster should learn to spell the psychological maladjustment he is alluding to (sociopathy) or he has invented a new one — involving apathy towards society.

To butcher/paraphrase the rhyme…..

“for want of a letter the point was lost”

I think there is a vast difference between accurately identifying the “Other” threat and responding to that threat and proactively identifying the “Other” as a threat. The former is described in Kevin Costner’s monologue after defending the First Nation village with which he was aligned. The latter is described by World War 2 Axis power rhetoric. Zombification is the latter. It is a fantasy used to make everyone, including those in your immediate social group, a potential threat.

In general the strategy the quote describes can backfire, by causing group A to attack another group that could destroy them or for group A to over extend themselves in the defense.

Specific to this NPC’s dialogue….
Think the line is intended to demonstrate his personality and not intended to condemn or celebrate the strategy.

Meadfreek, did you successfully complete the escort events associated with those 2 vendors? I believe the recipes only appear after a player has completed them.

The recipes requirements strike me as excessive as well, but do fall within Arenanet’s inflationary model for crafting.

Todd.8162:

It’s the perfect response to having your home, your family and your life destroyed in fire by an army of creatures.

We like our tea & cookies North American lifestyle, believing that we’re better because we’ve read a good book. But when the zombies come up from the sewers and you’re having philosophical debates with yourself, the barrel of my gun will already by hot from pointing it at the face of everything that comes near my home and doesn’t look like me.

Sublimated sociapathy at it’s ugliest.

Traveller.7496:

Anka.3675:

Getting credit for the escort events seems rather flukey. Does it only count if you get the killing blow? Seems to me that that needs to be reworkd. I’ve done (or rather, tried to do) all the escorts save the moas, have tried to make sure I killed at least something, and have yet to get credit for even one. That is rather uninspiring.

This. I have failed to get credit for lighthouse escort twice while it succeeded but just didn’t get it. One time I was downed and the other I was fighting the whole time and damaged mobs everywhere, but nothing.

Also, for the Aetherblade elites, I believe you have to tag all five to get credit. So unless you’re camping the area when they appear, forget it. Maybe make them champs or something, or make it so you just have to tag maybe one.

I’ve run into this problem as well. I am not certain if the foe you attack has to eventually die or if I am just not doing enough damage or if it is a bug. Perhaps we need to get xp to pass the participation gating. If that is the case, most foes for moa escort don’t die because it moves so quickly. As well, there is the problem of foes that are not spawned as part of the escort but are simply along the path. It would be easy to get xp for killing one of them and not pass the participation gate.

I like the content, just think it is straining the scaling mechanics and dead foe credit dueling.