…
- An increase in the overall effectiveness of the players’ characters (objectively provable; game effectiveness is determined by math; Ascended provides higher numbers)
I disagree with this because I think player ability and attitude plays as large, if not larger role in their character’s effectiveness.
lol /clapclap
Right. Player skill is always a hypothetical. Power on gear confers concrete advantage in any encounter.
To understand the effect of gear in, especially, a pvp encounter you always hold player skill constant and vary only the power on gear. Why is this done? Anyone who has taken any science 101 class will understand the scientific method employed here. If you want to understand the effects of gear, you hold player skill constant, i.e., assume two players of equal skill. Then you will know if and how much gear figures into the equation. And, btw, the verdict is already in, gear does matter.
I don’t have a problem with Ascended gear, per se, at all. Are the stat increases at this point material? I believe so. The average player in ascended probably enjoys an average 10% increase in power at this point over a player in exotics. The difference is material but not game-breaking.
But it doesn’t really matter. How so? Remember, I said I don’t have a problem with Ascended, per se—how is that? Ascended gear, then trinkets, when introduced, was simply the means of introducing vertical progression to GW2. How do I know that? Anet confirmed it in their AMA on the subject.
What is vertical progression? Vertical progression 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 over time. In makes no sense, at all, to argue whether the difference between 1 & 2 is material. Vertical progression doesn’t progress by stopping. Eventually it will be material to everyone posting whether you understand an integer series or not. Or, consider a power curve on graph. VP exists as a positive relationship between time and power. As time progresses, the power level of the game increases. How do I know that? That’s simply what VP is by definition.
This thread follows the standard form of arguing over points 1 & 2 of an infinite series. And, it misses the real issue entirely.
The problem, I believe, is with the model Anet chose for the living story. They went with episodic TV where after each adventure everything resets and a new adventure begins. This has given us temporary content and grindy temporary achievements.
I am a believer in the concept of an evolving living world. But, it should be an evolving living world. That is, they should have aimed at giving us expansion-like content, but delivered over time. This would give us an evolving world, story, and permanent (non-grindy) achievements to pursue.
especially when it’s absolutely unnecessary.
Great, so since Ascended is so unnecessary, we can get rid of it.
Problem solved.
Ascended isn’t necessary to complete content. It’s there for people who are after progression.
Why hate on that?
Well then, it’s there for progression for the people that want it. What kind of progression are we talking about? I’ll answer for you: vertical. What is vertical progression? It is scaling character progression vertically in terms of power. That is, as time progresses the power level of the game will increase. That’s simply VP at it’s simplest. Not my opinion by the way, I claim no credit for my understanding of VP. Everything I know about it I learned.
So if the power of the game increases continually over time, does that make the treadmill optional for those who don’t wish to pursue it? Hardly. And, again, not my opinion. I simply know what VP is and how it functions in games. You can know it too and here’s a couple videos to get you started:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/power-creep
http://taugrim.com/2012/04/19/why-games-should-scale-horizontally-instead-of-vertically/
I guess you can call it vertical progression. The difference is small enough that I consider it horizontal progression. Depends on your point of view. If you must have that BiS item, then sure, it’s VP. It’s just not worth the time it takes to craft for that miniscule stat increase.
Anyway, Legendary armor is going to be released in the future. Legendaries are locked to BiS, so it’s quite possible we may see 1 or 2 more tiers after ascended after Legendary armor is released.
Anet themselves called it vertical progression in their AMA on the subject, so there is no reason to consider it horizontal. It deals with the power level and it is vertical. In terms of horizontal, the most common element is skill or ability progression, but there are other possible ways to scale horizontally.
The key is that VP really doesn’t take you anywhere. Because following the power curve is non-optional, before and after a given level of VP has occurred there is no difference in power level between players. Everyone’s on the treadmill. And, because we are talking power level the environment must scale so combat doesn’t become trivial. So there is also no difference between player and environment before or after VP has occurred—there are just changes in numbers on a character sheet. What I mean is that in WoW when I started my main at max level could be 10k-15k in HP. Now, he is pushing 500k HP with corresponding increases in power. But, nothing has changed except numbers on the sheet. I die just as fast and mobs take just as long to kill. I’ve just been exercised on a treadmill—I got on and off at the same place.
Horizontal progression at least offers the possibility of true character progression where there is the possibility for true growth. Vertical offers a sense of progression to some, but once you understand that it’s empty, the shine comes off. And, make no mistake, Anet has added vertical progression—they said so themselves.
(edited by Raine.1394)
especially when it’s absolutely unnecessary.
Great, so since Ascended is so unnecessary, we can get rid of it.
Problem solved.
Ascended isn’t necessary to complete content. It’s there for people who are after progression.
Why hate on that?
Well then, it’s there for progression for the people that want it. What kind of progression are we talking about? I’ll answer for you: vertical. What is vertical progression? It is scaling character progression vertically in terms of power. That is, as time progresses the power level of the game will increase. That’s simply VP at it’s simplest. Not my opinion by the way, I claim no credit for my understanding of VP. Everything I know about it I learned.
So if the power of the game increases continually over time, does that make the treadmill optional for those who don’t wish to pursue it? Hardly. And, again, not my opinion. I simply know what VP is and how it functions in games. You can know it too and here’s a couple videos to get you started:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/power-creep
http://taugrim.com/2012/04/19/why-games-should-scale-horizontally-instead-of-vertically/
I’m confused how ascended gear has ruined the game for you.
Outside of extreme high level fractals there isn’t a single reason for why you’d need to have it.
Then you don’t understand what vertical progression is. When Anet added it they said it would be a low power curve. Do you know what a graphical ascending curve represents? It is a positive relationship between time and the power level of the game. That is, as time progresses the power level of the game rises.
In the first year we have seen about 10% increase in the power level. Let’s assume that number describes the slope of the curve. If I were to somehow cause your body weight to increase 10% per year, year over year, do you think it will have no impact on your physique? Might you at some point have to hop on the treadmill to recover your desired body weight. This is what VP does when it increases the power level of the game. If forces players onto a treadmill to keep up.
The people who are upset with VP understand this and don’t want to ride a treadmill that actually goes nowhere. Grinders here will support VP. Usually, those are the only sides in the debate. But, here, we have a third group that claim vertical progression is not actually vertical progression.
of course this is working on the premise that we’re going to get a new 10% tier every year which they said multiple times now is not going to happen.
No, it is working on the premise that vertical progression is vertical progression, a fairly safe assumption. And, they said specifically that there would be VP with a low power curve going forward. The quote from Chris W: “we will have vertical progression moving forward with the focus on zero grind and a very low power curve.” Can you give me a quote where they say they have changed their mind on VP and are going to remove it?
When Anet introduced vertical progression to the game in Nov 2012 they said that it would have a low power curve. Think back to algebra. What does an ascending curve describe? I’ll answer for us. It represents a positive relationship between the X and Y axes. That is, as X increases Y will also increase. The slope can be ‘low’ or steep.
Here the Y axis describes the power level of the game, while the X axis describes time. That is, as time increases, the power level of the game will increase. It is absurd to argue that this means it is optional to follow the ascent of the power curve. Anyone who has studied algebra would now this is absurd. The curve of VP doesn’t progress by stopping. It is mandatory to follow the curve if you expect to play the game over time. This is not my idea, it’s simply understanding the nature of a positive relationship between time and power.
I’m confused how ascended gear has ruined the game for you.
Outside of extreme high level fractals there isn’t a single reason for why you’d need to have it.
Then you don’t understand what vertical progression is. When Anet added it they said it would be a low power curve. Do you know what a graphical ascending curve represents? It is a positive relationship between time and the power level of the game. That is, as time progresses the power level of the game rises.
In the first year we have seen about 10% increase in the power level. Let’s assume that number describes the slope of the curve. If I were to somehow cause your body weight to increase 10% per year, year over year, do you think it will have no impact on your physique? Might you at some point have to hop on the treadmill to recover your desired body weight. This is what VP does when it increases the power level of the game. If forces players onto a treadmill to keep up.
The people who are upset with VP understand this and don’t want to ride a treadmill that actually goes nowhere. Grinders here will support VP. Usually, those are the only sides in the debate. But, here, we have a third group that claim vertical progression is not actually vertical progression.
I think it has more to do with the fact that less and less optimistic people uses these forums, because they get tired of all the hate going on.
The amount of hate have most likely not really increased, but it would seem like it due to lack of positive content.This is actually an example of a mass ad hominem. It deals with zero game issues and assumes that any problem on the forums arises from a mythical group of posters that “hate”. Bad logic and bad argumentation.
I would not say it is at all an ad hominem. It is just a matter of perspective. lordkrall was issuing a warning from his perspective on the type of advice the OP would be receiving in the forums believing that such advice may be skewed negatively.
And it is most definitely an ad hominem or hyperbole at best when you use the word ‘mythical’ for something that can be readily proven by going into most threads on these forums. Negativity can be found on most threads and composes a large number posts in them. That isn’t mythical, it is factual.
Ad hominem means “to the man”. That is, it addresses some aspect of the person arguing rather than the argument itself. For example it might dismiss someone by labeling them a ‘hater’ rather than addressing the issue they raise. It is resorted to when someone either runs out of intellectual gas or was never up to the task of rationally discussing an issue to begin with.
The device of inventing a ‘hate’ group is the same as inventing a “vocal minority”. It is intended to bolster one’s position and it actually indicates a basic insecurity with one’s argument. Logically, there is no “vocal minority” and no ‘hate groups’ on the forum. There are only voices and they are either in the minority or the majority. Anet moderation is very aggressive and addresses true ‘hate’ speech immediately.
It is far better to deal with arguments or issues rather than the character or motivations of those you argue with. The forums are for communication about the game between Anet and players. Attempting to negate or suppress speech negates the purpose for which the forums were created. Much better to simply discuss the game.
I think it has more to do with the fact that less and less optimistic people uses these forums, because they get tired of all the hate going on.
The amount of hate have most likely not really increased, but it would seem like it due to lack of positive content.
This is actually an example of a mass ad hominem. It deals with zero game issues and assumes that any problem on the forums arises from a mythical group of posters that “hate”. Bad logic and bad argumentation.
“Ascended gear is there because something was needed to entice people to keep playing the game.”
“Ascended gear isn’t enticing because it’s such a minor stat boost.”
The cognitive dissonance in this community is strong.
You are locating the source of the cognitive dissonance in the wrong community. Anet obviously introduced vertical progression (not ascended gear) to give players a reason to play. I mean, that is the main goal of VP on the developer side and why you would introduce it. But, they also said it would be on a low power curve.
This is the source of the dissonance and why the community argues in an irrational manner. Some people defend Anet by saying that the VP is inconsequential and not needed. Others, experienced gamers, realize that VP doesn’t progress by stopping and that, regardless, we are already at a material increase in the power level of the game.
The low power curve is too much for those who came to the GW franchise to escape VP; and, it is not enough to satisfy the true grinder that VP has created in other games. The cognitive dissonance was introduced into the community when VP was introduced into the game.
(edited by Raine.1394)
And, regardless, Mike O himself described the increase in the power level of the game from the initial pieces as roughly 5-10%. I’ll go with the Anet figure here.
What I find interesting is the upcoming conversion of critical damage to Ferocity, which is supposed to remove ~10% from the top DPS builds. If the range you’re citing is correct, then critical builds are going to be at the top of that curve due to the increases to critical damage provided by full Ascended gear — and they’ll be losing that 10%, soon. Critical builds with exotics will be hit less, even if the Ferocity scaling is linear, because of lower critical chance.
I think a 10% gain is reasonable in the first year given that Anet said the first pieces represented a 5-10% increase in the power level of the game. We are now beyond the first pieces. The 10% would most likely represent the berserker end of the spectrum. I, too, noticed that the nerf to the power level of the game was 10% with the ferocity change. This is, of course, one way to achieve overall game balance under VP. Normally, as the power level increases you need to buff the environment to make combat non-trivial. But, it’s also possible to nerf the gear that everyone has worked all year to grind out. In this case, Anet giveth and Anet taketh away.
You don’t need Ascended armor. The stat increase over Exotics is minor. So if you’ve given up on getting these, you can still play the game as normal.
People like you are the reason wurm can’t be beaten.
Yes the stats do matter. They offer a 5-15% damage increase. That is a HUGE amount of damage when everything in this game is a dps race.
If you don’t think that much damage matters then please don’t show up to the wurm event or any timed event that is introduced from this point forward.
It’s that gear over skill casual mentality that’s the reason YOU can’t beat the wurm and the whole “But we need 80s only for my level 30 dungeon!”
Catering to you is the biggest mistake the Guild Wars series ever made.
It’s actually not a player issue. Any experienced gamer knows that stats matter—that’s a given. And players will seek out the best stats and prefer those who have max stats. This is perfectly natural and what you create when you introduce vertical progression in a game.
The actual problem comes from a shift in game design philosophy. Towards the end of 2011 Colin could tell eurogamer, rightly, "Everyone, including casual gamers, by level 80 should have the best statistical loot in the game.” And, this would be true for a skill-
based game. However, within a year he obviously felt that the gear grind of vertical progression was the best way to keep players engaged. Pretty much a 180 degree change. I think it’s important to locate the problem correctly. It was a decision by Anet for whatever reason. Players can’t cause or fix the problem as they have no power to change the game—only Anet has that power.
The increase of a full set of ascended armor is more like just 1% .. don’t compare the increase to exotic armor, compare the increase to the total stats of your character.
You’ve largely missed the point the OP is making.
And, regardless, Mike O himself described the increase in the power level of the game from the initial pieces as roughly 5-10%. I’ll go with the Anet figure here. And, just a reminder that they didn’t add Ascended gear so much as they added vertical progression to the game. Vertical progression doesn’t progress by stopping. I’m guessing from the first year that it will be +10% per year. That seems reasonable for a low power curve as they said it would be.
(edited by Raine.1394)
You don’t need Ascended armor. The stat increase over Exotics is minor. So if you’ve given up on getting these, you can still play the game as normal.
The first year was +10% or so increase in the power level of the game. Perhaps that is the slope of the power curve, who knows. If I were to suggest you were going to gain an additional 10% of your weight each year you would probably realize that you would have to hop on the treadmill to maintain those svelte lines. Year one = 10%. Year 2= 20%. Year 3=30%. It kinda adds up, you know. The argument from irrelevance, though amusing, really doesn’t make much sense. They call it a power curve, right. Do you not realize what that means?
No grind = no goal to work towards = no point to continue to play. If you don’t want asc items no problem you can still effectively play the game. The problem lies that our society lacks patience. We want everything yesterday with as little effort as possiable.
Nope. Google horizontal progression. Therein lies the answer.
yup the programming for these heroes would be a monumental task. Yah sure you can have heroes…. just give them 3 years to get the AI right for them.
As if they haven’t done it before?
You are forgeting the GW1 example… once people learn how to use these “heroes” better (provided they are as good as GW1 heroes) there won’t be any need for human players anymore. Everyone will be running the dungeons on his own with his favorite npc allies, how is that any good?
How is it bad? It’s just options.
Just because some games have even worse designers doesn’t make the rng and grind in gw2 acceptable…. It just means it’s not the worst contender. Also GW2 is aimed for a us/eu audience, the audiences who least enjoy long terrible grinds.
Name one MMORPG that has better RNG and grind?
FFxiv
Or WoW which I am currently playing. The loot system is very well tuned there through years of experience, and you can expect reward for play, unlike GW2.
I am not avoiding the issue because it is not an issue. 2000 hours played no precursor drop is not an issue.
It is for most people. the fact that you personally don’t think its an issue is only indicative of your subjective point of view.
The issue would be if they didn’t drop at all, but we know that they do drop and pretty frequently
I do not think that word means what you think it means. If the majority of the playerbase has had no percursor drop for them in thousands of hours of play then it is not frequent.
Look at trading post for how many there is being sold. There is a decent number being sold meaning a large supply.
What you see in the TP are the daily winners of the lottery. If you took a poll of all the IRL winners in all the lotteries across the country you would find a lot of winners and some who had won big. Because of the odds, the chances are it won’t be you. And, because the odds are the same each time you play, if you just play more, the chances are you will not win. This is why financial advisors never advise people to just buy more lottery tickets in order to improve their chance of winning. Precursors exist on the TP simply because some people win the lottery.
There is a power build for necro, but I wouldn’t run it. The necro is archetypal condition damage, but since condition damage is broken in the game I just plain wouldn’t roll a necro. Learn to love the warrior.
Yes, Berserker will still be the best stat allocation for DPS, so the change will not affect the gear distribution at all. Since there is only one combat role, DPS, it makes sense that players will prefer gear that confers the highest DPS.
One thing it will do is remove the roughly 10% increase in power that Ascended gear brought in its first year, at least at the top end. I guess that’s one way to handle game balance under vertical progression. Anet giveth and Anet taketh away.
1. Episodic living story rather than delivering an expansion, but doing it over time. In other words, the living world/living story could have worked but doesn’t as temporary disappearing content.
2. Two week DLC value proposition. This one is a real head-scratcher. Any software developer should have known that you simply can’t deliver anything of value every two weeks.
3. Vertical progression. If Anet did anything well it was horizontal character progression. Why they would put their player base on a treadmill is quite beyond me.
Top three things that bring me down about GW2.
They have said that they appreciate players reporting bots. Personally, if I were given to reporting them, I’d just do it once. However, does Anet really need players to report bots? I don’t know. If they are using their data appropriately, there is little need for players to report bots. That is, a bot has a distinctive signature that would be obvious when using various data-mining techniques. They shouldn’t need players to report them, but who knows.
I keep reading this, expression I guess to call it. People keep saying that GW2 is not alt friendly? How can that be? If the game was friendly for your “main” how is it not for an alt?!? Call me a noob, idiot what ever. Just someone explain this to me. I have 14 characters…. The game is just fun on each of my 13 “alts” as it was on my first character.
Maybe I don’t know what Alts are. I’m gonna go with that….
I have 15 max level characters. I did the math. There is no way in hell that they will all be equipped with Ascended gear within the next five years. It’s the grind. And, it’s impossible with alts.
In WoW, which I’ve been playing lately, I have 5 max level characters which I’ve just about got geared. This all happened in under two months. Now I can just relax and play my alts however I want. No more grinding gear.
Interestingly, I wouldn’t call WoW alt-friendly, as any game with vertical progression will not be alt-friendly by definition. However, WoW is far more alt-friendly than GW2. GW2 is not alt-friendly.
Yeah, sorry, the simple use of a market is not abuse. Making gold through the TP is not a problem. Someone needs an economics class.
3.5 million players try to enter the same map at once, causes issue with map.
#FirstWorldTyriaProblems
They don’t have ‘one’ map. They would simply spawn as many instances of it as they need on as many servers as they have. They might have some performance issues but problems of this nature (not being able to play the character after the crash) speak to a coding error. And, of course a lack of adequate testing.
(edited by Raine.1394)
[snip…]
World of Warcraft (WoW) a subscription based MMORPG that makes you spend weeks to months performing raids to get best-in-slot gear. This is repeated often for new best-in-slot gear is added often. During these raids it is not guaranteed that you will get the piece you need. Some raids you can only perform once a week making you wait for another chance (hence chance) at getting the piece you need. To get other items in the game you need to compete with other players (as drops are not shared between the players) to grind to get items since drop rates are low to force you to grind.
[snip…]
WoW is comparatively mild in terms of grind compared to GW2. And, I have actually come to prefer a short/steep grind to a long/slow one. Only people who are heroic raiders grind to BiS, and realistically there is no need for it if you aren’t playing at the top of the game. Over the years I have learned that it takes about 1-2 months to gear up a main and my alts, PvE and PvP, to a level where I am comfortable and powerful. After that short grind I am free to do whatever I want for the remainder of the tier. I can actually relax and play the game my way. They have even created an island where you can gain ~100 item levels if you wish and be prepared to enjoy the final raids at a level you are comfortable wish. They have invested in making the process quick and easy.
Contrast this to GW2’s long, slow grind. My main character has trinkets only because I don’t want to grind out the weapon’s or coming pieces. I don’t want to because of the nature of the grind. I especially don’t want to level crafting (think about how expensive it is) just to be able to craft an item. The cost is too much in terms of grind and currency. And, my alts? Forget about ever getting them anywhere near ascended. That grind would be in the years not months.
No, WoW is extremely mild compared to GW2 in terms of grind. I am a staunch opponent of vertical progression, but can tell you honestly that if you are going to have it, quick and steep is the way to go…much less painful.
FTP/BTP is simply a monetization model as opposed to the sub-model. There is a cash shop or real money action house. And the game developer makes their money on the purchases of players.
In order for players to feel the need to purchase anything reward needs to first be sucked out of the game. Does it work? I’d say no as players generally play games to experience, in part, reward for play. I’d also point to Diablo 3 as it’s the first game I’ve played that completely made the player responsible for reward. Now, they are completely reversing themselves, removing the action houses, and rebooting the loot system to “2.0”. They intend to reward players for playing the game.
Is it working for GW2? I have no numbers but I doubt it. Just like I had no numbers for D3, but knew it wasn’t working. It will be interesting to see how the model works out as I don’t believe it works.
I’ve only played one game I considered worse in this regard and that was Diablo 3. In Diablo, they eventually realized their error and have tried to correct it and the next installment is rebooting the entire loot system to “2.0”. Maybe GW2 will have a reboot at some point, but I’m not sure Anet is aware of these problems. Their focus all along seems to have been nerfing what they considered over-reward.
Great thread. Some people still like the activities, but they do need Anet’s attention. ETA for fixes? I’d give at another 6 months or so, at least.
In a game that can’t manage condition damage by player or deal with summoned pets, I wouldn’t be looking for any performance fixes period. I think Anet painted themselves into a corner here.
3 game modes and 2 are PvP based. Combat in GW2 is largely balanced around PvP. Of course there shouldn’t be trinity.
Anyway, PvE in any MMO is mindless, boring and scripted. You’re either wailing away at a meat tank or you’re being killed in 2 hits or both (when you’re soloing content, not including grinding, which can be done with a bot). Why are we even discussing PvE here?
Because pvp has never really relied on a trinity in any game and doesn’t have a place in the topic? You get lost on the way to the pvp forum?
You don’t PvP much do you killcannon? Other MMOs it’s basically team with healers wins… If your team has no healers, but the other does you may aswell just afk…
incorrect, the team who kills the others healers first wins.
That is the central aspect of strategy, generally, though not the only one. If it’s arena, it might just be killing the squishiest one or ignoring the squishiest one for that matter. Combat is rather rich under the trinity, unlike the stack and wail combat of GW2.
If you really think trinity is so “rich” and GW2 PvP is stack and wail. Why are you even playing this game? There’s countless MMOs with trinity… Why don’t you just play them instead of trying to turn GW2 into one of them?
I’m playing WoW currently. Thanks for the info.
3 game modes and 2 are PvP based. Combat in GW2 is largely balanced around PvP. Of course there shouldn’t be trinity.
Anyway, PvE in any MMO is mindless, boring and scripted. You’re either wailing away at a meat tank or you’re being killed in 2 hits or both (when you’re soloing content, not including grinding, which can be done with a bot). Why are we even discussing PvE here?
Because pvp has never really relied on a trinity in any game and doesn’t have a place in the topic? You get lost on the way to the pvp forum?
You don’t PvP much do you killcannon? Other MMOs it’s basically team with healers wins… If your team has no healers, but the other does you may aswell just afk…
incorrect, the team who kills the others healers first wins.
That is the central aspect of strategy, generally, though not the only one. If it’s arena, it might just be killing the squishiest one or ignoring the squishiest one for that matter. Combat is rather rich under the trinity, unlike the stack and wail combat of GW2.
@Volkon, the game is hardly fun without a foil. You are the perfect foil, come back to me Volkon.
Players who want the traditional trinity want it for one of two reasons:
1, They haven’t found a profession, build or playstyle that suits them yet. Or..
2, The feel of the combat and how it plays overall just doesn’t suit them.There is a 3ed reason they cant chose for them self when they have a chose they need to have something chosen for them. They want to be in a box and not think outside of it.
There also a 4th but is a support tank only point of view they want to feel important and want other ppl to think them for playing the less played class type. They want to feel self important by the “pain” they must endure.
Uh…you do realize there is only one choice when you play GW2?
DPS
Sorta weird you think that this game has more choice than the trinity.
killcannon, glad to have you back on the light side.
Players who want the traditional trinity want it for one of two reasons:
1, They haven’t found a profession, build or playstyle that suits them yet. Or..
2, The feel of the combat and how it plays overall just doesn’t suit them.There is a 3ed reason they cant chose for them self when they have a chose they need to have something chosen for them. They want to be in a box and not think outside of it.
There also a 4th but is a support tank only point of view they want to feel important and want other ppl to think them for playing the less played class type. They want to feel self important by the “pain” they must endure.
Uh…you do realize there is only one choice when you play GW2?
DPS
Sorta weird you think that this game has more choice than the trinity.
No there not one chose in GW2 there only one chose in a trinity to play the trinity and wish you where a dps. GW2 is real chose in how you play you can play more then just the 3 class system because there are more then 3 types of things you can do in rpgs. Dps tank support hp / buff there also debuffing, hybrid all time, a tie in class, there the pet class (that can do something more then just have a meat shield and solo), there the utility class that goes beyond support, and there even item / environmental use class.
I suppose it would be easier to understand you if English were your first language. I will certainly try to work with you here, but don’t understand a bit of the above.
With a trinity there would maybe be some meaningful PVE.
Without any roles, GW2 cannot have PVE. Instead, it’s ZVE. Zerg versus Environment. And this isn’t fun because the individual is unable to affect the outcome for better or for worse. It’ll either succeed or fail regardless of what I do. And this isn’t fun.
Actually, you’re embarrassingly wrong. The reason we have zergs so common in PvE has nothing to do with the lack of trinity… it has to do with the PvE world being cooperative. People zerg because they get credit when they do, unlike games with competitive PvE where first group/person to tag the mob gets all the credit. Don’t blame the combat for the zerg.
You are right that it is not the lack of the trinity. The problem with GW2 combat is the lack of meaningful combat roles. It leads to the. braindead simplistic combat that is GW2.
Except they weren’t addressing GW1 when they said “We keep hearing other MMO developers espousing the “holy trinity” of DPS/ heal/tank with such reverence, as if this is the most entertaining combat they have ever played.” They were addressing WoW, essentially.
Doing well by yourself comes at a cost, sadly. It means there will be no rich interdependence and humans derive a lot of value from that. However, I’m glad you are liking the current conception of combat—not all are.
I’m just pointing out that this " lfg tank / healer" thing IS a real issue not something they made up. It’s something that was even in their previous game.
Rich interdependence between humans? You have that in GW2. I love playing with a great group where everyone knows what/when to do it and get amazing clear times and great loot by being good.
But each of us is free to do his own thing, and doesn’t fail if the others do. In a sense we’re all doing well together – but each of us is doing well on his own – and it adds up to something great – an epic run.You make mention with people not being happy with the way the game is right now – my question is this : Have you thought if GW2 is the game for you?
IF you want a game with very well defined roles and a trinity in place there are at LEAST a dozen successful MMOs you can play and enjoy that feeling that you’re missing.
GW2 is unique in the fact that it is the ONLY MMO OF ITS KIND. Why would you change it? For a minority of players that think they know better?
And they might even know better in terms of knowing what THEY want. But why change the game for them?
It’s not an issue for me. I just dinged 90 on my DPS monk today and never once spammed chat for a healer or tank. With an LFG tool assembling teams is trivial. But, hey, it’s good marketing for GW2, right?
Except they weren’t addressing GW1 when they said “We keep hearing other MMO developers espousing the “holy trinity” of DPS/ heal/tank with such reverence, as if this is the most entertaining combat they have ever played.” They were addressing WoW, essentially.
Doing well by yourself comes at a cost, sadly. It means there will be no rich interdependence and humans derive a lot of value from that. However, I’m glad you are liking the current conception of combat—not all are.
I’m just pointing out that this " lfg tank / healer" thing IS a real issue not something they made up. It’s something that was even in their previous game.
Rich interdependence between humans? You have that in GW2. I love playing with a great group where everyone knows what/when to do it and get amazing clear times and great loot by being good.
But each of us is free to do his own thing, and doesn’t fail if the others do. In a sense we’re all doing well together – but each of us is doing well on his own – and it adds up to something great – an epic run.You make mention with people not being happy with the way the game is right now – my question is this : Have you thought if GW2 is the game for you?
IF you want a game with very well defined roles and a trinity in place there are at LEAST a dozen successful MMOs you can play and enjoy that feeling that you’re missing.
GW2 is unique in the fact that it is the ONLY MMO OF ITS KIND. Why would you change it? For a minority of players that think they know better?
And they might even know better in terms of knowing what THEY want. But why change the game for them?
You don’t have any interdependence, rich or otherwise in GW2. It’s everyman for himself, obviously. That is the nature of the Berserker battlefield; everyone enrages and just goes for it. It doesn’t matter that a random combo field might be operative.
Actually, I’m less focused on changing the game into something I want as to opposing irrationality in all its forms. That’s what’s happening primarily on the forums.
It’s not a few people with Embers. People use embers in dungeons all the time as part of a strategy. People use embers in many of the big fights and take out another as soon as the first one dies. It’s a drain on resources.
snip
snip
Josh Foreman said it in another thread. His example was the dungeon example. He said, directly that 150 people using 1 ember in a dungeon each is no different than 150 people using an ember on a single map.
That’s a direct statement.
snip
I don’t know how normal games (unquote) are programmed, but it seems to me completely illogical in any game for each instance to have it’s own personal server. That’s not the way the architecture works anywhere from my understanding and certainly not in the new games.
The way new games are programmed is less rigid. Processor power from one place is used when it’s needed and released when it’s not, more the way a cloud functions.
Are you assuming that a single dungeon uses server power independently of all the other dungeons occurring at the same time, because that makes no sense to me from any point of view.
The server works with a bank of processors, which run a specific series of dungeons. That is to say, one processor still does all the calculations for multiple instances. So obviously, all the instances are being calculated together. Thus summon something in separate instances would have to affect the server.
I can’t see any other way for this to be.
Vayne, yeah, an instance doesn’t have a personal server. It’s just an instance with it’s own memory, etc. You can’t see any other way for this to be because you don’t understand how software works. Short of you becoming a developer, I don’t know how we could proceed here.
I didn’t realize you were a developer.
25+ years in IT.
But being in IT doesn’t make you a developer. I spent 19 years on the hardware end, not the software end. And I know that in the end, software depends on hardware. So the stuff you program has to be calculated somewhere.
When you say a dungeon a specific instance with it’s own memory, it still has to be sharing resources with other instances. There’s no way it can possibly have all its own resources. That would be completely prohibitive to program.
So if all the dungeons are drawing on one main area of memory using one set of processors to give them processor power, the more you draw on that resource from ALL the instances it controls, the more likely you are to lag that entire system.
Placing something in its own instance doesn’t change the way that instance reacts to hardware, unless that instance is completely isolated to its own hardware. Otherwise the system, as a whole, will experience a slowdown.
This is my understanding of the matter and nothing you’ve said so far convinces me otherwise.
Bottom line here bud, any limitations of the nature we are discussing are self-imposed through sub-optimal architecture and design. How exactly would I go about convincing you? This is simply something you understand or you don’t understand. Especially things like the way they manage condition damage. How do I know this? Because other games do this as a matter of course.
And, Vayne, you don’t even know how to talk about this. If you are going to talk software and hardware you at least need to be able to talk that trash even if you can’t do it. I do admire your pluck though.
Nothing to do about pluck. I have an idea of how stuff works. I don’t work in the industry and haven’t for many many years. Terms change. I don’t remember the name of every single concept I’ve heard…but I do have the idea.
Now you talk about games. I played Rift. I know Rift had a big event that lagged out exactly the way Guild Wars 2’s Karka event was lagged out. Worse even. So bad they had to come out and apologize publicly for the event and give everyone compensation. It was terrible. The Karka event at least worked for some people. So much for what other games can and can’t do.
A lot of the older games were designed with less server calls. That’s what global cooldowns are for and also why you can’t move while casting. Older games don’t have quite the overhead Guild Wars 2 does. You can practically run WoW on a toaster. There’s a reason for that.
I don’t see a hundred and fifty people in most MMOs in a single event, do you? So how would you start comparing?
Vayne, without doubt you have an idea about how stuff works but you don’t understand how stuff works. Commentary in an area of in-expertise is of little value.
It’s not a few people with Embers. People use embers in dungeons all the time as part of a strategy. People use embers in many of the big fights and take out another as soon as the first one dies. It’s a drain on resources.
If a zone has a max cap of 150 and there are 150 people in it, and then 30 people summon embers, that’s another 30 things in the zone beyond the cap.
Do you know for a fact it doesn’t cause a strain on resources?
I would ordinarily laugh at a statement like this as it should be absurd. However, think it through. Anet is not even able to manage condition damage by player, something any major title will do as a matter of course. It should be embarrassing for them to admit it, but I suppose this could be true. Given the lagfest that is any large encounter, the game may actually be this fragile.
Josh Foreman said it in another thread. His example was the dungeon example. He said, directly that 150 people using 1 ember in a dungeon each is no different than 150 people using an ember on a single map.
That’s a direct statement.
How many dungeons have you been in with 150 people? Dungeons are instanced; there should be no performance issue if every member of a party had an ember up. However, this isn’t a normal game obviously, so I’m willing to entertain the notion that embers actually do represent a performance problem. It would be absurd if they do, but probably is the case in GW2. As I mentioned they played the technical limitations card around managing condition damage by player which every major title can do, so I actually am willing to believe them on this.
I don’t know how normal games (unquote) are programmed, but it seems to me completely illogical in any game for each instance to have it’s own personal server. That’s not the way the architecture works anywhere from my understanding and certainly not in the new games.
The way new games are programmed is less rigid. Processor power from one place is used when it’s needed and released when it’s not, more the way a cloud functions.
Are you assuming that a single dungeon uses server power independently of all the other dungeons occurring at the same time, because that makes no sense to me from any point of view.
The server works with a bank of processors, which run a specific series of dungeons. That is to say, one processor still does all the calculations for multiple instances. So obviously, all the instances are being calculated together. Thus summon something in separate instances would have to affect the server.
I can’t see any other way for this to be.
Vayne, yeah, an instance doesn’t have a personal server. It’s just an instance with it’s own memory, etc. You can’t see any other way for this to be because you don’t understand how software works. Short of you becoming a developer, I don’t know how we could proceed here.
I didn’t realize you were a developer.
25+ years in IT.
But being in IT doesn’t make you a developer. I spent 19 years on the hardware end, not the software end. And I know that in the end, software depends on hardware. So the stuff you program has to be calculated somewhere.
When you say a dungeon a specific instance with it’s own memory, it still has to be sharing resources with other instances. There’s no way it can possibly have all its own resources. That would be completely prohibitive to program.
So if all the dungeons are drawing on one main area of memory using one set of processors to give them processor power, the more you draw on that resource from ALL the instances it controls, the more likely you are to lag that entire system.
Placing something in its own instance doesn’t change the way that instance reacts to hardware, unless that instance is completely isolated to its own hardware. Otherwise the system, as a whole, will experience a slowdown.
This is my understanding of the matter and nothing you’ve said so far convinces me otherwise.
Bottom line here bud, any limitations of the nature we are discussing are self-imposed through sub-optimal architecture and design. How exactly would I go about convincing you? This is simply something you understand or you don’t understand. Especially things like the way they manage condition damage. How do I know this? Because other games do this as a matter of course.
And, Vayne, you don’t even know how to talk about this. If you are going to talk software and hardware you at least need to be able to talk that trash even if you can’t do it. I do admire your pluck though.
(edited by Raine.1394)
It’s not a few people with Embers. People use embers in dungeons all the time as part of a strategy. People use embers in many of the big fights and take out another as soon as the first one dies. It’s a drain on resources.
If a zone has a max cap of 150 and there are 150 people in it, and then 30 people summon embers, that’s another 30 things in the zone beyond the cap.
Do you know for a fact it doesn’t cause a strain on resources?
I would ordinarily laugh at a statement like this as it should be absurd. However, think it through. Anet is not even able to manage condition damage by player, something any major title will do as a matter of course. It should be embarrassing for them to admit it, but I suppose this could be true. Given the lagfest that is any large encounter, the game may actually be this fragile.
Josh Foreman said it in another thread. His example was the dungeon example. He said, directly that 150 people using 1 ember in a dungeon each is no different than 150 people using an ember on a single map.
That’s a direct statement.
How many dungeons have you been in with 150 people? Dungeons are instanced; there should be no performance issue if every member of a party had an ember up. However, this isn’t a normal game obviously, so I’m willing to entertain the notion that embers actually do represent a performance problem. It would be absurd if they do, but probably is the case in GW2. As I mentioned they played the technical limitations card around managing condition damage by player which every major title can do, so I actually am willing to believe them on this.
I don’t know how normal games (unquote) are programmed, but it seems to me completely illogical in any game for each instance to have it’s own personal server. That’s not the way the architecture works anywhere from my understanding and certainly not in the new games.
The way new games are programmed is less rigid. Processor power from one place is used when it’s needed and released when it’s not, more the way a cloud functions.
Are you assuming that a single dungeon uses server power independently of all the other dungeons occurring at the same time, because that makes no sense to me from any point of view.
The server works with a bank of processors, which run a specific series of dungeons. That is to say, one processor still does all the calculations for multiple instances. So obviously, all the instances are being calculated together. Thus summon something in separate instances would have to affect the server.
I can’t see any other way for this to be.
Vayne, yeah, an instance doesn’t have a personal server. It’s just an instance with it’s own memory, etc. You can’t see any other way for this to be because you don’t understand how software works. Short of you becoming a developer, I don’t know how we could proceed here.
I didn’t realize you were a developer.
25+ years in IT.
It’s not a few people with Embers. People use embers in dungeons all the time as part of a strategy. People use embers in many of the big fights and take out another as soon as the first one dies. It’s a drain on resources.
If a zone has a max cap of 150 and there are 150 people in it, and then 30 people summon embers, that’s another 30 things in the zone beyond the cap.
Do you know for a fact it doesn’t cause a strain on resources?
I would ordinarily laugh at a statement like this as it should be absurd. However, think it through. Anet is not even able to manage condition damage by player, something any major title will do as a matter of course. It should be embarrassing for them to admit it, but I suppose this could be true. Given the lagfest that is any large encounter, the game may actually be this fragile.
Josh Foreman said it in another thread. His example was the dungeon example. He said, directly that 150 people using 1 ember in a dungeon each is no different than 150 people using an ember on a single map.
That’s a direct statement.
How many dungeons have you been in with 150 people? Dungeons are instanced; there should be no performance issue if every member of a party had an ember up. However, this isn’t a normal game obviously, so I’m willing to entertain the notion that embers actually do represent a performance problem. It would be absurd if they do, but probably is the case in GW2. As I mentioned they played the technical limitations card around managing condition damage by player which every major title can do, so I actually am willing to believe them on this.
I don’t know how normal games (unquote) are programmed, but it seems to me completely illogical in any game for each instance to have it’s own personal server. That’s not the way the architecture works anywhere from my understanding and certainly not in the new games.
The way new games are programmed is less rigid. Processor power from one place is used when it’s needed and released when it’s not, more the way a cloud functions.
Are you assuming that a single dungeon uses server power independently of all the other dungeons occurring at the same time, because that makes no sense to me from any point of view.
The server works with a bank of processors, which run a specific series of dungeons. That is to say, one processor still does all the calculations for multiple instances. So obviously, all the instances are being calculated together. Thus summon something in separate instances would have to affect the server.
I can’t see any other way for this to be.
Vayne, yeah, an instance doesn’t have a personal server. It’s just an instance with it’s own memory, etc. You can’t see any other way for this to be because you don’t understand how software works. Short of you becoming a developer, I don’t know how we could proceed here. You might ask yourself how other games pull off things like managing condition damage by player. The technical limitations of GW2 are all self-imposed.
(edited by Raine.1394)
It’s not a few people with Embers. People use embers in dungeons all the time as part of a strategy. People use embers in many of the big fights and take out another as soon as the first one dies. It’s a drain on resources.
If a zone has a max cap of 150 and there are 150 people in it, and then 30 people summon embers, that’s another 30 things in the zone beyond the cap.
Do you know for a fact it doesn’t cause a strain on resources?
I would ordinarily laugh at a statement like this as it should be absurd. However, think it through. Anet is not even able to manage condition damage by player, something any major title will do as a matter of course. It should be embarrassing for them to admit it, but I suppose this could be true. Given the lagfest that is any large encounter, the game may actually be this fragile.
Josh Foreman said it in another thread. His example was the dungeon example. He said, directly that 150 people using 1 ember in a dungeon each is no different than 150 people using an ember on a single map.
That’s a direct statement.
How many dungeons have you been in with 150 people? Dungeons are instanced; there should be no performance issue if every member of a party had an ember up. However, this isn’t a normal game obviously, so I’m willing to entertain the notion that embers actually do represent a performance problem. It would be absurd if they do, but probably is the case in GW2. As I mentioned they played the technical limitations card around managing condition damage by player which every major title can do, so I actually am willing to believe them on this.
The ultimate answer is the single virtual server. Servers or realms are simply a reflection of the technical limitations of yesterday. A possible interim step is to implement cross-server zones which are simply instanced zones across all servers. The answer really is a technical one and I don’t know what Anet is up for in this regard. They haven’t said much in terms of roadmap.
It’s not a few people with Embers. People use embers in dungeons all the time as part of a strategy. People use embers in many of the big fights and take out another as soon as the first one dies. It’s a drain on resources.
If a zone has a max cap of 150 and there are 150 people in it, and then 30 people summon embers, that’s another 30 things in the zone beyond the cap.
Do you know for a fact it doesn’t cause a strain on resources?
I would ordinarily laugh at a statement like this as it should be absurd. However, think it through. Anet is not even able to manage condition damage by player, something any major title will do as a matter of course. It should be embarrassing for them to admit it, but I suppose this could be true. Given the lagfest that is any large encounter, the game may actually be this fragile.
They are dissing the trinity for having 5 minute queues and then are designing in 1 hour queues. Sounds an awful lot like preparing to have fun rather than just having fun.
Ashen, we actually pretty much agree with one another here. The only thing I would disagree with you on is the value of guides. For anyone but a raider on the bleeding edge, it is the responsibility of the player to be aware of the fight mechanics. In other words, if the fight is known and you are attempting it, you should know what you are doing. But, hey, I’ll take general agreement here as generally I have little to agree with others on the forums.
I usually do agree with you (even if I don’t post it).
As to guides, yeah if I am pugging through content I do not know I will either read up on the fight, or inform the team of my ignorance (and offer to bow out of the group if it is a problem) and pay VERY close attention to what others are doing. But I got into online gaming as a means for an old (been playing together for 20+ years or so now) pen and paper DnD group to continue playing together when jobs, getting married, having kids, moving to another state, etc made the regular Friday night group impossible. For me MMOs were initially about playing with friends who would consider a guide to be comparable to reading the DnD GM’s notes when he wasn’t looking. Developing the strategy was a huge part of what made gaming fun.
To clarify, I do not at all judge others for wanting to use guides and the like. It just doesn’t (usually) fit my circle’s play style.
Very good. This is where I am coming from here as well.
For what it is worth:
Carrying out a strategy devised by someone else does not mean that an encounter lacks strategy. Just because you did not originate the strategy does not mean it does not exist. Even in a group not using an online strategy guide there is a pretty good chance that the group has a leader and that it is his strategy/strategies that will be implemented. That does not mean that the other 4, or 6, or however many people are in the group, people are participating in strategic play.
That said, I am not particularly fond of guides. I prefer to brainstorm with the friends in my group to figure out for ourselves how to overcome a particular challenge. Its part of the fun for us.
There seems to be some confusion about terminology here. Some posters seem to confuse the terms, “script,” and, “strategy,” in the context applicable to this thread.
A scripted fight is one in which there is a specific strategy required for victory.
Another fight might have a guide written by players to demonstrate the strategy they used to win the fight. Following that guide would in fact be following a script. It would not indicate that the fight, in itself, is scripted, only that this particular group has chosen to follow a script in its approach to the fight. The fight might very well accommodate myriad approaches. Might be winnable by dozens of means. Might even be winnable through any reasonably non-foolish approach.
The key is that any fight can have a script. The first time you and your friends devise a plan of attack for your first time attempting a given instance in a game you are likely creating a script:
“I will go left to draw the group guarding the stairs away from the center, Joe you do the same on the right, Knight you attack the center and try to spike the healer down, Sherry you hold position and move in to reinforce whoever looks like they are struggling. Once the healer is down we push on through to the boss…”
That’s a script. Player created, on the spot, and even if it does work is not an indication that the dev created encounter is scripted, just that we created a script, as part of our strategy, to overcome a perceived challenge.
If there is only one specific way, or very few ways, to defeat an encounter then the encounter itself is scripted. If it is left open to the players to create (note “create” not “discover”) the strategy to defeat the encounter then the encounter is not, in itself, scripted even if the players create a script in the process of developing their strategy.
Ashen, we actually pretty much agree with one another here. The only thing I would disagree with you on is the value of guides. For anyone but a raider on the bleeding edge, it is the responsibility of the player to be aware of the fight mechanics. In other words, if the fight is known and you are attempting it, you should know what you are doing. But, hey, I’ll take general agreement here as generally I have little to agree with others on the forums.