Guild Wars 2

Aetrion.8295:

stof.9341:

It does feel too much like a win-win situation for heal stat. Either you boost DPS, or you save the life of your team. There’s no risk to that play really so it should NOT be as rewarding as full blown DPS by a long shot.

You can’t have it both ways though where people insist that defense and healing should never be a factor in completing content but at the same time then say that if your party was able to muster high damage while having healing or defense they would somehow be overpowered. That’s simply a double standard at that point.

Seera.5916:

That makes no sense. You don’t go to the doctor’s and ask for antibiotics when you aren’t sick. You don’t put your arms in casts when they aren’t broken. You don’t go for healing when you have nothing to be healed.

It only makes no sense because you insist on thinking of hitpoints as broken arms and serious illnesses. Maybe it’s more like your character’s resolve or stress level. Giving a pep talk before a big game makes just as much sense as talking your team back up after a defeat.

For that matter, are we seriously having a realism discussion in a game where you venture into an ever shifting maze of quantum realities when you need new magic pants?

Pep talks are buffs not heals. And there are plenty of DPS oriented buffs that currently exist out there without adding in yet another one that makes no sense and makes other problems worse. Or can you not see the forest for the trees?

You’re only seeing the benefit you perceive your solution to have. You’re not looking at the consequences of the solution.

Aetrion.8295:

Rashagar.8349:

laokoko.7403:

I think the problem is rewarding healing is like rewarding people to play bad.

I always found this point of view to be rather myopic.

It’s not entirely wrong in a game where you can actually avoid taking damage though. Healing is reactive, which means you need to be hurt before healing can be effective. The reason why healing isn’t a sign of playing badly in standard MMOs is because you can’t avoid damage in them. In GW2 you can however.

That’s one of the main reasons why I think in order to make healing really fit with GW2s sensibilities throwing healing at people needs to be a positive thing even if they aren’t taking damage.

That makes no sense. You don’t go to the doctor’s and ask for antibiotics when you aren’t sick. You don’t put your arms in casts when they aren’t broken. You don’t go for healing when you have nothing to be healed.

If no one needs healing, why should people waste heals?

Aetrion.8295:

Seera.5916:

So it’s desperate if one wants to try to preserve the parts of the game that make them fun for them?

You see, I’m trying to propose systems that let more people get to enjoy the game without making the play style that many people currently enjoy impossible.

The main thing I got back for this attempt is about 1 page worth of people saying I want to install the trinity, which I don’t, a slew of ad hominem, people saying that giving any validity at all to other play styles is a deal breaker for them, and people acting as though because they like the current state of things they can speak on ANet’s behalf when they tell people to simply leave.

A whole bunch of play styles currently have no useful role at all in PvE content except maybe being regarded as “training wheels”. Arguing against attempts to make things a little more equal, because you think the mere idea of a healer being useful to a group is a worse imposition on you than not ever being able to be part of performance oriented play is to them, basically just shows a huge amount of entitlement and self importance on your part.

So yea, thinking that being on equal footing with support players is worse for you than not being allowed in serious groups at all is for them is kind of ridiculous. Your whole argument basically is: “If someone else gets to have the same thing as me then the thing I have is somehow worse because of that!”, which it simply isn’t. The whole reason I made this topic is to discuss ways in which healers and tanks can be useful to a group without making an all DPS approach impossible.

When you argue against someone asking for parity you’re simply not arguing for DPS. You’re only arguing against Support and Tanks as though it’s simply impossible for everyone to have fun and because of that some people must not be allowed to have fun.

That’s because this game was not designed around reactive play. You aren’t supposed to sit around and take damage so that someone who wants to play healer can heal.

You’re supposed to avoid the damage by dodging or utilizing reflects, aegis, etc. Or moving out of the way of the attack.

Healers will not be a useful thing in any group but inexperienced players until ANet reverses its decision on active defense.

Healers are not useful unless players take hits. And enough hits that their own heals prove not effective enough.

Your solution will not add healers to the game. It will add buffers to the game. Buffers that will make the already easy aspects of this game even easier. Because the meta groups will just add HP stacking to their might stacking routines and will speed through even faster than before. And will only increase the wedge between the meta players and the phiw players.

Your solution to a problem not everyone has only makes the existing problems in this game worse. And adds a problem to the game: makes it even easier when some players have been asking for an increase in difficulty.

Aetrion.8295:

You guys sound incredibly desperate to preserve the status quo. I guess we’ll see what Heart of Thorns brings. I wonder if you’ll be just as nasty to the devs if they happen to bring support and defense a little more to the front in PvE.

So it’s desperate if one wants to try to preserve the parts of the game that make them fun for them?

It’s not fun to wait around to find someone to heal or tank. GW2 was sold as a game that would not have the holy trinity. Your suggestion would add in required roles just like the holy trinity does. That’s not the type of game GW2 is or desires to be.

And I’m nasty if I argue against something that would reduce the fun of the game for me? I haven’t insulted you, or told you to stop posting, or anything like that. So I do not understand why you’re calling me nasty.

It’s a shame that when arguments start going bad for people, that many people resort to insulting those who disagree with them. It really is.

Aetrion.8295:

Seera.5916:

No game will make everyone happy all of the time.

Yup, which is why devs shouldn’t listen to people who feel entitled to have their wishes met to the degree where a compromise with what anyone else wants is unacceptable to them.

Some things are impossible to compromise on.

You can’t make healers and tanks useful enough to make a difference in the game without making them required.

The healing aspects of the Revenant won’t be the builds in the dungeon meta. The DPS aspects of them will.

Edit to add: I don’t want open world PvP. But I understand that some people do want to 1v1 others in areas that don’t take up slots in WvW and uses their PvE skill set. So I’m not opposed to duel arenas in parts of the world. That’s my compromise since adding in something that they aren’t going to balance against is not something I really think they should do. So I can and do compromise where it’s possible.

Aetrion.8295:

If your stance is that healers cannot be allowed to be useful to a group without breaking what you consider to be a good balance solution for the game there is really no argument to be had.

It comes down to a matter of taste. I prefer games where people can play defense and support oriented characters, you seem to prefer games where only offensive characters exist.

There is simply no way to argue with someone who has such a radical stance that they can’t entertain the notion of a compromise. If you cannot be happy with the game unless the usefulness of tanks and healers is absolute zero then the devs should simply ignore you in my opinion, because you cannot be happy unless other people are unhappy. You cannot contribute to a discussion if your only point is that the other side of the discussion must cease to exist.

No game will make everyone happy all of the time.

Defensive and Offensive exist on a scale. Pure Offensive on one end and Pure Defensive on the other end. And for this discussion Pure Offensive and Pure Defensive are as offensive and as defensive as you can get in this game respectively.

As you go more offensive, you give up defensive capabilities and vice versa. And that’s how it should be. Jacks of all Trades are rarely masters of all trades. They give up the mastery to have basic knowledge of a lot of fields.

And I’ve never said that you should stop posting or even insinuated it. So I don’t know where the last sentence came from at all.

Beldin.5498:

You can’t delete a character by accident .. you always have to type in the name
of that character .. so how could that be by accident ?

Support will maybe give you back gem store stuff like copper fed salvomatic
and endles harvesting tools, but thats it more or less.

He named his main Jonathan. He named his beta Jonathon.

He wanted to reroll his beta but accidentally deleted his main due to name similarity.

Aetrion.8295:

You still haven’t bothered to read anything that I’ve actually said about how to increase the demand without making it required have you?

I have read it. I don’t agree that your changes wouldn’t make it required or that there wouldn’t be enough change for it to make any difference.

Aetrion.8295:

Increasing the effectiveness of healing power and defensive stats without increasing the demand for them doesn’t help anything. There is a practical cutoff point where more healing simply doesn’t give more survivability. You can’t heal yourself if you haven’t taken damage. That’s the whole reason why I’m saying HP needs to be used for more, so that there is actually a point to being able to generate more of it than the little you need to counteract incoming damage.

Also:

Rauderi.8706:

…Accusations of D&D overloaded “with stuff”. …And Pathfinder isn’t.

Did I say pathfinder was less overloaded? Seriously…

You can’t increase the demand for the defensive stats without making them required.

Not in GW2 where a good portion of defense is active defense. Healing isn’t active defense.

Aetrion.8295:

None of what you say adds up to an argument for why there can’t be dedicated support builds that exist to buff other people’s damage instead of inflicting damage themselves for the people who like to play that sort of thing.

Because this game is not a hard trinity game. Therefore there is no need for dedicated support builds.

Because in this game you can support yourself and your group all while maintaining high DPS.

There are a ton of other games that players who enjoy playing pure support roles can play. Every MMO does not have to cater to players who prefer specific roles.

I fail to see the argument as to why this game has to change to support pure support players. And that’s what you have to do. I don’t have to argue to keep the status quo. You have to argue to change the status quo. The burden isn’t on me. It’s on you.

Aetrion.8295:

Seera.5916:

And the only way to put them in the meta is make them required. Because even in trinity games, DPS is king. They only take enough healers and enough tanks to maintain maximum DPS.

That seems like another of your random assertions with no reasoning behind them. Even if we wholesale accept the premise that DPS is always king (there are fights in the game where it isn’t, like Mai Trin) it leaves plenty of opportunities for support characters that increase damage without being high damage themselves, and no reason why they would be required to run all content if they become accepted as being part of the fastest way to run content.

Mai Trin is see how fast you can get the stacks of Defiance off of her so that you can increase your DPS against her. The focus may shift to more support or control, but only so much as to increase the DPS. If it wasn’t noticeably faster to reduce her stacks as opposed to just burn her DPS down as you any other other boss, players would likely just burn her DPS down like you would any other boss. Because keeping 5 players on a single stack so that the chances of the player she’s going toward being the one the stack removal shot goes to increases to 100% is easier said than done for a majority of PUGs.

Everything boils down to DPS because a majority of players want to have the most rewards as possible for a given time frame. And that’s something that ANet can’t change. ANet can’t change the players’ motivations for why they do what they do in game. They can’t. Blizzard can’t change it. Other MMO companies can’t change it. They can only choose to focus on the majority of players and be a big game or be a niche game. ANet has chosen GW2 to be a game for the majority of players. At this point, three years after launch, it would likely be suicide for ANet to change GW2 into a niche game.

1. They’ll lose the players who don’t want the niche.
2. The niche players may worry that they’ll cater to the majority players again. They’ve switched focus once, what’s to stop them from doing it again?

Aetrion.8295:

This entire topic is about how to bring back the full range of RPG archetypes without enforcing trinity party compositions. I wouldn’t have to tell people we need to construct a whole new paradigm for how support works if I wanted it to go back to what it was.

They already exist! Just because every archetype isn’t in the meta doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

And the only way to put them in the meta is make them required. Because even in trinity games, DPS is king. They only take enough healers and enough tanks to maintain maximum DPS.

And just because one game does a hard trinity by doing it one way, doesn’t mean other ways to create a hard trinity.

Does it work in applications that use the mouse to the same degree?

My old mouse (a well used hand me down) started to have the right button go. It would be fine for general usage. But anytime I had to hold it down, it was spotty.

If I didn’t also use the hold right click button in another game, I may have thought it might be a game issue instead of a mouse issue.

Aetrion.8295:

Yea, but how do you know how easy it will be in Heart of Thorns?

And let’s not forget that the reason the game is so easy is because it has to cater to all DPS parties. It’s this insistence that you should not ever need a healer or tank that keeps the game from being decently challenging to people who play anything other than DPS.

And a LOT of players will leave this game if it needs a healer or a tank.

Just because it does not have a trinity doesn’t mean it can’t be decently challenging.

Do not try to get this game to turn into a trinity game. There are a ton of other trinity MMO’s out there. There aren’t that many that do not have a trinity. Stop trying to make the majority even larger.

They give them out every Friday. If you purchased late in the week, you may have missed the cut off for getting the slot last Friday. If you do not receive the slot by this Friday, then I would submit a ticket to support.

Aetrion.8295:

What if it is equally powerful as what’s currently meta? The ultimate goal of game balance would be that people can bring whatever kind of character they like to a group and their success depends on how well they play their individual role, not on how mindlessly they copied the builds on metabattle.

So it’s a trait or a skill then?

Then it would have to be easy to maintain (current meta of might stacks and what not are easy to maintain) and not require a whole new build. Because multiple gear sets are a pain and not every dungeon requires the same exact build.

Higher level Fractals would likely not be able to run with this as meta due to Agony as well as the instabilities. And if the gear required to make it meta level powerful is not the same as what they would need in Fractals, why would they choose a build that would require them to learn two builds and have two gear sets to maintain the ability to play with meta groups?

Aetrion.8295:

Narrrz.7532:

the inherent problem with the trinity system is that for people who don’t enjoy tanking or healing, a tank and/or healer is required for them to have fun. So they must find someone who would rather perform one of those roles or who is willing to sacrifice their own enjoyment to enable others to enjoy playing.

Yea, I want them to change the system so that you can do all the content without a tank or healer, but people who enjoy playing tanks or healers still get to enjoy the game too by changing their function from simply being mandatory to avoid death to helping people who like DPSing do more damage.

Simple example: If you had a support character in the party that did no damage, but raised everyone else’s damage by 25% then that person can play support and enjoy it without having to build the whole game around making you need that person.

Seera.5916:

So players are supposed to become overpowered?

It’s this thing called balance. You don’t want to make the game so easy that players who use the mechanism can just steamroll over everything.

How could you possibly know how the devs are going to balance it?

First you claim that somehow enemies have to do more damage if a new type of ability is added to the game, then you claim that this completely unspecified ability that hasn’t even been designed yet, but was merely discussed as a possibility is overpowered.

It sounds like you’re trying to argue against a general design idea by just making wild unfounded assertions about how it will be implemented.

If they add something to the game that lets players do more damage if they get X HP past full, then for it to even begin to be used in enough degree to be considered increasing the variety of builds accepted in meta PUG groups (the only groups that would really have any coordination to make your suggestion noticeable), it has to either:

1. Be more powerful than what’s already considered meta. People aren’t going to give up a trait or skill for something that’s not currently meta.
2. Be easy to maintain the highest DPS with it. If it’s hard to maintain the threshold amount of extra HP to keep the buff, people won’t waste time getting to it or keeping a slot for it.
3. Not take up a trait or skill slot. Then players aren’t giving up something to get it.

1. would HAVE to have things balanced accordingly. Everyone would have it and some players would hit that buff through passive regen abilities like the Elementalist’s soothing mist.

1. and #2, if it’s not hard and it’s powerful, then most everyone will choose it if it’s a choice anyway and you’ll have to balance accordingly. And that’s probably by hitting more often or hitting with more power behind it.

And if it is #1 or #2, then you’ve increased the wedge between the meta and non-meta groups. Because enemies have to hit harder to counter the damage buff, players who make more mistakes due to their lack of skill, are punished. And the meta players won’t want to risk it.

More experienced groups won’t need a healer to deal with the balancing. Less experienced groups would.

Who knows what it would do to open world play especially for the squishier classes.

Aetrion.8295:

Somehow nothing you just said makes any sense to me. How exactly does being able to spend excess HP require enemies to hit harder?

So players are supposed to become overpowered?

It’s this thing called balance. You don’t want to make the game so easy that players who use the mechanism can just steamroll over everything.

And if it isn’t high enough to not have something put in place to counter it, then it won’t affect the meta because it’s not worth the choice. Players will choose a trait or skill that doesn’t require health to be above a certain threshold, because it will hit with the same strength if he’s at 100% or at 5% health. And if it’s not a choice, then things would have to be balanced because the good players out in PvE will stay above any threshold given and will steamroll over everything if there isn’t anything put in to balance it out. And even average players will complain about most of the game being too easy.

Aetrion.8295:

Yea, but remember, the whole point of this topic is that if hitpoints do more than kill you you can increase the demand for healing without forcing you to have a healer to survive.

For example, if you could spend half your hitpoints to activate a powerful ability then you would have a constant demand for hitpoints that a healer can fill even from people who never take damage from monsters, but nobody loses anything when they don’t have a healer.

That’s the thing, enemies have to be designed to be balanced around player abilities. And your hit point suggestion would be something enemies would have to be balanced around.

Balancing around your suggestion would likely make it required to have healers because the enemies will start hitting harder or more often in an attempt to get players below the HP threshold.

So no, I can’t support your solution. The game does not require you to go full out DPS only and you can form groups with other players who have the same mindset as you for group related content, so that’s not even an issue.

Substance E.4852:

Harper.4173:

Content that makes you take damage you can’t avoid is simply absurd. There’s no reason to do it.

There’s plenty of reason to do it. It makes things like healing and defensive stats something people think about and rely on as much as dodges, not things reserved for bad players unversed in the latest exploit/cheese tactic. It also opens up new methods of play beyond dps with a side of dps.

If WvW and sPvP can be hard enough to force people to consider defense beyond the scope of dodge rolls and side stepping red rings, then so can pve.

The people who follow the meta and go glass cannon because they understand it, think about healing and defensive stats. They go: I’m skilled enough to not need it, therefore I will wear more offensive stat gear.

infinityandbeyond.9652:

Ellieanna.5027:

infinityandbeyond.9652:

Ellieanna.5027:

infinityandbeyond.9652:

Ellieanna.5027:

infinityandbeyond.9652:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

simplesimon.2084:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

The likelihood that someone is going to spend real world money to buy gold to harass another account is vanishingly small. The one thread I’ve seen claiming this is a thread where an ANet staffer came on to say that that account had an extensive history of gold buying, which is way more than the 2 the guy was talking about.

Synonyms for extensive: large, large-scale, sizable, substantial, considerable, ample, expansive, great, vast

Basing your request on the words of someone who was shown to be lying is to make a request to fix a problem that no one has shown to be happening. In other words, it’s a solution looking for a problem.

Just like it is highly unlikely someone will got thru the trouble of finding your actual address and then calling SWAT on you.

Referring to a previous post of yours “The point is the 300 gold was removed from his account even tho he hadn’t excepted the gold from the mail yet.”

The guy had an EXTENSIVE history of gold buying. The gold was from yet another gold seller. They undoubtably already had his account flagged from before the policy change to remove gold. Why should they wait? Would waiting have changed the end result, a guy who bought gold getting gold removed from his account? No. It wouldn’t.

tl:dr
The guy was lying. There is no problem with people paying real cash to have money sent fraudulently to other accounts. Unless this becomes an actual problem then ANet is better off fixing real problems than spending Dev time and money to fix something that isn’t happening.

Hi there. I understand where you’re coming from. I think the only person who could validate or invalidate the proposed scenario would be someone from the account security team. Don’t get me wrong – I’d like this to be simply an expression of my paranoia, rather then reality

That’s just it, only 1 person has come to the forums “complaining” about it, and Anet clearly stated they would remove gold from anyone who purchases from gold sellers. The person who did post seems to have a past of buying gold, which was clearly against the rules, and now they are taking action. If this was happening a lot, where people were actually getting spammed with gold from gold sellers that they didn’t buy, then maybe it could be a problem. But it hasn’t happened yet. End of story. If that person who posted really had only received 2 mails, like they claimed, in their entire GW2 playtime, then I’m pretty sure Chris would have worked with them to figure out the issue.

You can’t trust anything an account holder says, there has been so many times they “claim” something, and an Anet employee has shown the user was lying.

I wasn’t even aware of this persons post prior to creating this thread. Again, unless you were extrapolating data from the cs team and discussing it with Michael, you couldn’t definitively say “end of story”.

If it really was an issue, there would be more posts on the forums. So since you aren’t basing this on facts, or even posts, it really is paranoia and it’s not an issue. Thus, yes, it’s still end of story. If there was a lot of people getting harassed all of a sudden, then it would show up on reddit, or the forums, or somewhere. But it hasn’t. So yes, It’s End of Story. You are worried and want Anet to fix something that isn’t an issue. They need to focus on things that are issues.

Only a portion of the population uses the forums

I also mentioned Reddit. Do you really think someone who was having this issue wouldn’t voice their problem? I read the BBB complains for a few companies for kittens and giggles, and not once has someone mentioned this issue you are saying exists. Reddit hasn’t had anything. The forums hasn’t had anything. The BBB complaints area hasn’t had anything. So if this was really an issue, someone somewhere would have mentioned it. Drop the paranoia, or get off the internet and put on the tin foil hat. Anet doesn’t have time to chase “what ifs” where there are real issues to handle.

We’ll agree to disagree then Just remember my post was about the possibility of it happening and some (potentially) useful mail filter tools.

The mail filters take time to create and test and judge how much it prevents rule breakers vs how much it hinders legit players, etc. And time in a business is money.

There are a lot more pressing issues with this game than to focus on something that there has been no credible report of actually happening.

I’d still suggest her going through ANet’s site and buying HoT. She’ll get to play the base game now and if she decides she doesn’t like the game, it will be much easier to process any refund that she may want as opposed to another store.

Ashen.2907:

If someone quits after only 5 minutes of playing they would receive 0 rewards regardless of when they bought the game.

Even if Anet were to assign some rewards to an account the person who created it, but has since quit, will not receive or benefit.

As an example, birthday gifts are a form of veteran reward. Those members of my guild who quit a month after launch and have not looked back have not received such rewards.

For all I know there are rewards assigned to the WoW account I purchased years ago. I certainly will never receive any benefit for a game that I have “moved on” from.

They have received the birthday rewards, they just haven’t claimed them. You just talk to the birthday vendor and you get your rewards even if you didn’t log in until the following year. Just because they haven’t claimed the rewards, doesn’t mean they weren’t earned. And the birthday rewards are just for having characters that are X years old. The players who buy the game today will get the same 1 year birthday reward I did and I pre-purchased.

And you’re still not getting what I am saying nor apparently what the OP is saying.

The OP is saying that ANet should add in a system that rewards players who purchase EP’s based solely on when they purchased the base game and previous EP’s. When that purchase date does not give an accurate assessment of if that player is a veteran or loyal to the game.

Ashen.2907:

Seera.5916:

Ashen.2907:

As I said before, By definition someone who doesnt play the game, who buys the expansion and then moves on gets zero reward. Its not a reward if it cant be used.

Someone who buys the expansion later, but who actually plays the game will get a reward that is greater than zero.

Amything greater than zero > 0 (again by definition)

To repeat, what was claimed was that someone who purchased the game at launch and then moved on after five minutes would be rewarded more. This is not possible since they would receive zero rewards. In order for someone who receives zero rewards to receive more than someone else it would need to be possible for someone to earn negative rewards.

But that’s not the OP’s suggestion!

The OP is saying that if you buy the base game or the EP on release, then for every pack afterward you get 1000 tokens. Not buy the game and play X hours. Just buy the game. He only ties the number of tokens you get to the time you purchased the game.

Therefore a person who bought the game on day 1 and played every day for three years would get the same number of tokens upon purchasing the next pack as someone who bought the game on day 1 and only played for 5 minutes between the purchase of the base game and the next pack.

Please, since you keep claiming that there’s something in the OP’s suggestion that ties it to hours played, quote where he ties it to hours played.

You are inaccurately representing my claim.

I responded specifically to a claim that someone who quit the game after 5 minutes of play would be rewarded more than someone who bought it later but stuck with it. This is physically impossible. Zero cannot be greater than any non negative number.

You are not the OP. Mike.3460 is.

My initial comments were to the OP. To which you claimed what you claimed. And I said that wasn’t the OP’s suggestion. Which is why I kept saying that that wasn’t what the OP was suggesting.

The OP is suggesting a system that would reward a player for buying the game at launch and playing for 5 minutes more than a player who bought the gamer a year later and played every day.

Since you kept bringing up your comments, I figured you read the original post differently and asked you to quote what part of the post gave you an indication that he wants hours played factored in.

Ashen.2907:

As I said before, By definition someone who doesnt play the game, who buys the expansion and then moves on gets zero reward. Its not a reward if it cant be used.

Someone who buys the expansion later, but who actually plays the game will get a reward that is greater than zero.

Amything greater than zero > 0 (again by definition)

To repeat, what was claimed was that someone who purchased the game at launch and then moved on after five minutes would be rewarded more. This is not possible since they would receive zero rewards. In order for someone who receives zero rewards to receive more than someone else it would need to be possible for someone to earn negative rewards.

But that’s not the OP’s suggestion!

The OP is saying that if you buy the base game or the EP on release, then for every pack afterward you get 1000 tokens. Not buy the game and play X hours. Just buy the game. He only ties the number of tokens you get to the time you purchased the game.

Therefore a person who bought the game on day 1 and played every day for three years would get the same number of tokens upon purchasing the next pack as someone who bought the game on day 1 and only played for 5 minutes between the purchase of the base game and the next pack.

Please, since you keep claiming that there’s something in the OP’s suggestion that ties it to hours played, quote where he ties it to hours played.

xuse.6817:

And what if they’re dead and have been inactive for 3 years?

I have taken seveal accounts worth of names on mmos I have zero intention of playing.

You can’t beat logic, letting dead accounts keep names is pandering to the wrong crowd entirely and makes no sense.

There is little excuse after a year, no excuse after two years of inactivity.
Also, we can’t diversify names much, even accented names are taken.

You’re also forgeting that names are shared by ALL SERVERS including EU, WHICH IS INCREDIBLY BAD. Most mmos, that wipe names, do NOT share names across a population this large… and still wipe names.

Toxicity only uses 3-6 letter names that are not accented.

What proof do you have that they are dead and not just taking a break?

This game was advertised as one that you could stop playing and then return and pick up right where you left off with nothing lost. If your name is changed, then you’ve lost something.

Ashen.2907:

Seera.5916:

Ashen.2907:

Seera.5916:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

maddoctor.2738:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).

As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.

If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.

The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.

I think I need more coffee….

Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying

It uses only the date of purchase as an indicator of veteran status. And I’d imagine there are only a very small handful of players who have the game, either bought or gifted, who haven’t loaded up the game at least once. So it’s not unrealistic to view purchase date as an indicator of the age of the account as recorded by the game.

Which doesn’t really cover loyalty. Just that they bought the game earlier than someone else.

Someone who bought the game at launch and only played for 5 minutes before moving on would be rewarded more than someone who bought the game a year later but has been playing non-stop ever since and buys gems when they can afford it. And I don’t think I can get behind a “loyalty” system that only looks at purchase date as the measure of loyalty.

Someone who moved on after five minutes would receive zero rewards. Someone who buys the game later and sticks with it would get greater than zero rewards.

Not according to the OP’s suggestion.

I didn’t see anything in the suggestion that factors in actual play time.

By definition someone who “walks away” from the game, doesnt play it, is not rewarded by any in game benefits.

Any in game benefits inherently include an actual play time factor because the more you play the more you benefit from any in game rewards. Someone with essentially zero play time receives essentially zero benefit or reward from veteran rewards.

Not according to the OP’s suggestion.

OP’s suggestion is that when you BUY the base game or an EP, you get set up with X amount of tokens based on how far past the release date you buy it.

Then, every time you buy an EP, you get that amount of tokens.

Nothing in the suggestion factors in hours played. Please, quote the place in the OP’s suggestion that factors in hours played.

runeblade.7514:

NTDK.4897:

runeblade.7514:

I agree. Sometimes, I just want to play with my other characters. But only one character has all the agony resistance because ascended is expensive. If Exotics can be used with agony resist, then I would be okay with what they are doing.

since ascended are account bound. Just move the trinkets/armors around. Lot of people do that

My Ranger can’t wear ascended heavy armor. My Charr warrior can’t wear ascended human cultural t3 armor.

Move the trinkets around then. They aren’t armor weight or race dependent. Should be able to tide you until you get a drop or make more sets.

And your decision to skin cultural skins onto the armor is what causes you to not be able to share between Heavy class characters with different races. That’s not ANet’s fault. You chose to do that knowing it would prevent you from being able to share it with characters that aren’t that race.

Ashen.2907:

Seera.5916:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

maddoctor.2738:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).

As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.

If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.

The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.

I think I need more coffee….

Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying

It uses only the date of purchase as an indicator of veteran status. And I’d imagine there are only a very small handful of players who have the game, either bought or gifted, who haven’t loaded up the game at least once. So it’s not unrealistic to view purchase date as an indicator of the age of the account as recorded by the game.

Which doesn’t really cover loyalty. Just that they bought the game earlier than someone else.

Someone who bought the game at launch and only played for 5 minutes before moving on would be rewarded more than someone who bought the game a year later but has been playing non-stop ever since and buys gems when they can afford it. And I don’t think I can get behind a “loyalty” system that only looks at purchase date as the measure of loyalty.

Someone who moved on after five minutes would receive zero rewards. Someone who buys the game later and sticks with it would get greater than zero rewards.

Not according to the OP’s suggestion.

I didn’t see anything in the suggestion that factors in actual play time.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Seera.5916:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

maddoctor.2738:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).

As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.

If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.

The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.

I think I need more coffee….

Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying

It uses only the date of purchase as an indicator of veteran status. And I’d imagine there are only a very small handful of players who have the game, either bought or gifted, who haven’t loaded up the game at least once. So it’s not unrealistic to view purchase date as an indicator of the age of the account as recorded by the game.

Which doesn’t really cover loyalty. Just that they bought the game earlier than someone else.

Someone who bought the game at launch and only played for 5 minutes before moving on would be rewarded more than someone who bought the game a year later but has been playing non-stop ever since and buys gems when they can afford it. And I don’t think I can get behind a “loyalty” system that only looks at purchase date as the measure of loyalty.

Truthfully, I’m not too concerned about people who played for 5 minutes and then moved on. If they don’t come back it hardly matters if they get some ingame credits or
not.

They get the credits when they buy the next EP. That’s what the OP suggests

The player who only played for 5 minutes but bought the game at launch would get more credits than the player who bought the game a year later, but has played several hours.

I would however, make a back up on a flash drive or cd or external hard drive of any important documents you do not wish to lose or can’t recreate again.

While nothing should go wrong in the update, sometimes things do mess up.

Not to mention, any irreplaceable and/or important file should have a back up off of the computer. Hard drives can and do fail.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

maddoctor.2738:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).

As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.

If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.

The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.

I think I need more coffee….

Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying

It uses only the date of purchase as an indicator of veteran status. And I’d imagine there are only a very small handful of players who have the game, either bought or gifted, who haven’t loaded up the game at least once. So it’s not unrealistic to view purchase date as an indicator of the age of the account as recorded by the game.

Which doesn’t really cover loyalty. Just that they bought the game earlier than someone else.

Someone who bought the game at launch and only played for 5 minutes before moving on would be rewarded more than someone who bought the game a year later but has been playing non-stop ever since and buys gems when they can afford it. And I don’t think I can get behind a “loyalty” system that only looks at purchase date as the measure of loyalty.

Crimson Clouds.4853:

Receiving or sending large quantities of gold can flag your account as suspicious.

I’ve heard of a few people get a suspension from trading precursors between guildies, for example.

So although it isn’t against the rules, you might get flagged and subsequently punished for it, but it’s nothing that contacting CS won’t resolve if you explain everything to them and be as honest and forthcoming as possible.

And yes, there is a 500g limit in place for receiving gold. What happens is, if you were to receive a mail with more than 500g in it, you will be able to pick up 500g from that mail, but the rest will sit in the mail (undeletable) until a week has passed.

Therefore, if it is something you’re doing between you and another player, make sure you have documentation in game about the trade or gift. Either in a chat or through messages.

That way should something happen, you’ve got evidence that ANet can use.

anx.7549:

Thanks Exeon. I’ve done that and it works, but as soon as I create a new character it re-sets the AP points, so I have to log back into GW1, and then back to GW2 and visit HoM and yeah it’s annoying as I am always re-rolling characters!

Have you submitted a ticket to support?

Tom.6478:

I really have no problem with buffs or nerfs. If the stealth things do exits, I just wish they would tell us.

Maybe stealth nerfs/buffs don’t exist….but people sure think they do.

Oh well, I won’t slit my wrist over it either way….:)

Its just something I would like to know for sure.

That’s the thing, if they told us about them, they wouldn’t be stealth nerfs/buffs/fixes. And they generally have a reason for why they don’t tell us (whether we agree with that reason is another issue).

Tom.6478:

I have read many times about stealth nerfs, but as far as I know , no one can prove it. Its just anecdotal evidence.

However I believe they exist.

Again this is just anecdotal on my part, but it sure seems you get fewer rares from world events.

I actually don’t have a problem with that. I just wish they would say so.

Now maybe Anet said something somewhere about this….if they did, I missed it.

RNG can have bad streaks. Especially systems that are independent of previous iterations. Like this game has for everything (or at least everything that I know of). What the previous champion bag dropped has no bearing on what I get in my next bag.

It is possible to flip a coin 100 times and it land on heads 100 times. Chances are really low, but it happening does not necessarily mean the coin is biased.

They likely also stealth buff things. And stealth fix things.

RatTailJack.2785:

Donari.5237:

Guys, all these specific suggestions should go in the appropriate subforum, most of them in their own threads. The CDI subforum is for developer/player think tank discussion of larger scale projects, and this particular thread is about the methods of contributing to those discussions. If you want your ideas seen you probably don’t want to post them in a highly inactive place that requires no dev attention because there is no active CDI in progress here.

I would create or post a reply in the sub forums below….but those have all been blocked off. This is the only one left open.

The proper place is in a thread in General Discussion.

Therodin.2970:

Ayrilana.1396:

Therodin.2970:

Of course i don’t report them because i do not think they are doing anything wrong.

Anet stated advertising home instance access is against the LFG rules. Just because people choose not to report it for whatever reason, or feel that it isn’t, doesn’t change this.

That has nothing to do with what i initially asked you, i asked if a rule is still a rule if it is not enforced. My proof of it not being enforced was seeing these people advertising home instances every day. For instance, it is against the rules to jaywalk but i do not believe i have ever seen someone stopped by a cop because of it.

How can ANet act on things that aren’t reported?

How do you know they aren’t getting punished for it?

Of your dynamic ip’s stay within a range, the authenticator will learn them all and eventually stop asking.

SirDrygan.1823:

Just want to say , it’s that it? It’s that the best you can do, ANET?

It’s a placeholder for when they work out the kinks of making Season 1 replayable.

I can’t imagine how hard it is to turn a world boss into a personal story instance and still maintain the same level of difficulty.

But they realized they needed to put something out there for new players who did not get the chance to play Living Story Season 1. So they came up with the cinematic.

Xillllix.3485:

Honestly the game is in desperate need of new content right now, not videos of past content that was removed.

But the hp and damage of every creatures in dungeons by 200% and make an hardcore mode or something that can serve as an endgame.

There are enough new players that it was needed to bridge the gap between Personal Story and Living Story Season 2, the introduction to the story featured in Heart of Thorns.

Not to mention for all of the new players that Heart of Thorns will bring in.

anx.7549:

Seera – I never had GWAMM. At all. Ever. I never got it in GW1 and when the bug happened my account wasn’t one of the ones that had it enabled. I have never had it!!!!

Ah, the thread title led me to believe you had earned it.

Your best bet is to contact support and work with them on the issue. There’s not much we can do on the forums.

The only other suggestion is to actually earn GWAMM and see if that clears it up permanently.

I would submit a ticket to support to see what the issue is.

When did you earn GWAMM?

GrandHaven.1052:

Are you having issues with the authenticator?
Can’t login to site or client after setting it up.

Seems ill be missing my login rewards today. That’s a first in a long time…

(Posting this from a different account obviously).

Can I also add that mass incentives for authenticator before knowing if it works properly is a terrible decision, one of many such decisions being made by ANET and NCSoft… Honestly need to get your QA back up to snuff, or someone’s making bad decisions.

I’ve had the authenticator for a while and I have had no issues.

Aurlie Priest Of Ra.5014:

everything was fine with the new build until the the one about 2 hours ago. I had 23,508 achievement points before the last build. I log in after and my ap is down to 23,000. I get a mail saying that i was awarded gwamm (god walking amongst mere mortals) and that points had been taken away. i am only one title away from gwamm in gw1… i know that i didnt have that title. I want my ap back however. i work very hard to keep that as high as i can and maintain a real life. please give back my ap…

They took away the AP that got awarded when the glitch gave you GWAMM. As soon as you get that one title and link your accounts, you’ll get the AP back.

Just because Braham is using her bow doesn’t mean Eir is dead. Eir could be using the new Ranger elite spec and is not using her long bow anymore so gave it to Braham.

Or she’s gotten a new bow and has given hers to Braham. Or she made him a duplicate of her bow.

Any number of reasons that do not amount to Eir’s dead.

ron.6157:

wow realey a bata test for a mini nothing like a slap in the face after getting kicked in the other end on the hall of monuments rewards that I still cant get to here add this un tested app we will give you this sweet mini how about look at the 6,000 + hours I have loged and say hay you get this cuse your a loyal player Realey here is the other cheek please use the cricket bat this time

The app isn’t untested. Or at least not all authentication apps are untested. Get one of the tested ones.

They are giving players a mini as a thank you as two step authentication reduces the numbers of players who get hacked. Which keeps Support from getting swamped with tickets which keeps ANet from having to have employees do overtime to deal with the overload on tickets.

Aetrion.8295:

Harper.4173:

OP – to answer your “healing buff that increases DPS” question – here’s the situation as I see it.

They won’t do it because it’d make the game even easier by making parties even more effective. How?

A full 5 man zerker team has let’s say baseline healing capacity – let’s call that 0 healing for our demonstration. Let’s say their overall party dps can be summed up to the value of 5.

What you want is a dedicated healer that can buff teammates and thus the party does not lose dps.
In that case we’d have let’s say a hypothetical 4 zerker 1 healer setup.

Their healing is now 1, and their damage is still 5 since the fact they are being healed by a healer is buffing their dps to a equal or similar level as a full 5 man zerker party.
So they have the same dps as a party but more healing meaning the game is EASIER and much more faceroll than before.

So in essence – that’s why they won’t do it.

Your example doesn’t take into account that they are trading HP for the extra damage, so they need to go to -1 healing (create the need to heal) to get that +1 DPS, the healer just evens them out again.

ladybutter.5280:

This game revolves around active defenses. OP, you have played for a month, I’ve been playing for 2 years now, and you know what, I’m still finding new ways how to deal with certain situations with my main ele.

When I started, I was also intimidated by zerker gear, I started with knight + pvt, then when I got used to the class and the different encounters, I switched to zerkers. And you know what, what mattered when I changed gear was my situational awareness.

My issue isn’t with the play style of this game at all, in fact I enjoy that very much. My issue is with the fact that there are support and defensive stats in the game that give no benefit to the way the game actually does support and defense.

Building a character around Healing Power doesn’t in any way increase your ability to blast for buffs for example, so despite sacrificing easily three fourths of your potential DPS to be a support specialist, you aren’t any better at performing the support functions that are in constant demand. The only thing you’re better at is healing, which, as you rightly point out, isn’t part of the active defense gameplay, since healing is reactive.

So which is it? An extra pool of energy past max or out of the main pool? If it’s the latter, it best be a skill as I do not want to opt into that. And in meta runs, the healer would heal people past max to trigger it and then players would pop their own personal heals and be back to max.

The former would possibly shift the meta w/o being required. But it may not since ascended stat switching isn’t free nor are the runes and sigils. Most you’d likely see is a shift in trinkets.

But it wouldn’t increase variety of builds in the meta. The meta may change, but there won’t be an increase in variety or a requirement for healers in any capacity or degree.

Not saying it wouldn’t be nice if more builds were in the meta.

Just that you can’t say builds are inviable just because they’re not in the meta. They are just not optimal.

And there’s a fine line between making more varieties optimal and making more varieties required. The AI needs to be adjusted to play smarter and things will likely open up in the meta.

But your suggestion isn’t likely to do anything to the meta, really. It would have to be a skill to not make healers required (traits wouldn’t have a player controlled situation and you wouldn’t want it to proc when you’ve got too little health). And if it’s a skill, players would have to give up their party support for personal DPS. And the lack of party support and focus on personal DPS is why Necros aren’t in the PUG meta at least. So your suggestion would go the way the Necro is currently. Not welcome in PUG meta runs.

Support builds ARE viable. They just are not optimal builds. And they will never be unless they are made required. And this game is not for required roles.

And no, DPS is not a required role. I can do a dungeon and have everyone run a support build with support gear on. And we’d be successful. It would take awhile, but it would be possible. We could even do it naked, and sometimes group do do naked runs.

Stop claiming that just because they aren’t in the meta that builds are inviable. They aren’t. Only optimal builds are in the meta.