It’s surprising to me that people frame this as a trust issue. I’m pretty nimble intellectually, but just can’t do the gymnastics to get there. The issue that first came up for me when I first saw them was “these things better go away when the fight starts”. It was a brief moment of clutter-rage.
I think it’s great when Anet let’s customers know, through fairly innocuous gifts, that they are appreciated. I feel appreciated and it just makes me want to support them more. I don’t go to the question of how much to give them in order to get something. It’s not an accounting-based relationship. I simply appreciate their appreciation.
I’m saying you’re using a word that guarantees some people will interpret it differently than you’re using it. That makes it ambiguous.
I’m not arguing with the English language. The English language didn’t choose the word. Obviously you’re free to use any word you want. I know when I use a word that’s guarantee to be interpreted differently by too large a percentage of the people, I change the word because getting my point across is important to me. That comes from years of writing and working with writers. We have to change words all the time, even words we’re particularly attached to.
If you want to call a statement a promise, go right ahead. But in my mind and the minds of many, a promise is more than just a statement. In communication, nuance is everything.
In communication, clarity is everything. When I used the word and saw that you didn’t understand what it meant, I provided the definition. In providing you the definition, I excluded ambiguity. I don’t want to call a statement a promise. I want to understand what it is to make a promise.
When the question arises as to whether a promise was made, I first want to make sure I understand what a promise is. Not what shades of meaning it might take on at the fringes of its semantic range or the many ways it might be interpreted. Once the nature of a promise is understood, I will apply it to the question at hand and if there is an indication of misunderstanding or ambiguity I will provide the common, conventional, plain meaning of the word and at once exclude the possibility of misinterpretation.
So, bottom line, I choose to call a promise a promise. In most contexts this is acceptable behavior—it’s always risky in the forums it seems.
(edited by Raine.1394)
@Raine reguarding the word promise
The dictionary definitions have nothing to do with how words are used by people in the real world. There are tons of examples, not a few but literally tons I could bring up that come from years of editing.
When you say to a kid I’m going to do this, what does the kid say? Promise? If you don’t say it’s a promise, to a kid, it’s not a promise.
To put this into focus, according to theasaurus.com this is a list of words that might be used instead of promise:promise
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: give word that something will be done
Synonyms: accede, affiance, affirm, agree, answer for, assent, asservate, assure, bargain, betroth, bind, commit, compact, consent, contract, covenant, cross heart, declare, engage, ensure, espouse, guarantee, hock, insure, live up to, mortgage, obligate, pass, pawn, pledge, plight, profess, say so, secure, stipulate, string along, subscribe, swear, swear on bible, swear up and down, take an oath, undertake, underwrite, vouch, vow, warrant
Antonyms: break, renegeMany of the words listed here show the bias of how people interpret the word (rather than what the word actually means). Words like cross heart, guarantee, insure, pledge, profess, swear on bible, swear up and down, take an oath….
I agree you CAN use the word promise the way you’re using it, but those who are claiming Anet broke their promise…well you can’t break an intention. You can only break a guarantee or the OTHER type of promise.
Because of the ambiguousness of the word, using it plays into the multiple defintions of the word. Saying something and promising something, to many people, including me, have completely different implications.
So some people will read your words one way and some people (in my mind most) will read your words a different way.
If you’re trying to communicate, promise is too ambiguous a word to use.
Vayne, at this point, your argument is not with me, it’s with the English language. The word promise is not ambiguous, it’s straightforward. And, the reason I gave the definition, a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified, was to exclude ambiguity. I wanted you, and others, to understand exactly what I meant. And, of course, that wasn’t really difficult as you only needed to be able to define the word promise.
Look at your closing statement: “If you’re trying to communicate, promise is too ambiguous a word to use.”
You are actually suggesting that we exclude the word promise when we are trying to communicate. Why? Promise is a very important word. It’s the basis of our legal contracts. What happens in a legally binding contract? Parties exchange promises (what kind of promise? a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified), and in the US, consideration (money). If we were to exclude the concept of the promise from our lives, we couldn’t have contracts. Do you remember getting married? If it was at all traditional there was an exchange of promises. Were they anything but a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified? No they were exactly that, now with the force of a legally binding contract because of the context in which they were given.
No, I won’t remove the word promise from my vocabulary because you don’t understand what it means. It’s simply too important a word. I will give the definition periodically so that you have the opportunity to understand me if you wish.
I know you are a lover of the English language so I’ll give the first definition of PROMISE from merriam-webster.com:
a : a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified
If they say they are going to do something or not do something they have declared it. But if you are still in doubt, let me give you the first definition of DECLARE.
1: to make known formally, officially, or explicitly
Is the manifesto a legally binding contract that can never change? No, but it is a declaration of what they will do and what they will refrain from doing. And, that’s how it reads. The manifesto and associated marketing documents contain promises. What is my authority for believing so? A conventional understanding of the English language. Heck, if I tell you I will meet you for lunch, I consider that a promise. And, if I have to break it, I’ll call in advance and renegotiate a time.
I don’t know, we may have differing understandings of promise. I rely on the plain meaning that we hold conventionally.
I think most of us understand there is a context in which a “declaration of intent” constitutes a promise, and when it is simply a statement of someone’s thoughts or plans.
If you and I are out to breakfast and I say "I think I’ll have some OJ with breakfast’ only to when they waitress comes I say, “You know, coffee actually sounds good, I think I’ll have that to drink”, would I have broken a promise and lied to you? Most people understand that given the social context it would not be considered a lie. Sure I said one thing, then change my mind and did another, but people would not call it a promise or a lie. There was no intention to deceive, it was simply a change in plans for whatever the reason.
Saying I’m going to buy your lunch, then when the check arrives tell you that I actually have no money and you will need to pick up the check, would be a broken promise and a lie since there was a clear intent to deceive.
To answer your question as to whether you would have lied to me, no. And, I make no presuppositions about intent and especially no presuppositions about intent to deceive. My post above only concerns what constitutes a promise. I actually don’t believe that Anet lied when making pre-launch declarations of what the game would be about and what it would not be about. I believe that they felt they needed to change what they said the game would be about to meet what they saw as the demands of the player base. Many people immediately go to “they lied” when dealing with an unfulfilled promise. I don’t go there. I don’t believe they lied. But I do hold to a conventional understanding of the word promise in the context of the current discussion.
A promise, to most people, isn’t just saying you’re going to do something. A promise is a guarantee of you doing something.
If I tell my wife, I’m going to put up the dishes and I get distracted, I didn’t promise her I’d put up the dishes. The casual nature of what I said to her was understood that I’d do it assuming nothing else came up or I couldn’t get to it. She wouldn’t take it as a promise either.
But this is just a semantic conversation at this point. Because promise, whether you like it or not, means something more to a whole lot of people, so using the word promise compromises what you’re trying to say.
Breaking a promise is very different to most people than not doing something you said you were going to do.
It might not be to you,. but you’re not talking to yourself here.
No, a promise is what a promise is. It means what the definition of the word says it means. And, that’s why I used the dictionary definition. This isn’t a subjective question or one of semantics. I’m not talking to myself or from myself. I’m using English in its plain meaning. All words have a range of meaning, but there is no sense in which special guarantees are required to constitute a promise. If I say I am going to do something, I have made a promise to do something. How do I know that’s true? Not by what a lot of people around here believe is a promise, but by the dictionary definition of the word promise.
I do agree that most people tend to bring extra baggage to a discussion of what constitutes a promise. Lying for instance. I can certainly lie when making a promise, but that doesn’t make it a promise or not. It’s a separate issue.
I know you are a lover of the English language so I’ll give the first definition of PROMISE from merriam-webster.com:
a : a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified
If they say they are going to do something or not do something they have declared it. But if you are still in doubt, let me give you the first definition of DECLARE.
1: to make known formally, officially, or explicitly
Is the manifesto a legally binding contract that can never change? No, but it is a declaration of what they will do and what they will refrain from doing. And, that’s how it reads. The manifesto and associated marketing documents contain promises. What is my authority for believing so? A conventional understanding of the English language. Heck, if I tell you I will meet you for lunch, I consider that a promise. And, if I have to break it, I’ll call in advance and renegotiate a time.
I don’t know, we may have differing understandings of promise. I rely on the plain meaning that we hold conventionally.
I think most of us understand there is a context in which a “declaration of intent” constitutes a promise, and when it is simply a statement of someone’s thoughts or plans.
If you and I are out to breakfast and I say "I think I’ll have some OJ with breakfast’ only to when they waitress comes I say, “You know, coffee actually sounds good, I think I’ll have that to drink”, would I have broken a promise and lied to you? Most people understand that given the social context it would not be considered a lie. Sure I said one thing, then change my mind and did another, but people would not call it a promise or a lie. There was no intention to deceive, it was simply a change in plans for whatever the reason.
Saying I’m going to buy your lunch, then when the check arrives tell you that I actually have no money and you will need to pick up the check, would be a broken promise and a lie since there was a clear intent to deceive.
To answer your question as to whether you would have lied to me, no. And, I make no presuppositions about intent and especially no presuppositions about intent to deceive. My post above only concerns what constitutes a promise. I actually don’t believe that Anet lied when making pre-launch declarations of what the game would be about and what it would not be about. I believe that they felt they needed to change what they said the game would be about to meet what they saw as the demands of the player base. Many people immediately go to “they lied” when dealing with an unfulfilled promise. I don’t go there. I don’t believe they lied. But I do hold to a conventional understanding of the word promise in the context of the current discussion.
OP, if I thought all the future held was mini-game platformers I’d pull the plug now. And I think that the AP system introduced was important as an enhancement to perceived reward for play which was lacking in the game. I believe the next frontier for GW2 will be a move to focus on an evolving, permanent living world, which I think is the best thing they can do. It’s the alternative to the expansion, which I really don’t want. I don’t know their plans but Colin’s statements have contained enough to give me hope for the future of GW2. (Colin, correct me if I’m wrong.)
Did you follow any of ArenaNet’s statements before GW2 launched? They’ve backtracked on so many of them, their talk never matches their walk.
Anet made tens of thousands of statements before launch. The percentage they’ve “backtracked on” is neglible.
If that’s all you focus on, that’s fine. But to say that game developers who claim to have an iterative process might change things as they go…oh yeah, that’s right, they wrote whole articles about how they iterate and change things.
I guess that means that you CHOSE to listen to some things that were said while ignoring other things that were said.
Vayne, you didn’t even mention the irony in seeing me being educated on the fact that they’ve backtracked on promises. Just when you think you’ve built a solid reputation on the forums.
Backtracking on promises, overall, is negligible and nothing that should define Anet’s name. VP, in fact, is the only area i feel is worth continued comment. And, my thought there is only to work to eliminate it or minimize it. It would be a better game without it.
Anet didn’t backtrack on PROMISES. Anet said a few things which changed. I don’t understand how you can say a change is a promise. This is what I don’t get.
Every MMO makes changes. The try things, they don’t work, they try different things. They experiment. Something doesn’t work they modifiy it. Before launch they said they had energy and energy potions. They later ditched that.
But most people aren’t calling them on getting rid of energy potions. Why wasn’t that a promise?
Backtracking on a promise is simply hyperbole. Anet designed a game and during the design of that game they made sure everyone knew they were iterative. They said straight out there were times when they tried something and threw the whole thing away. Did you read that article? Did you see just how many articles Anet used the word Iterative and Iteration in? I even named a character Iteration, when the game first lauched, because my wife and I had a personal joke about them overusing the word.
So if I come to you and say I try all sorts of different things and then I change them…when I try different things and change them, I’m proving what I said.
You can use the word promise from today till doomsday but all Anet did was see what they thought worked. See what didn’t worked and make changes.
If you want to feel like a jilted lover over it, be my guest. It doesn’t change the reality of the situation.
I know you are a lover of the English language so I’ll give the first definition of PROMISE from merriam-webster.com:
a : a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified
If they say they are going to do something or not do something they have declared it. But if you are still in doubt, let me give you the first definition of DECLARE.
1: to make known formally, officially, or explicitly
Is the manifesto a legally binding contract that can never change? No, but it is a declaration of what they will do and what they will refrain from doing. And, that’s how it reads. The manifesto and associated marketing documents contain promises. What is my authority for believing so? A conventional understanding of the English language. Heck, if I tell you I will meet you for lunch, I consider that a promise. And, if I have to break it, I’ll call in advance and renegotiate a time.
I don’t know, we may have differing understandings of promise. I rely on the plain meaning that we hold conventionally.
(edited by Raine.1394)
OP, if I thought all the future held was mini-game platformers I’d pull the plug now. And I think that the AP system introduced was important as an enhancement to perceived reward for play which was lacking in the game. I believe the next frontier for GW2 will be a move to focus on an evolving, permanent living world, which I think is the best thing they can do. It’s the alternative to the expansion, which I really don’t want. I don’t know their plans but Colin’s statements have contained enough to give me hope for the future of GW2. (Colin, correct me if I’m wrong.)
Did you follow any of ArenaNet’s statements before GW2 launched? They’ve backtracked on so many of them, their talk never matches their walk.
Anet made tens of thousands of statements before launch. The percentage they’ve “backtracked on” is neglible.
If that’s all you focus on, that’s fine. But to say that game developers who claim to have an iterative process might change things as they go…oh yeah, that’s right, they wrote whole articles about how they iterate and change things.
I guess that means that you CHOSE to listen to some things that were said while ignoring other things that were said.
Vayne, you didn’t even mention the irony in seeing me being educated on the fact that they’ve backtracked on promises. Just when you think you’ve built a solid reputation on the forums.
Backtracking on promises, overall, is negligible and nothing that should define Anet’s name. VP, in fact, is the only area i feel is worth continued comment. And, my thought there is only to work to eliminate it or minimize it. It would be a better game without it.
Hopefully this will silence some of the more vocal minority
A) To what statistical data can you claim one side or the other a majority?
B) Why do you want to silence those with whom you disagree?You asked for statistical data I was positive that there was some on this topic.
So here you go:
A) "Our data consistently shows, time and time again, that people are more likely to speak up when they have a bad experience, less likely when they have a great experience, and hardly ever when they’re somewhere in the middle. "
Source: http://foreseeblog.com/2012/08/28/feedback-vs-measurement/On Topic: I am excited for this perhaps we might get some better understanding about the Living Story.
So the fanboys and the whiners, both, are most likely to have had a bad experience with GW2? Actually, it’s much simpler than that. On the forums you have voices. They are either in the minority or the majority. There is no vocal minority and no silent majority here. They do not represent any group other than the forum community, of which they represent a 100% sample of those currently posting on the forums. Anet has instituted the forums for the purpose of 2-way communication on subjects related to the game. The forums are fulfilling the role for which they are intended.
I, too, am actually quite excited to hear what Colin has to say.
Sorry I can’t agree with this. Too many changes too fast and you lose too many people and nothing evolves. Evolution is a slow process not a fast one. It takes time. For the genre to move forward, you have to give some people a bit of help…because they’ve spent years in other games learning what to expect from the genre. You can’t just expect people to say well okay it’s all changed now..good. It doesn’t work like that.
So Anet compromises. They give them a bit of what they want, but not so much since and that was a long time already. Essentially, Anet is weening people off gear progression. It won’t happen for everyone and it won’t happen right away, but it will happen over time for some people.
Making changes and expecting people to deal with them all at once…probably not the best way to run a railroad.
I’m not sure that evolution in the MMO genre is exactly what the thread is addressing. The MMO genre has evolved little over the years and GW2 was advertized to embody evolutionary changes that a lot of people recognized the need for. Some of those changes were described in the manifesto and in other pre-release materials. They weren’t pointing to an evolutionary process, but rather to a product that embodied the fruit of a needed evolutionary process that had already taken place in GW2.
And, you don’t wean people off gear progression by going from horizontal progression (post max level gear at max level) to vertical progression. Interestingly, if I actually believed that, I mean that they were attempting to wean people off VP, I wouldn’t be the forum warrior that I am. You wouldn’t happen to have a link for that, would you?
The best I can do in the analysis of cause is to assume that they got spooked and added VP to give people who complained about nothing to do something to do. Sadly, that compromise represents devolution not evolution within the genre. And, more to current topic, a reversal of pre-release promises.
Evolution and even changing things isn’t bait and switch. Do you even know what bait and switch MEANS. In no court of law would ANY of this be considered bait and switch.
[snip]
Bait and switch is to promise one thing and deliver something different. The thing promised is the bait to get you to buy or come in. The thing delivered is what you actually get. Bait and switch is a sales technique, not an area of the law. Courts, at least in the US, can hold a business liable for false advertizing but that’s a different matter technically than bait and switch. And, I highly doubt the OP is gearing up his legal team to mount a court case as there would be no legal basis for a case. Game companies can evolve and change their game over time.
That, of course, doesn’t change the fact that they made promises about the nature of the game that weren’t fulfilled, clearly. The problem for Anet is not a legal one, but a PR one at this point as the continuing threads would indicate. We have beat this issue into the ground. The only thing I really have to say is, yes, it was functionally bait and switch in that they didn’t deliver what they promised; and, we are still seeing the fallout of those decisions.
Edit: Let me clarify one thing which I see I didn’t articulate. My use of the term “functional” bait and switch indicates that Anet promised one thing and delivered another. I don’t believe that Anet set out to deceive customers. This is important in that I don’t think Anet is culpable legally or morally for these actions. I just think they were bad decisions that come at a cost. The cost is in the area of PR.
(edited by Raine.1394)
Mesmer was actually my favorite ranged character. I leveled with greatsword-sword/pistol. The GS was adequate ranged damage and the swap to S/P felt very strong. I had a rifle warrior which was OK in the damage department, but not near the fun of the mesmer. If you like ranged because of the kiting mechanic, it’s hard to beat the mesmer.
OP, if I thought all the future held was mini-game platformers I’d pull the plug now. And I think that the AP system introduced was important as an enhancement to perceived reward for play which was lacking in the game. I believe the next frontier for GW2 will be a move to focus on an evolving, permanent living world, which I think is the best thing they can do. It’s the alternative to the expansion, which I really don’t want. I don’t know their plans but Colin’s statements have contained enough to give me hope for the future of GW2. (Colin, correct me if I’m wrong.)
Cap reward for play? No.
Before anyone mentions “LOL MANIFESTO DUH”, please watch it again. The only thing in that video that’s not true is when they say that the event system will affect the world in a very permanent way. When Colin is talking about grind, he’s talking about combat and ends his grind gripe talking about it as well to sum it up. What he means about grind in combat, is playing your character to level up to achieve a very specific skill or grinding an event that rewards a very specific set of skills that you can enjoy after the grind, not grind in general. Even in GW1, there was aesthetic grind. Looking at Ascended gear, you can grind to get as much as possible, sure, but just playing the game and being rewarded laurels through casual play will get you ascended gear, which won’t matter with the 4% overall stat boost it gives (8% stat boost over trinkets alone, 0% over armor and weapons).
If you read the written manifesto carefully you will see that the section where grind is mentioned is a new paragraph and not within the section on combat. It is the wrapup all that has gone before.
“It all gets back to our basic design philosophy. Our games aren’t about preparing to have fun, or about grinding for a future fun reward. Our games are designed to be fun from moment to moment.”
In the manifesto they talked about distinctions and what made GW2 different from other MMO’s. It’s pretty clear that they were addressing the gear grind that is a common feature within the MMO genre.
The feature that implements a gear grind in all MMO’s is vertical progression, i.e., power creep. When the power level of a game rises, players play to attain the new power level or what they called grinding for a future fun reward in the manifesto.
That said, I’m impressed by all that they were able to achieve in advancing the genre. It is easy to take features for granted after a time and it’s good to be reminded of all the things Anet did right. Vertical progression was a serious misstep, but I always give them credit where it’s due, GW2 is an impressive corrective to many problem aspects of the MMO. I wish they could have stayed on track with avoiding a gear grind.
(edited by Raine.1394)
Berserker Warrior? I vote WvW. If you like the playstyle I’d recommend taking your current build and gear directly into WvW. If you find survivability to be a problem you might want to mix in some Knight’s pieces and even soldier’s runes. Eventually, you’ll find your sweet spot for damage and survivability. WvW takes a far greater toll in terms of incoming damage than PvE whether you are zerging it up or roaming with a small group.
There is no need whatsoever for them in this game. If something comes over me along the lines of this desire, I just fire up Diablo. It really doesn’t fit here.
Regardless of whether certain players feel the story is not important, as long as Anet feels it’s important, I don’t believe we will see a race change option. I understand the desire to change races and have done so (and factions) in other games. In GW2, however, the embed of the story is deep and supported by many things such as the exclusive cultural gear. Race change is not something I would advocate for.
The one labelled something like return to the mists is bugged for me as well. I completed all the intro stuff, but the hint will not show completion.
Gear progression really adds nothing to a game for me. Everyone starts out at power X; a new tier drops and everyone hops on the treadmill. When they get off they are at power level Y. Meanwhile the environment assumes power level Y. At the end of the treadmill absolutely nothing has changed in terms of relative power player to player or player to environment.
I played WoW for years and my main started at what, 5-10k health or something? My one level 90 is pushing 400k hp now and nothing whatsoever has changed in terms of the gameplay. Sure, I can solo lower level dungeons, but in a max level zone nothing is different—I just spent a ton of time chasing stats that didn’t really matter. In fact, my favorite time in the cycle was when I had the gear and could just relax and do what I wanted in the game. And, that is pretty much what I do here now. I do miss the crafting (well, fishing too) but other than that it’s pretty much the same at max level.
I’m definitely in the number Vayne described above. More gear progression would add nothing but work for me and I’m more into play in my gaming.
Given Anet has given out, what, 500 badges since the AP program began, the potential savings in terms of trinkets via WvW is significant and the heads-up is appreciated.
Raine, I agree with your post 100%.
Which is why I am very-very glad ANET added the AP system. Given that they have already gone down the vertical progression path with the garbage Ascended gear they added last November, any and every addition to this game that minimizes the damage already don, is welcome by me. By adding the AP system, people now have other methods of obtaining laurels to get the ascended trinkets.
Yes, and I have said elsewhere that I am very happy with the AP system introduced and feel it is a major step in the right direction in terms of reward in the game. My motivation is not to complain about AP or Anet for that matter; I simply wanted to correct the misconception that VP is in any way optional for those wishing to play the game long-term.
Vertical progression is a fairly straightforward and well-known element in game design. Almost everyone familiar with the MMO is familiar with the concept. It is introduced in games as it gives an illusion of character progression and it provides an incentive to play regularly. While most people understand that this incentive is really an offer that you can’t refuse, we have in our community a number who don’t understand vertical progression.
Why is it non-optional? Well, VP can be described by an integer series 1,2,3,4…,n where each number represents an increase in the power level of the game. Remember, it’s vertical (the power level increases) and it’s progression (it continues to increase over time). Most arguments here occur around whether the difference between 1 and 2 represents an increase that affects the game or the experience of people at power level 1 or power level 2. That, of course, is a bit of a red herring. It doesn’t make any real difference. Vertical progression doesn’t progress by stopping. It will continue over time.
Knowing this, you know intuitively that if you don’t perform those actions necessary to progress along the power curve, there will necessarily come a time when you can’t play the game. Again, it’s irrelevant whether that’s at 4 or at 8—the time will come and if you want to play the game over time you must follow the power curve.
Because AP awards laurels they are an extension of the daily/monthly mechanism for keeping up with the stat inflation and, of course, it describes a mandatory process for those who wish to play the game long-term. Remember, VP is, by definition, a non-optional incentive to play and that’s why game developers implement it. That said, it is an optional element in game design in that it is not necessary in an MMO and many of us were hoping to have been done with it with GW2. I don’t post threads on the subject, but still can’t resist correcting misinformation about VP when it arises.
(edited by Raine.1394)
They need to get all the items back in the store as soon as possible. I have alts gathering resources the old-fashioned way that would gladly pay $10 each. (Alts never know the value of money; and rarely appreciate the hard-working main that supports them.)
I have dups of several professions. I don’t think what they are is so important as they will be the professions you already enjoy playing. I created duplicates to experience the professions as another race. The choice was more racially motivated than profession motivated.
Well, no, I don’t feel disgusted when people complain about the rewards. But, I do feel that Anet has done an excellent job with the AP rewards. I’m glad they included laurels and the mix of items makes for a real sense of reward—at least for me. They said they were looking at reward for play and this is a very positive step in the right direction.
I have no problem with mini-games in a variety of genre. People that enjoy them can play them and those who don’t can stay away. No problem. The only real problem is when you hide significant reward behind some other genre other than the one people bought. I watched the dev livestream and it took a few seconds to realize that this is just an extended platformer. (The guy behind the JP’s is obviously quite talented and this may be a case of when you have a great hammer everything’s going to look like a nail.) I wouldn’t choose to do the LS this way, but I won’t get all bent out of shape around it…unless, significant reward is attached to the platforming.
Living Story > Guild Roster.
Sadly, this is true. I have a number of issues with temporary Living Story content and this one is near the top of the list. Because Anet has defined their value proposition in the delivery of monthly (now bi-weekly), largely temporary content, it is prioritized before quality of life features. It must occur or they’ve failed to deliver on their promise. I would prefer more priority be given to the actual game in the game. The game will suffer as long as the focus is on, and the perception of value is based upon, the rapid delivery of bits of content.
its not bad, its optional. some builds excel on this stat combination.
Name one
If you were a d/d elementalist who kept up with the profession and the better players you would find players using all-stat trinkets.
Strictly leveling:
Guardian=Warrior>Mesmer>Ranger>Elementalisit>Necro=Thief=Engineer
None of them is particularly hard to level. Some though, depend on achieving level ~40 or so in order to begin coming together as a profession, making them somewhat harder.
I’m kinda surprised that people found Mesmer difficult or slow.. I found that with a GS-S/F build it was great leveling. Pistol is better, but Focus is nice for getting around the map.
I actually considered it reward for play. I think Anet has done a good job in making the rewards retroactive and including laurels. Definitely moving in the right direction.
Perhaps the worst aspect of unlimited use items is that they are limited in time. There’s really no reason for it. I really don’t understand why they won’t take my money for a pick for my alts. It’s actually a great win/win item in the store—I don’t understand why it’s not in the store.
This would be a great place for Anet to redeem themselves. It would make an excellent alternative to Orr. With appropriate reward and preferably without DR. I would love to be able to recapture the social dimension of the old cursed shore, just people hanging out, partying up, chatting, and playing. This would be a fantastic environment in which to play.
I most likely will skip this content as well. It looks like great fun if you enjoy platformers and I’m sure it will be rewarding for those who do. It looks beautiful art-wise.
Telling a story is difficult in an MMO. My experience of the MMO has never really been story based, but I do believe it’s possible. I was listening to one commentator yesterday who, essentially, was advocating for expansions as they seemed a more sure way of having some story intact as opposed to the story arcs we’ve seen so far. But, his issue was not so much that story could not be delivered in an evolving world, but that he didn’t feel assured that Anet could pull it off.
I actually would prefer that the living world evolve naturally as opposed to through the cataclysm (pun intended) that is the expansion. I believe it can be done and that it would provide a more natural progression in a game. I’m not inclined to write off Anet’s ability to do it. And, I wouldn’t lay all the blame at the writer’s door as it has more to do with how evolution has been conceived overall to-date and that would happen farther up the food chain. Some recent posts by Colin are hopeful in describing longer development cycles that will bring more life to the living world and that is hopeful.
There have been a lot of posts about story and temporary content lately. From Anet’s responses I’d say they are listening.
I think the guy behind the JP’s, forget his name at the moment, has done some amazing stuff with JP’s (and the SAB) in the game. He wakitten with a change in camera implementation at launch that made some JP’s less than ideal for some jumpers. I, myself, do not like platformers that much. But, I think we’re seeing it spotlighted because a lot of people do enjoy them.
Hopefully, they will find their place in this game, there to be enjoyed by those who enjoy them, but not center-stage as the genre is really not about platforming. I do respect the quality of the work done with the JP’s and think they are a great addition to the game.
Hi,
Assuming continued increase in stats on gear
There is no reason to assume that.
ANet stated that, at most, Ascended would be the absolute top quality in stats (along with Legendary), and recent rumor has it that they’ve scrapped the idea of more ascended gear entirely (if we’re lucky…I believe….). So as off now, there’s no reason to assume there’s going to be further “treadmill” than the current ascended stuff that, unfortunately, made its way into the game.
What Anet actually said (Chris W in the AMA) was that GW2 would have vertical progression going forward with a low power curve. The plain meaning is that stats will rise vertically over time, but slowly. I would, personally, love it if the rumors about scrapping VP were true, but so far the official word is that stats will increase slowly over time. I believe the addition of VP was a misstep, but one that can be corrected without long-term detriment to the game. If so, the OP (and hundreds like it) would need no answer.
Some servers have a high population on all maps including starter areas. I’ve always found starter zones well populated on Tarnished Coast. It’s always a good idea to guest on a few servers to get an idea as to relative populations.
At least it doesn’t descend to the depths of tradechat in WoW. I’ve been on three servers and have found TC to be the most mature culturally. That said, teens, trolls, teen trolls, all seem to hang out in cities and starter areas. Human areas are by far the worst (spoken in my best Rytlock imitation). Once you are outside everything improves. Yes, my block list is growing, but, I’ve seen worse in other games.
(edited by Raine.1394)
IMHO
condition damage was not designed as primary source of damage for any class
Its like seasoning on steak
If you try to build primary condition damage build it would be like taking lots of seasoning and then add little of steak
It just wont work
For my hemophiliac Necro it’s more like steak and eggs, toast, and 3 cups of coffee. No, condition damage is not intended to be supplemental damage. All you need to do to understand that is to look at traits, gear, food, etc.
There is only one major problem with condition builds in PvE and a lot of minor ones. The major problem is that condition damage is managed as stacks on a mob rather than damage by player. If you have a normal group of 5 with one necro you can keep bleeds capped at 25. If you were to add 5 more condition necros you wouldn’t be adding significantly to to the groups damage output. Compare this to adding 5 zerker warriors and you will understand instantly what the major problem is with condition builds in PvE and the reason that they are not desired in group play.
It doesn’t have to be this way and other games have solved the problem by managing “condition” damage or damage over time, by damage per tick times a number of ticks (it’s duration). You lose the stacks on a mob and account for all damage by player. There are no stacking to infinity problems—i.e., it’s just damage by player. The sustained damage of a condition build should be comparable to direct damage in a sustained fight. This is the biggie and the thing that principally makes condition builds lackluster for group play.
(edited by Raine.1394)
DaG makes a good point. Mini-games and temporary content can be a whole lot of fun. My problem with it is that they are a diversion from the living world and often simply empty the living world for a couple weeks. I would like them to focus the fun in the living world and enrich the day-to-day game experience there. No question though that Anet delivers polished fun diversions and there is no harm in a mini-game here and there—they’re fun.
My success criteria would involve looking at the new content in the context of Anet’s stated goals around creating and expanding a living world where living stories take place. In what ways has the living world been evolved or impacted in a significant way. In what ways have our daily experiences in the world the game creates been enhanced or enriched.
For me temporary content and mini-games are more about diversion from the living world as opposed to immersion in it. I do believe, based on Colin’s recent posts, that Anet understands that a lot of us have a conceptual problem with temporary content as a means to tell a story, so I’m hopeful for the future. And, I was very happy to see their initial stab at reward for play around achievement points. Last night when I opened my second chest I experienced a sense of reward, something that’s been generally missing in my gameplay. I believe that Anet is capable of making a great game and telling a great story and I look forward to the actual evolution of the living world.
(edited by Raine.1394)
I just opened my second daily chest for the retroactive rewards. I can’t remember the last time I felt warm & fuzzy about a sense of reward for play in the game, but I felt it today. I really like the direction they’re taking around reward in the game. Thank you Anet!
No, they have acknowledged the problem, but I haven’t seen anything more on how or when they intend to fix this. One thing they did was fix the way that tagging works which actually benefited my condition-based characters the most. Now I have no sense that my Necro is tagging less than my warrior. Quite the opposite actually.
Welcome to the game! GW2 is an excellent place to start in the MMO genre. There have been many improvements to the formula that make it a more enjoyable experience for new players and vets alike. You may find that the MMO is not your thing, but it won’t be because GW2 is a bad intro to the genre.
There are still a lot of people playing but it may be less populated on some servers. Give Tarnished Coast a try as it is well populated and there are folks playing through most of the maps. If you want to get your feet wet solo that’s fine as you won’t need to group up to play through the content with the exception of the last story quest. You’ll find that Dynamic Events will provide a low cost intro to group play as you don’t need to group up, simply show up and contribute to taking down a bad guy or whatever.
Have fun and don’t hesitate to ask for help in the forums or in-game. There are lots of helpful people around. Don’t fear the general discussion forum. There is always a bit of debate, and sometimes it gets a little heated but it’s all for the good of the game. Have fun!
I tend to prefer text-based, information rich elements in a UI. But, that’s probably because I’m older and remember the good old days when the word reigned over the image. Times have changed. However, it’s possible to have both (cf. Edward Tufte’s work) and I do notice an improvement here and there like the display of achievements close to completion. I’ll bet they are not done with it yet and that we’ll see further refinements over time.
I’m not a fan of temporary content, but Colin has assured us that their new team organization will allow them the opportunity to focus more on permanent content and content that will have a larger impact on the living world. Hopefully, we’ll see the fruit of that in the coming months.
I think they’ve done a good job of adding tangible reward through achievements, especially given it’s retroactive. I was very happy to see laurels included. And, yeah, I think we all got the same things. Looking forward to the coming chests.
I don’t see dodging as a crutch as being the primary reason for the DPS-only mentality. The Inquest grenadier taught me a valuable lesson about dodge around level 12-14 on my first character. Dodge is based on a limited resource and there will be times when there is more to dodge than you have dodges available. Use it wisely.
There are fights, of course, where well-timed dodging is able to mitigate damage and save you from death. But, the ability to avoid taking damage is not a problem in a healerless game; it’s actually a solution.
The real problem is more around how combat is conceived in GW2. GW2 promised a new trinity around control, support, and DPS. Control and support often feels inconsequential in relation to DPS. What we saw emerge, actually, was a guardian, warrior, mesmer trinity that was quasi-tank, DPS, and support. But, it was obvious that the key was DPS in terms of efficiently dispatching bosses—there were three warriors in the common trinity group.
The answer lies in rethinking the trinity in the light of our experience and rethinking encounters in terms of boss abilities. It’s not an easy problem to solve, but it will be worth it.
(edited by Raine.1394)
I agree that instant death that can not be avoided through skilled play continues to be a problem in the game. It has always risen to its zenith around efforts to make combat more “interesting”. I can appreciate that satisfying combat includes challenge as a component, but it’s really a game balance issue that simply hasn’t found it’s sweet spot.
Yeah, I don’t enjoy dying either. I accept it as the price of my own error, but it’s frustrating when it’s enshrined as a game mechanic.
Temporary content, especially when delivered on a two week schedule, is just a bad idea from my perspective. Let’s say you wanted to create a living world in a game, how would you model it? Since humans don’t create ex nihilo they model after our real life world. And, while our world is in a process of continuous change, there is a perception of permanence. The world doesn’t come and go in two week increments. So, I believe the model itself is flawed for evolving a living world.
Second, I have a problem simply from a software development perspective. I’ve long advocated for a longer dev cycle, which was around a month, as it doesn’t give adequate time to conceive, code, and test content. While PTR’s have been successful in other games there isn’t even a time slot to put one in in GW2 with a two week release schedule. In other words quality suffers. And, I don’t just mean buggy code, but buggy concepts as well.
That said, I realize that the two week, largely temporary stuff, works for a large part of the player base and I can’t argue with that. I, however, would prefer that GW2 rise above that. There is a lot of potential in this game and I would love to see it achieved.