Guild Wars 2

I just thought some people might benefit from me reposting just the link. If you like it, read my post just above this one.

http://imgur.com/zSBt9EM

munkiman.3068:

SonOfJacob.7396:

Right, but if it was a reward at 10k, you’d have gotten 2…unless they simply removed the RNG portion.

Right. This is actually one of the best suggestions for pre-c earning. Not just because i hit 10k already, but because it does take a lot of effort to get to 10k, far more then any scavenger hunt they could dream up and actually implement.

Yup. That’s what I was thinking. I mean, I’m at 12k+ right now. I’d have ONE precursor. And it totally could be RNG which one I got. Then I could sell it and buy the one I wanted.

They could always implement a downscale on everything if you’re level 80 AND a full zerker setup. How’d that be?

Btw, I have full zerker ascended armor and trinkets AND I know how to dodge. Play a higher level if you want harder content – are you FotM level 50 yet? It’s like you don’t even realize what a video game is about when you post these things. Were you any good at the original Super Mario Brothers level 7-2? Of course not b/c you did what almost everyone else did: used the shortcut to get to the end of the game. A video game is only as enjoyable as the person playing it wants it to be and what they are focusing on.

Right, but if it was a reward at 10k, you’d have gotten 2…unless they simply removed the RNG portion.

Anyone suggested a precursor automatically at every 10k achievement points? At that point, it’s fair to conclude a player has done enough to warrant a precursor. Based on the latest Leaderboards, that means the highest achievers would just have gotten their second, and be at least another four months to their third. It would lower prices, but wouldn’t necessarily severely increase Legendaries in the game (don’t forget all the freakin’ mats required).

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na/achievements

I assembled this for myself straight from the wiki. This is only Exotic and doesn’t factor in Runes (except Divinity for Celestial). An Archetype is just sticking to a complete “Prefix” build. IE, if you’re going straight Berserker stats with no Runes, using only Orbs or Crests, it’d be Ruby Orbs.

It shows holes but also demonstrates the need for overhaul to HOW a build is approached. The only way to do that is to revamp crafting (which really isn’t ideal for the devs). Someone mentioned four slotted armor like how we attach Agony Resistance: Primary, Secondary, Secondary, Agony Infusion. If the devs follow the Wallet and Wardrobe redesign curve with Armor and Trinkets, the slotted approach is the natural evolution of builds.

http://imgur.com/zSBt9EM

Two notes:

1) The Passion Flower is Healing Power, Condition, Toughness, which is Apothecary, but the stats are just Rare, not Exotic – which means there ISN’T an Apothecary Exotic attachment. You can’t build a true Apothecary Archetype at the Exotic level.

2) The Crest of the Shaman is wrong. Shaman stats are Vitality, Healing Power, Condition Damage. The Crest of the Shaman is Vitality, Healing Power, Power. You can’t build a true Shaman Archetype at the Exotic level.

Stars.2179:

Again, there are 7 * (7 choose 2) + 1 = 7 * 35 + 1 = 147 + 1 = 148 different stat combo.

I’m not awesome at math, but I think the calculation for possible combinations for three variables would be 7 * 6 * 5 = 210, since with each choice of a stat, there is one less available to choose from.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong please.

E Tan.7385:

Isaiah Cartwright.8569:

I would love to get people thoughts on what stat combinations they would like to see added to the game?

First, i would love to know when you guys are going to think to a system to swap stats like a legendary weapon can do, for gear ( armor – weapons – jewels ) starting from exotic ones.

This would also be a different way of evolving the gameplay. Since Trait lines are now able to be adjusted when out of combat, why not do the same with weapons and armor. Then I don’t need to change from Berserker’s in PvE to Sentinel’s in WvW. One set – WAY simpler.

Lightlord.4752:

Power (Main) +Vitality/Toughness

This exists – it’s called Soldier. Unless you already knew that. In that case, carry on.

SaltyDave.7346:

First and more important: it’s not only about the stat combos themselves, but making it aviable to use in the first place. Various stat combos are much harder to get, and I belive restrictions and walls created by the market isn’t something that should be allowed.

This just came into my mind when I started my guardian (3rd “serious” character) and wanted to get a set (not sure about it’s name) that was only aviable during a specific Living World event, and each armor piece was over 100g in the trading post. I remember it had vitality as main stat, and power / toughness I think as secondary stats, not sure about it.

ALL stat combos should be equally be in a realistic, possible reach for everyone.

FYI, it’s called Sentinel and it came out about a year ago with Flame and Frost (probably the best LS segment – the dyes and weapon skins are still the most expensive, as well as Azurite Orbs – which are only now available on the TP – you can’t farm them anymore, which is a shame).

mcarswell.3768:

I would love to see craftable gear with NO stats, but with 4 infusion slots (1 major infusion, 2 minor infusion, 1 agony/wvw/utility infusion) . And then add craftable infusions for each stat at each level (major minor), so we could mix and match our own setups.

If they follow suit with the Wallet and Wardrobe, this would be the natural evolution of design for stats.

Vitality (primary), Toughness (secondary), Condition Damage (secondary)

Also, fix the Sentinel stat combo by providing Azurite nodes to farm. Sentinel is fantastic from a WvW perspective, but the stuff is SO expensive…

Inimicus.7162:

I like the lack of a required trinity but: Ancient toughness and hokie heals are no match for a good zerker build on your character kid.

+1,000,000,000 LOL

DeWolfe.2174:

I think the one thing the trinity brought out was different pacing to match player preferences. Right now, GW2 is very twitchy, ditchy, and *itchy. I’d like slower more tanky healing to match my preferred pacing.

For example, my Norn Warrior has to be tankier and have “Death from Above” slotted at all times. Why?…. because I love the feel of stomping around. It makes my character feel right to me. Though obviously people would complain it’s blah…blah…blah not optimized. Though for me the play style feels right. If it changes and I cannot have my play style, I’ll leave the game. So instead of trying to force players into a “Zomg, fast paced, twitchy, blah blah blah, adrenaline, yay me” game style, they should consider whom the paying customer truly is.

But this just sounds like you aren’t in a guild that is fun and let’s people do it their way and works with them. It’s like, the play style can be whatever you want, you just need to find a guild that functions that way. I’m on TC and I know of a BUNCH of guilds that are legit like that.

Inimicus.7162:

Good luck to ya

You can invul the spike damage, but the sustained from elite mobs can be realy harsh. And remember, TA was just one experience, to be true, you would need it to stand up to arah trash

Yeah…Arah…didn’t think about that. You still don’t think it could be done with a full on heal/support Guardian? He can put up walls to stop the mobs…

Inimicus.7162:

In GW2 they have defined every class rather narrowly by “style” more so than “tank/heal/dps” and what i mean by that is generally that mesmer = phantams, warrior = melee, ele = aoe, ranger = pet…etc. While there are build options to avoid a little of this, it also means you in GW2 are slaved to the limitations of your class’s range of skills chosen for your gimmick…Yes, some classes can “tank” better than others, some can dps/heal better, but there isn’t enough of any of it really to create a proper “trinity” group… Other than Trahearne’s unity clap-trap of course

I particularly appreciated the last part of this. But, the first part just seems how I would want to pick my profession anyway though (ie, if I want to melee, yeah, warrior makes sense; ele being aoe too; etc). I think what you’re getting at is to really have a viable holy trinity, toughness and healing would have to be more pronounced/effective rather than just the damage being done.

Agreed. Is it going to change how you play the game if you were to retrait? An Ascended GS already does 5% more damage than an Exotic…

Plus the new traits are coming…I was on the dev live stream an hour ago…they announced good stuff coming for all professions, especially Warrior. Your zerker Warrior isn’t suddenly useless.

Sure, but a warrior with the HS, full Sentinel armor/trinkets, mango pies, and Superior Runes of the Dolyak should be able to do just what you are saying. I’ll have to try that in TA as you suggest.

lol…I’ve actually seen that one already believe it or not. I just mean, if people WANT to play holy trinity, can’t they just DO it?

Or is this more of a problem with the zerker damage output versus playing a holy trinity and the lack therein?

I’m wondering if doubling the boss armor at the same time as halving their hp would stop people complaining about zerker set up. Or some variation therein.

Here’s an honest question (seriously, not joking): is it possible to actually play a “holy trinity” in this game? I mean, warrior full toughness/vitality specs, elementalist full dps specs, and guardian full healing specs.

Would that not work?

Swagger.1459:

SonOfJacob.7396:

Delar.9456:

The only thing GW2 can pump out is mass Zerg content which requires no skill, minimal participation and extremely rudimentary team work.

I tried reading this entire thread, but it became tedious due to the endless beotching, so I started skimming and saw this part of a comment. I’m pretty sure that phrase “rudimentary team work” is highly dependent on WHAT you are doing in game and HOW you are doing it.

I totally get that you are referencing PvE, not WvW, but seriously – go play something that you find fun rather than complain on the forum (no offense meant to you, it’s just that a TON of people do this and all I can think is that the game is much larger than the PvE stuff). Here’s an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlh-DBLjzYk

top level players and teams are not playing this game because professions and combat are shallow, and there has been very little improvement in these two areas for almost 2 years. also, the forums are here so we can share thoughts, opinions, info, ideas and concerns so i’ll turn this back around on you. if you don’t like reading criticism from players that hope to see improvements, then get off the forums and continue playing the game you are content with. no, not everyone is constructive with their feedback, but simply made (and more accurate in my opinion) general thoughts hardly deserve the white knight treatment.

Did you watch the video? There are plenty of top level players and teams in GW2. I’m not one of them. But my suggestion is that if you are one of them, there are more aspects of this game than just PvE.

As for the purpose of the forum: yes, I know. That’s why I responded in the first place. Complainers don’t hold the rights to the forum.

Delar.9456:

The only thing GW2 can pump out is mass Zerg content which requires no skill, minimal participation and extremely rudimentary team work.

I tried reading this entire thread, but it became tedious due to the endless beotching, so I started skimming and saw this part of a comment. I’m pretty sure that phrase “rudimentary team work” is highly dependent on WHAT you are doing in game and HOW you are doing it.

I totally get that you are referencing PvE, not WvW, but seriously – go play something that you find fun rather than complain on the forum (no offense meant to you, it’s just that a TON of people do this and all I can think is that the game is much larger than the PvE stuff). Here’s an example:

Exosferatu.2961:

This game is definitely dead: the mindless zerging in Living World, countless overflows, 200+ people queued in World vs World reset day in Eternal Battlegrounds, being stampeded in Edge of the Mists, flooding mapchats, and burn me like Ascalon I’m seeing players walking literally in Divinity’s Reach.

Oh hey, why are there so many Guild Wars 2 blog posts, Facebook updates, short stories in Flickr (what in balthazar’s name – flickr!?)? Arena Net must be extremely silent… No wonder their game is dead.

What were they doing in PAX 2013 and gave away $10,000 U.S. dollars? The game is supposed to be dead, right OP?

+1

I always wonder how people qualify a game as “dead” when they’re posting in that game’s online forum.

Mark Katzbach.9084:

As has been mentioned in this thread, the policy is one click or keypress per action. Anything beyond that is a violation of our rules.

For anyone interested, this is a policy. From a business point of view, policies are instituted to be intentionally vague in certain instances. That way, a company can “interpret” the policy to work in their favor no matter the circumstance. So, if you’ve got a macro that performs more than a single click (since that is what your finger would do), it is against the policy. There is no further meaning beyond that. The devs have been as clear “as they need to be”.

However, since they are a company with millions of customers, they are forced to recognize that some people tiptoe at the boundaries of the policy, while others run right on past the boundaries not caring at all (I’m looking at you, illegal botters). There are essentially three types of players regarding macros:

1) Those that don’t use them at all
2) Those that use them for a passive in-game advantage
3) Those that use them for an active in-game advantage

The difference of 2 and 3 being something like opening a stack of bags versus automated game play (combo attacks, etc). Now, anyone that falls into 2 or 3 are still breaking the policy. The question of whether or not Anet has, is, or will in the future ban based on those breaking the policy in category 2 is really speculation. A lot of people are hoping they won’t, but anyone that is doing that should understand Anet has (due to the stated policy) the right to exact a ban in such a case.

Again, intentional vagueness allows them to interpret and act how they see fit.

Unknownhero.6745:

What do you do with all your time, that you don’t have dragonite ore…I have a full set of asc armor, 4-5 weapons, and still 20-30 stacks left over

I have a full set of Ascended armor, two weapons, and am currently working on an Ascended blade shard back pack. I feel like you just pinged what you have in mapchat and obliged me to ping back that I’ve got the same thing.

The point is to offer an additional option to obtaining it. I readily admit that it’s a want, not a need. But then, isn’t that why I posted this?

Demonia Bronzaber.7239:

Right now the only thing worth buying with karma is Obsidian shards and Ascended recipie.

Buy Black Lion keys for like 10k karma each.

This.

Also, I JUST posted a few hours ago about Dragonite.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Make-Dragonite-Purchasable-with-Karma/

Oenanthe.6549:

While I agree with the OP this is mainly because I get annoyed at being forced to do specific large events…I still feel it would have been better to make the asended items and materials tradeable so those that wanted to do the big events could and did not just end up with a bank full of worthless mats, and those of us who enjoy crafting would not feel forced to do the big events just to get the materials.

This was part of why I made this post. It seems that by account-binding Dragonite specifically (due to relatively limited drop rate), there seems an imbalance of usefulness to this particular mat. I know plenty of people that have stacks of the stuff but also have Legendaries, rendering Ascended weapons, at least for them, not worth pursuing.

There’s something to be considered in that – if Ascended weapons take this much grind, why not grind a little more for Legendaries. We know the Ascended armor “worth it” part is questionable.

I’m usually a lot happier when I play the game that IS rather than one that exists in some advertising-copy writer’ fantasies.

THIS. Excellent point Nike.

Like Obsidian Shards. Topic says it all. Both are Account bound. Pro-con list anyone?

Please change the damage indicator (how much damage done to an enemy) to be in a static position. Right now, if it’s a legendary boss, any of the dragons or temple gods for example, it shifts depending on angle of the view sometimes making it tougher than it should be to determine whether or not damage is being done. It’s just a request, but it’d be WAY more convenient if it’s in a static position.

Perhaps left or right of center 1/3 down the screen from the top.

Bran.7425:

Don’t start on risk vs reward there while stacking in melee provides both optimal damage and protect. That and with the limit range on boons there is less and less reason for that argument.

So I understand you properly, you’re saying that enemies should target melee first, right? That’s what it kinda sounds like (which isn’t a bad idea). The only logical conclusion at this point is the need to rework AI (which, I know, a TON of people have pointed out), not changing armor.

It would be interesting if committed zerker CoF P1 run teams made videos with full trait and armor and trinkets spec’d to PVT. Dodging is fine, use everything you can, just make the run full PVT so there’s a baseline for meaningful comparison out there.

Zenith.7301:

I’d just like for any other gear to be closer in performance to berzerker.
…
Berzerker just scales in a way that rampager does not.

If I read this right, and differentiate between what others have said before, you would like a scaling effect for other builds – is that correct? So, like Power, Precision, Crit Damage all contribute to highest melee damage possible, you’d like more of an equalizer for scaling up some other type of damage (and I don’t believe you are saying you want a scaling up of builds that are defensive in nature).

But then, I’m not sure how that can be done since the only other two types of damage mentioned on the wiki (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Damage) are conditions (which affects WvW and others have said that’s not viable) and falling (which isn’t really used in combat).

There is ranged damage, but I don’t suppose you mean buffing that to equal zerker because as I understand it, ranged is less risk (the whole “risk versus reward” conversation mentioned everywhere). I’m honestly trying to understand what a solution could be and still not simply “nerf” something because that just seems too simple…it’s just going to make everything take longer.

Well, but adding Crit Damage as a value to duration might be a possibility then. For example, say a person specs for 30% Crit Damage on a Condition Damage toon. So the Condition Duration increases by 30% OR the initial Condition Damage increases 30%.

So here’s a thought: what if instead of nerfing anything, they simply incorporate Crit Damage into a bonus multiplier for Condition Damage?

I know Crit Damage doesn’t affect Condition Damage, but that’s just the current system. Couldn’t they implement some kind of bonus to Condition + Crit Damage set up so they multiply off each other? That way zerker stays the same, but Conditions get a buff if they have added Crit Damage.

So here’s a thought: what if instead of nerfing anything, they simply incorporate Crit Damage into a bonus multiplier for Condition Damage?

I know Crit Damage doesn’t affect Condition Damage, but that’s just the current system. Couldn’t they implement some kind of bonus to Condition + Crit Damage set up so they multiply off each other? That way zerker stays the same, but Conditions get a buff if they have added Crit Damage.

I’m curious about your last bullet…it seems you almost agree in that scaling should occur based on group build. Is that not right?

The main point is that whatever the meta is, that’s what the scaling should be based on. I also put that the way it is now (in CoF P1 for example) should stay the same for a zerker build, but be down-scaled for non-zerker builds, thereby lowering their completion time (not necessarily to full zerker times, but significantly).

What everyone seems to be talking about here boils down to balance – whether to a system that does not seem to even out among PUGs in dungeons, or in PvE (the original post and some responses). The rest seem to be zealously communicating their desire to not have zerker nerfed. It makes sense that “the ideal” DPS build (whatever that winds up being) will always be the meta – that’s what meta is about. I’m going to recommend something which probably won’t be popular, but would actually lend to balance.

The solution, I believe, lies in viewing this problem on it’s side – zerker shouldn’t be nerfed, but it should be used to measure the amount of balance. Let’s break down the two topics being discussed:

1) Regarding PUGs in dungeons, it would seem that since this is intended to be a group dynamic, the final boss should be scaled in difficulty based on the group total effectiveness dynamic. In other words, take the sum of all five players for their potential effectiveness: (Power * Precision * (100% + Crit Damage)) – since this IS the meta, and set it to determine the difficulty of the main boss (and you can set that total to equal the difficulty of what the final boss is now for five zerkers – so it scales DOWN for those that aren’t zerkers; this will still take time to complete a path, but will make other builds MUCH more viable). Whatever it is, I know there’s an equation that can be worked out by the devs to calculate that in virtually no time upon starting the path in any given dungeon, and then the scaling of the final boss is based on that. Furthermore, to make everything dynamic (for programming purposes on future adjustments) you could then make the lesser minions a fraction of the boss’s difficulty.

a) True group accountability requires making it harder on fewer than five players in a dungeon. If people are skilled enough to do a path with fewer than five players, then that needs scaling – just put in a simple “player count < 5 = ridiculously OP’d final boss” bit of code and the fractional minion part of the code takes care of the rest. The scale based on player count would effectively render a solo run impossible while at the same time increasing the difficulty for those that want it.

b) This also means that even if a fifth player isn’t zerker and joins an all zerker group, they don’t really cause drag on the entire group. But it also means that “any group” can truly run “any path”, which is what I think you guys are shooting for anyway. Yes, more work on the front end, but MUCH more manageable on the back end, and that’s really what good coding is about.

c) As for implementation, all you need to do to test this out is CoF P1 initially. Get the code right on that path (the most-run path) and once you have it tweaked to your satisfaction, take the model to other dungeon paths. This will, rather than nerf zerker, effectively balance the non-zerker CoF P1 run – which I’ve read endless replies in other posts about it needing to be done anyway.

d) And if you REALLY want to go crazy, allow up to 10 players in a dungeon. And here’s how you scale it: INVERSE of the < 5 player calcuation. So a team of 6 has the same scale of difficulty as a team of 4. And a team of 7 has the same scale as a team of 3. And 8 the same as 2 and 9 the same as 1. Then a team of 10 could simply be super hard mode for crazy elitists (of which I’ll never have interest to run…ever – but I’m not THAT hard core anyway).

2) Regarding PvE, I believe you’ve done as much as any group of devs could do and still make it manageable for non-zerker players to still get through almost the entire world map AND still be fun at the same time (I suppose the areas of Orr are still not as easily solo’d by non-zerkers). People seem to be underestimating the fun factor in PvE. There are a lot of Guilds and PUGs that now specifically run PvE – I’m in one that runs a full area (minus Hearts) every Wednesday at 9pm EST. It still takes about 90 minutes, but it’s because we have people bailing all the time, and new players jumping in all the time. But it’s FUN.

a) If you try to do anything about PvE to make it somehow tougher (especially on the zerker build which, let’s face it, affects all players negatively in PvE), no one will want to clear the world map as much. It just won’t be fun – which is what I think you guys were shooting for in PvE anyway.

What everyone seems to be talking about here boils down to balance – whether to a system that does not seem to even out among PUGs in dungeons, or in PvE (the original post and some responses). The rest seem to be zealously communicating their desire to not have zerker nerfed. It makes sense that “the ideal” DPS build (whatever that winds up being) will always be the meta – that’s what meta is about. I’m going to recommend something which probably won’t be popular, but would actually lend to balance.

The solution, I believe, lies in viewing this problem on it’s side – zerker shouldn’t be nerfed, but it should be used to measure the amount of balance. Let’s break down the two topics being discussed:

1) Regarding PUGs in dungeons, it would seem that since this is intended to be a group dynamic, the final boss should be scaled in difficulty based on the group total effectiveness dynamic. In other words, take the sum of all five players for their potential effectiveness: (Power * Precision * (100% + Crit Damage)) – since this IS the meta, and set it to determine the difficulty of the main boss (and you can set that total to equal the difficulty of what the final boss is now for five zerkers – so it scales DOWN for those that aren’t zerkers; this will still take time to complete a path, but will make other builds MUCH more viable). Whatever it is, I know there’s an equation that can be worked out by the devs to calculate that in virtually no time upon starting the path in any given dungeon, and then the scaling of the final boss is based on that. Furthermore, to make everything dynamic (for programming purposes on future adjustments) you could then make the lesser minions a fraction of the boss’s difficulty.

a) True group accountability requires making it harder on fewer than five players in a dungeon. If people are skilled enough to do a path with fewer than five players, then that needs scaling – just put in a simple “player count < 5 = ridiculously OP’d final boss” bit of code and the fractional minion part of the code takes care of the rest. The scale based on player count would effectively render a solo run impossible while at the same time increasing the difficulty for those that want it.

b) This also means that even if a fifth player isn’t zerker and joins an all zerker group, they don’t really cause drag on the entire group. But it also means that “any group” can truly run “any path”, which is what I think you guys are shooting for anyway. Yes, more work on the front end, but MUCH more manageable on the back end, and that’s really what good coding is about.

c) As for implementation, all you need to do to test this out is CoF P1 initially. Get the code right on that path (the most-run path) and once you have it tweaked to your satisfaction, take the model to other dungeon paths. This will, rather than nerf zerker, effectively balance the non-zerker CoF P1 run – which I’ve read endless replies in other posts about it needing to be done anyway.

d) And if you REALLY want to go crazy, allow up to 10 players in a dungeon. And here’s how you scale it: INVERSE of the < 5 player calcuation. So a team of 6 has the same scale of difficulty as a team of 4. And a team of 7 has the same scale as a team of 3. And 8 the same as 2 and 9 the same as 1. Then a team of 10 could simply be super hard mode for crazy elitists (of which I’ll never have interest to run…ever – but I’m not THAT hard core anyway).

2) Regarding PvE, I believe you’ve done as much as any group of devs could do and still make it manageable for non-zerker players to still get through almost the entire world map AND still be fun at the same time (I suppose the areas of Orr are still not as easily solo’d by non-zerkers). People seem to be underestimating the fun factor in PvE. There are a lot of Guilds and PUGs that now specifically run PvE – I’m in one that runs a full area (minus Hearts) every Wednesday at 9pm EST. It still takes about 90 minutes, but it’s because we have people bailing all the time, and new players jumping in all the time. But it’s FUN.

a) If you try to do anything about PvE to make it somehow tougher (especially on the zerker build which, let’s face it, affects all players negatively in PvE), no one will want to clear the world map as much. It just won’t be fun – which is what I think you guys were shooting for in PvE anyway.

LOL. Cool responses. Understood Malediktus, your point totally makes sense. Which is kind of why I was looking for the same RNG boxes…but they weren’t there. I just want a way to get this one mini…it’s frustrating that they have so much content account bound. And believe me, I understand the idea of “proving you were there”, I don’t necessarily disagree with it. The thing is, if it were sellable on the TP, they would be higher than what they’re actually worth. I’d rather they sell the RNG boxes again.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mini_Festive_Golem

I want to buy this, but it’s no longer available because the Winterday 2012/2013 offered the purchase of Wintersday Mystery Boxes in the BLTC, but the Wintersday 2013/2014 does not.

This raises a larger issue regarding Account Bound Special Minis. If it’s Account Bound and is specific to a time frame (special event/living world), there is no way to acquire past Minis. Frankly, I’d trade gems for them just so I can have a complete set (if they were reasonable like 300 to 500 each).

I fully understand the concerns of the virtual economy, but I believe opening all of the Account Bound historical Minis for purchase in the gem store would generate significant income for Anet. I buy gems with real world money, so I know you guys make enough from me alone to make this worth it. With roughly 3 million copies of GW2 out there, I know I’m not alone in this.

Happy Wintersday!

“balancing the teams from the beginning”

This is EXACTLY what I mean. And I understand what you mean by “unstructured”, I think. The thing is, the reporting of which maps is open is horrendous too (like, 17/20 spots are taken and then you get in and it’s 20/20 are taken – which affects being able to actually join a game). But really, that wouldn’t be a problem if there was a single queue that everyone goes into.

Technically it’s not really structured even when you get to pick the queue, as much as when you design and lock the map – which is what people that really want structure join a guild and play against other guilds with.

Perhaps the solution is win percentage plus some other weighted factor, like total number of PvP points or something. The idea is that you match the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th players on one team, and 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th players on the other. That way, it’s not that big of a stretch to win. Plus there are so many players, there’s gotta be an algorithm that could put people in a game quicker than it takes to manually select a queue yourself.

The balancing is broken. Please remove the “rebalancing” that is in place and get the balancing right from the start of the game. PvP teams should be balanced based on win percentage. This would ACTUALLY make teams fair.

Match a 7% winner with a 93% winner on the same team. People that don’t like the fairness approach are just going to build their own matches anyway. The match engine should reflect equality.

Right now, it’s really awful being on a team that is winning, and then being randomly switched to another team that is losing.

Am I the only one that uses Google?

—> http://jsfiddle.net/KoxAlen/ZV9fu/embedded/result/

Thanks to everyone that responded. It’s clear that items 1 & 2 are desired, but with added ideas regarding how they could be implemented.

As for item 3, I was thinking about this and came up with a possible solution. Leave the achievements the way they are for the first week of implementation. Then, for each remaining week, taper them in difficulty with a diminished amount of achievement points. That way, people that aren’t all THAT great at playing them don’t have to abandon them, but the hard core players still get the challenge AND the credit for doing them in a harder mode (and let’s face it, the really hard core players play these things within the first six hours after they’re released).

Again, I truly appreciate the responses. Please keep the positive responses going. As for why is this a question post, it’s my first actual thread, so I must have checked the question part from the beginning…can’t seem to turn it off now. My bad.

Got it. Thanks.

I guess I’m just trying to think beyond them making short term money, and rather them making long term money by way of people playing more. If the game is actually more enjoyable, then more people will play more often. (ie, item 3)

Numbers 1 & 2 are purely because it’s unlikely that average players (like me and plenty of others) are going to take the time it requires to manufacture multitudes of Legendaries/farm gold it requires to re-attain a tier 3 cultural armor.

Just my thoughts. Others?

Hey FrownyClown!

Thanks for your reply, but it’s not clear how your response relates to any of the three items I posted about. Can you clarify?

Thanks Vocah!

I totally understand why #3 is going to be something that many individuals will disagree with. However, I still think it would improve the game overall, especially for those that don’t play as often.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I LOVE GUILD WARS 2!!! Following are suggestions I would like to see implemented.

1) Make all Soul Bound items Account Bound
—> Precedent: Hero/Wallet panel

2) Make all weapons and armor skins with unlimited use once acquired
—> Precedent: Hero/Achievements panel “Unlocked Rewards”
--> Precedent: Eye of the North Guild Wars 1 Unlocked Rewards

3) Stop making achievements so difficult that it’s not actually fun to play the game
—> Precedent: Guild Wars 1 selection of “Normal mode” and “Hard mode”
--> See example attachment that at least ONE person agrees with this

Trolls may now commence with commenting why this is totally wrong.

I found a simple error in Caledon Forest. The character Yrena, on the third tab of her talking to the player has an error. It should state:

“…I knew then that I wanted to cook for others.”

It’s missing the second “I”. See attached for screen shots.