Guild Wars 2

Unholy Pillager.3791:

chemiclord.3978:

PookieDaWombat.6209:

I’m sorry, but for those of us unhappy with the game in its current state…we’ve grown tired of staring at the “roach” in our “food” and being told that it will be addressed, eventually.

Here’s the problem with your analogy.

I think near everyone would think that a roach appearing in their food would be horrible. And if a roach was indeed in your meal, it would be addressed immediately. To this point, where there has been genuinely game-breaking bugs, Arena.net has dealt with them swiftly.

I think a more accurate analogy is that you’re at a fast food restaurant with a hundred people behind you. You place your order, get your food, and realize that you really don’t like it all that much. It’s not quite what you thought you were getting.

So you start start crowding the counter along with other people who don’t like the meal (though not all for the same reasons), and wondering why the staff is “ignoring” your problem while fixing others AND taking new orders.

Meanwhile, there are others munching happily wondering what you’re complaining about. This stuff is GREAT, they think.

This isn’t a roach in your food. Stop pretending it is… because ironically that’s EXACTLY what DOES get you on the “ignore this person” list by the staff.

Ranger pets are absolutely broken. They have never not been bugged in some fashion, and frankly the thought of tacking a third of a player’s damage and utility onto an AI is just terrible. The combat system heavily favors positioning, due to all of the ground targeting and combos, and pets are terrible at that. It favors using interrupts, fields and finishers in the proper times and places, another area in which pets fall short. And, finally, we observe that the entire combat system is built upon active damage avoidance (movement, dodging, blocking) from the ground up, yet pets can’t dodge. Pets should not have been the primary mechanic for rangers.

Or they should have been better designed, to better suit the overall design of the game.

Ranger, in this game, is awful.

It has the same problems that Hunter had in Cata WoW + a few more.

You can’t just split a class’s damage and protection into two parts and then expect it to do as well, especially in PVP, as if you hadn’t done that.

Doing that may work in PVE, as an AI boss may just attack the pet; not the Ranger.

But real players, in PVP, obviously have more sense than to do that.

So they can, for the most part, just ignore the pet and kill the Ranger far too easily.

Ranger, in this game, is even worse than hunter was in Cata WoW, because at least hunter was “only” viewed as a stupidly easy to kill, virtually useless, easy prey class in PVP, back then.

Hunter was still fairly good for things like soloing dungeons and PVE in general.

Whereas, in this game, it’s not even good for that – as you can’t outlevel dungeons (which is both a good and a bad thing – good for groups, bad for solo play) and even your, supposed, tank pet can only seem to hold aggro on one mob (if that) at a time and dies far too quickly.

…and forget your non-tanking pets – they are only considered of any use for initial buffs and are just expected to die within seconds.

Plus, almost no one seems to rate Ranger in things like group dungeons, as there are, obviously, classes far better suited to the skip>stack>melee style of gameplay.

So, all it’s any good for is pin-sniping and standing on walls (in WvW) trying to buggily ground-target AOE, like some kind of very poor relation of a WoW Mage.

Admittedly, that can be fairly effective (if annoying), but it’s not enough to make up for everything else.

Either that, or solo openworld PVE, I guess.

WoW made some very good changes to Hunter after Cata and now it is mid-pack in PVP.

Things like DKs are still FAR easier to PVP on (at least casually – BGs etc.) than Hunter is, but at least (unless things have changed, again) it’s not the utter joke it was viewed as in Cata PVP.

…and the roach analogy was fine and pretty accurate, IMO.

I doubt legitimate complaints get you put on an ignore list here, but if they do, I would suggest we all take our custom elsewhere.

Or just give up eating in these type of “restaurants” entirely.

Dante.1763:

Tigaseye.2047:

All I’m saying is that, if you are actually costing a company money, do you think it’s as likely that they will view you as a valued customer, as someone who is making them money?

The devs may still do, if they’re nice people, but will the number crunchers?

FYI i dump about 30$ a month into this game sometimes more. So yes im a customer and i wouldn’t be giving them any money if this game was a subscription. Why you may ask? I dont like feeling like im being forced to play which is exactly what a subscription based game does if you have very little time. If it did ever go sub i know at least 20 people who would leave. Not because they cant afford it, but because they refuse to play sub based games because they dont have time to play very often, those people also dump about 20$ a month into the game for transmutation charges or an outfit here and there.

This game would almost certainly die if it went sub(IMO). The WOW players who migrated here would go back to WOW. The Players who are playing because its not a sub game would leave, probably even go back to GW1 Or find other MMOS. Some of the hardcore players might even leave. One of this games largest selling points is that its not a subscription. MMOS need to have players to be successful, and some of the events and world bosses would be very very hard to impossible to do without a mass number of people. Now i know that you have to argue for ANET here, but this is peoples opinions and its a hypothetical thread that will lose the respect ANET has from me if it ever comes true.

I’m not arguing for ANet – I’m just trying to look at the situation from all angles (including theirs).

I don’t think most of the WoW players would go back to WoW, because of a sub – because I think it’s safe to say that most of them didn’t leave WoW because of the sub.

They might go back to WoW because they don’t view this game as sub-worthy, but that is a separate issue…

Of course, a few may have left WoW due to the sub (I think there was one person on here that said s/he did?), but if subs were the major issue in WoW, there would be far more calls on the WoW forums for them to drop the sub and I think I only ever saw one on the EU forums?

The vast majority of existing WoW players (of the ones who post on the forums, at least) support the sub model and many of them say they would leave if the game went F2P (or P2W, as they view it).

Obviously, there are differing opinions over where F2P becomes P2W, but quite a few people on there even object to cosmetic items in the store; let alone anything that gives an unfair advantage to players, in terms of advancement.

Once again, there are arguments about what constitutes that, as well.

For example, some people object to the paid-for level 90s, while others don’t, as they claim to view the only advancement of note to be the post endgame one.

BTW, if you and your friends dump at least $20 into the game, per month, why would it matter if you did that (or far less than that) via a sub, instead?

I don’t really get it?

No one is forcing you to play that month, just because you, technically, paid for it.

Maybe because I always paid for WoW every 6 months, I never really viewed it on a month by month basis – more as ongoing access over a long period of time.

I guess I would kind of get it, if someone could play so little that they could never really do, or get, anything.

But, if you have that little time (i.e. only a very few minutes a week), surely it’s just as wasteful (if not more so) to buy gemstore stuff for chars you never have time to play?

Purple Miku.7032:

Tigaseye.2047:

Purple Miku.7032:

Too many of the people who play it chose it because they were looking for the best they could for as little money to spend as possible. Obviously not all, but a huge amount of people yes.

This is probably going to sound harsh, but those people are not really customers, then.

They may have been at the start, but if all someone has ever paid towards this game is the initial price of the game, they can’t really be seen as that, anymore.

In fact, if anything, at this point (i.e. three years in), they are probably costing the company more than they initially made it.

So, if they’re not customers, what is their function, from a company’s (cold, hard cash) POV?

Probably the best description is game-filler and given that at least some of them are probably currently making the game seem far worse, for others, rather than better (I’m talking about some of the rude “pro” types, in dungeon speedruns, for example), it could be fairly debatable whether they are worth keeping around, anyway.

You are very wrong. I haven’t spent anything at all besides the initial price of the game and based off of many things, some of which I’m not supposed to share with anyone, they very much want me around. In fact I’ve had numerous devs on my stream in the past and have had it even advertised on their official twitch as community streamer. To them every single person that plays their game is a customer, gems or not.

You don’t have to buy gems in order for them to want you to play their game. It’s optional for a reason and I guarantee you that they want literally all the publicity for their game as possible. The more popular their game is the better off they are.

Well, firstly, as I said before, if the devs are nice people they probably don’t care whether you spend money on the game, or not.

Secondly, even if they do care, unless you specifically told them (or they went poking around in your account), how would they even know whether you did, or not?

Thirdly, as a popular streamer, you are providing free advertising (as you say), so you are obviously not a typical case.

Fourthly, as I also already said, devs are not number crunchers – what they care about and what number crunchers do may be different things.

If there aren’t number crunchers, behind the scenes, taking overall statistics of how many players, do or don’t, spend money in the gem shop (and categorising customers accordingly), I would be pretty surprised.

Maybe there aren’t, though and the game just bumbles along with no one counting, or analysing anything?

Would be kind of surprised if that was the case, though, with a game this size.

Adry.7512:

Tigaseye.2047:

Adry.7512:

Tigaseye.2047:

Kartel.2561:

I don’t pay subs for games. Period. Yes I can afford it, but it’s a matter of principal. I don’t like feeling like my account is held hostage and that I have another kitten bill to keep up with. I don’t have a problem spending money on games. I’ve spent hundreds on GW2.

But it’s important that it be my choice and time without feeling like no matter how much money I dump into it, it will never be mine. I buy things; I don’t rent them if I can avoid it. And a game is something I can live without.

Even as attached as I am to this franchise, as soon as it betrays the customer relationship we had, it’s as dead to me as my ex-wife.

Hate to break it to you, but you’re not buying your part of this game, whether you also rent it, or not.

They can end it whenever they like and actually, if you don’t also rent a game, that is potentially more likely to happen than if you do.

It’s not like buying a physical object where, if you pay for it outright, no one can (lawfully) take it away from you.

ok thats all nice and dandy, but in the end, all ur efforts in a sub game are first off repetitive, second of all….not worthwhile since u need to constantly pay monthly for its use. lol sub games r a scam for people with nothing better to do, or for kids who thinks its the best thing ever. would you have paid monthly for kingdom hearts 2 when it came out? no right? its because its not built on a scam, lol sub games only thrive on repetitive copy/paste content to keep players on the hamster wheel. i prefer this game more…in pve and pvp. plus pvp is going to be a focus in the expansion so i am hoping for BIG things.

Why would the non gear-grind premise have to end just because they charged a sub?

Subs don’t have to mean grind, just because in some cases they do.

you either dont seem to grasp the idea and logic behind what i am saying or you are trying to prolong a pointless conversation. i understand what you mean, but all i can say is….consider your options if you plan on making a game, it might end really bad for you.

Well, you appeared to be saying that a sub-based game automatically had to mean a grindy game, as other sub-based games happen to be grindy?

If you didn’t mean that, then you’re right, I have no idea what you were trying to say.

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Sizer.5632:

Id be all for it. Once youre more than like, 16 years old, you realize that $15 a month for something you can easily play for 20+ hours a week is nothing compared to other things you can spend your money on.

But since like, half the playerbase is 16 (or acts like they are), it wouldnt work, so i dont think it will ever happen.

Speak for yourself and while you’re at it, keep that condescending tone to yourself as well.

I’m 26 years old and I think 15 euros a month is a lot of money for a video-game.

Could I pay 15 euros a month for GW2? Sure. Would I pay 15 euros a month for GW2? Hell no! GW2 is totally not worth 15 euros a month. I don’t think any game is worth that amount of money.

When you’re no longer 16 (or acting like you are) you’ll realize there are better things to spend your money on than MMORPGs. Once you’re more than 16 years old with an actual life going on you won’t even have time to play video-games for 20+ hours a week (I mean really, 20+ hours a week on video-games is a lot of wasted time, the last time I wasted that much time on video-games was almost 10 years ago).

Not meaning to intrude on your discussion, but I’m not entirely sure where you’re getting €15 from?

Even WoW’s monthly sub is “only” €12.99.

Also, there is no real reason why a sub would have to even be that much.

Blizz seem to make more money than they need to, so a sub could, presumably, be half that and still be more than adequate.

Garambola.2461:

Sizer.5632:

Id be all for it. Once youre more than like, 16 years old, you realize that $15 a month for something you can easily play for 20+ hours a week is nothing compared to other things you can spend your money on.

But since like, half the playerbase is 16 (or acts like they are), it wouldnt work, so i dont think it will ever happen.

Or when you are 47, single parent with a teenager in the family and you must to pay every bill an extra 15€ a month is a pain. An extra 30€ would be really tough and the extra 60€ that out four accounts would require impossible.

Please, try to have mercy on us who do not make the kind of money you do. It is not like it hurts you that there is not a monthly bill to pay for this one outlet we get.

I always thought WoW should have a special family rate sub.

2 for the price of 1 and 4 for the price of 2 (as long as they shared a single postal address), or something.

Yenn.9185:

Tigaseye.2047:

Purple Miku.7032:

Too many of the people who play it chose it because they were looking for the best they could for as little money to spend as possible. Obviously not all, but a huge amount of people yes.

This is probably going to sound harsh, but those people are not really customers, then.

They may have been at the start, but if all someone has ever paid towards this game is the initial price of the game, they can’t really be seen as that, anymore.

In fact, if anything, at this point (i.e. three years in), they are probably costing the company more than they initially made it.

So, if they’re not customers, what is their function, from a company’s (cold, hard cash) POV?

Probably the best description is game-filler and given that at least some of them are probably currently making the game seem far worse, for others, rather than better (I’m talking about some of the rude “pro” types, in dungeon speedruns, for example), it could be fairly debatable whether they are worth keeping around, anyway.

Nah, I think everyone who plays the game is still a customer. Anet chose the free to play (with initial cost) model instead of sub. Just because the model allowed players not to spend real life money other than initial cost doesn’t make any player less of a customer. In that case, the fault is in the business model, not the players.

If that’s the case, then how many weeks or months does someone stop being a customer after not spending anything after buying the game?

Well, technically you may still be a customer and yes, it’s absolutely their business model’s fault.

All I’m saying is that, if you are actually costing a company money, do you think it’s as likely that they will view you as a valued customer, as someone who is making them money?

The devs may still do, if they’re nice people, but will the number crunchers?

Pandaman.4758:

In a more serious tone, there are adults with full-time “white collar” jobs who aren’t in as financially stable a position as they’d like (for a variety of reasons outside of their control) and have to manage their budgets accordingly; as such limiting how much they spend on entertainment a month is the responsible thing to do and GW2’s cash shop enables people to do just that, to broadly portray it as being immature is pretty kitten disrespectful.

Of course.

The vast majority of white collar workers aren’t in the 1% (or anywhere close to it).

IndigoSundown.5419:

Developers have no guarantees about their revenue target with a sub, either.

Well, they do if people have paid for a few months in advance.

I always paid six months in advance for WoW (got a slight discount for doing that).

So, even if I decided to leave 1 month after I paid, they still got the other 5 months I had already paid; so, that was a guaranteed amount.

…and yes, it means less volatility as well, which is obviously also helpful for them.

Game consumers have two recourses with regard to “requiring that the game is designed/maintained” to their satisfaction. They can vote with their wallets, and kitten about things on forums. These options are available to both sub game and store game players. The sub game players have no more leverage on the developer than the store game players.

I would disagree with that.

Maybe a sub payer has no more leverage than a gem store big spender, but (inevitably) they will have more than someone who never spends one penny beyond the original cost of the game.

I think it’s obvious (and fairly unsurprising) that most of the people who play this (sub-free) game don’t want to pay a sub.

However, there is another (sizeable) group of MMO players, who will only play a game like this if it does charge a sub, as they view a sub-based game as having more integrity.

Not surprisingly, a lot of them are long-term WoW players (and there are still a lot of them).

So, you know, it could be argued that while you might lose some of the existing player base, by introducing a sub, you might simultaneously attract another group of players who prefer subs (in well-made games).

That group of players is pretty discerning though.

So, most of them simply won’t put up with a sub-standard, unbalanced game.

This is why they try other sub-based games, but then end up going back to WoW.

Not because they object to the sub, but because they view the other games as unworthy competitors.

This is the scenario I read about constantly, for years, on the WoW forums.

I’m not a proponent of volunteering to throw money at game developers in the hope they’ll make a quality product. I’d rather the horse were before the cart, and the developer produced a quality product for which I would then pay them.

Well, I would obviously totally agree with you that it would be best if they just sorted out any issues with the game ASAP, sub or no sub.

However, I’m also realistic and know that it is more likely that companies will bother doing that if they have more to gain (or not lose!) from doing so.

…and people having the ability to threaten to unsub, if they don’t, is a form of consumer leverage, whether you and I like it, or not.

Purple Miku.7032:

Too many of the people who play it chose it because they were looking for the best they could for as little money to spend as possible. Obviously not all, but a huge amount of people yes.

This is probably going to sound harsh, but those people are not really customers, then.

They may have been at the start, but if all someone has ever paid towards this game is the initial price of the game, they can’t really be seen as that, anymore.

In fact, if anything, at this point (i.e. three years in), they are probably costing the company more than they initially made it.

So, if they’re not customers, what is their function, from a company’s (cold, hard cash) POV?

Probably the best description is game-filler and given that at least some of them are probably currently making the game seem far worse, for others, rather than better (I’m talking about some of the rude “pro” types, in dungeon speedruns, for example), it could be fairly debatable whether they are worth keeping around, anyway.

Adry.7512:

Tigaseye.2047:

Kartel.2561:

I don’t pay subs for games. Period. Yes I can afford it, but it’s a matter of principal. I don’t like feeling like my account is held hostage and that I have another kitten bill to keep up with. I don’t have a problem spending money on games. I’ve spent hundreds on GW2.

But it’s important that it be my choice and time without feeling like no matter how much money I dump into it, it will never be mine. I buy things; I don’t rent them if I can avoid it. And a game is something I can live without.

Even as attached as I am to this franchise, as soon as it betrays the customer relationship we had, it’s as dead to me as my ex-wife.

Hate to break it to you, but you’re not buying your part of this game, whether you also rent it, or not.

They can end it whenever they like and actually, if you don’t also rent a game, that is potentially more likely to happen than if you do.

It’s not like buying a physical object where, if you pay for it outright, no one can (lawfully) take it away from you.

ok thats all nice and dandy, but in the end, all ur efforts in a sub game are first off repetitive, second of all….not worthwhile since u need to constantly pay monthly for its use. lol sub games r a scam for people with nothing better to do, or for kids who thinks its the best thing ever. would you have paid monthly for kingdom hearts 2 when it came out? no right? its because its not built on a scam, lol sub games only thrive on repetitive copy/paste content to keep players on the hamster wheel. i prefer this game more…in pve and pvp. plus pvp is going to be a focus in the expansion so i am hoping for BIG things.

Why would the non gear-grind premise have to end just because they charged a sub?

Subs don’t have to mean grind, just because in some cases they do.

Is it really necessary to constantly move your camera?

Obviously, you need to sometimes, but constantly?

Kartel.2561:

I don’t pay subs for games. Period. Yes I can afford it, but it’s a matter of principal. I don’t like feeling like my account is held hostage and that I have another kitten bill to keep up with. I don’t have a problem spending money on games. I’ve spent hundreds on GW2.

But it’s important that it be my choice and time without feeling like no matter how much money I dump into it, it will never be mine. I buy things; I don’t rent them if I can avoid it. And a game is something I can live without.

Even as attached as I am to this franchise, as soon as it betrays the customer relationship we had, it’s as dead to me as my ex-wife.

Hate to break it to you, but you’re not buying your part of this game, whether you also rent it, or not.

They can end it whenever they like and actually, if you don’t also rent a game, that is potentially more likely to happen than if you do.

It’s not like buying a physical object where, if you pay for it outright, no one can (lawfully) take it away from you.

Oh look, another elephant….

Indirect taxes should just be abolished, anyway, as they tax the poor far more, proportionate to their “wealth”, than they do the rich.

Pretty sure, in the UK, if you are registered for VAT, you have to include the VAT amount in the price displayed, so there are no nasty surprises (just really nasty taxes).

Substance E.4852:

Tigaseye.2047:

Pandaman.4758:

Sizer.5632:

Id be all for it. Once youre more than like, 16 years old, you realize that $15 a month for something you can easily play for 20+ hours a week is nothing compared to other things you can spend your money on.

But since like, half the playerbase is 16 (or acts like they are), it wouldnt work, so i dont think it will ever happen.

And once you’re more than 22~24 years old and paying off your student loans, bills, taxes, providing for the filthy parasi-I mean, adorable baby, having one less monthly bill is a welcome thing.

Unless you’re clinging to a bachelor lifestyle or suffering from a sudden abundance of wealth, that is.

I think these are social and political issues that extend far beyond a sub/no sub debate.

Why exactly are you and your family being made to struggle to survive, when 1% of the population own almost all the money in the world?

You’re not so much derailing the thread as launching the whole train into space…

No, I’m just pointing at the gigantic elephant in the room.

No one would have to care about a $10 sub, either way, if things were fairer.

Pandaman.4758:

Sizer.5632:

Id be all for it. Once youre more than like, 16 years old, you realize that $15 a month for something you can easily play for 20+ hours a week is nothing compared to other things you can spend your money on.

But since like, half the playerbase is 16 (or acts like they are), it wouldnt work, so i dont think it will ever happen.

And once you’re more than 22~24 years old and paying off your student loans, bills, taxes, providing for the filthy parasi-I mean, adorable baby, having one less monthly bill is a welcome thing.

Unless you’re clinging to a bachelor lifestyle or suffering from a sudden abundance of wealth, that is.

I think these are social and political issues that extend far beyond a sub/no sub debate.

Why exactly are you and your family being made to struggle to survive, when 1% of the population own almost all the money in the world?

Kantos.1730:

First of all, you stated a myth that subscriptions equal more money for the developer and thus better content for the players. This is not true.

I think the point (from my POV, anyway) is that a sub puts the playerbase in a stronger position to require that the game is maintained and designed/redesigned to a higher standard.

As a sub-payer, your position as an ongoing customer becomes far more defined.

Also, the company can more easily financially justify future development costs, as they have a solid figure to work from.

As opposed to, without a sub, where they would hope they would make an average of x amount per player, per month (from gem purchases), but can never guarantee it.

MrRuin.9740:

I would leave and I believe a huge portion of the population would as well.
A subscription model is not the current standard and not many games can maintain one anymore, as is evidenced by the games that have been trying to, but going to a free-to-play model within a year, or less. If big names like Star Wars and Elder Scrolls can’t do it, and the juggernaut WoW showing dropping numbers , there’s not much hope for Guild Wars to do it either.

WoW isn’t losing players because of the sub model.

In fact, when asked, the vast majority appear to support it.

If it’s losing players, ATM (IDK, I haven’t checked), it is because the latest xpac is pretty underwhelming (IMO).

Poor new char models (in many cases), repetitive and fairly dull garrisons, too-easy LFR with poorer rewards than previously (despite the fact that most people don’t real raid), too much fire and brimstone, Orcs, Orcs and more Orcs.

…oh and did I mention Orcs?

(and its engine is obviously ageing, at this point)

It’s still, fundamentally, a very solid, very well made game, though.

Which is more than you can say for some games…

I would support a sub in any well made game I wanted to play regularly – in fact it’s my preferred option – but “well made” is the operative term here.

I wouldn’t be happy to pay a sub and then still be left with design flaws that encourage cheesy gameplay, class and range weap imbalance, skill and traitline obligatory choices and red herrings etc..

All that seriously needs tidying up, either way, but a sub might help justify that tidying process.

ATM, I believe the game has around 1/3 of the players WoW has(?) and yet, still has all these issues and makes a lot less than 1/3 of the money.

So, some people are obviously just buying the game and then playing for free from then on.

Even though it probably still makes more than enough money, in all honesty.

Maybe it could go for a lower sub price than WoW?

Assuming WoW is charging more than it, strictly speaking, needs to.

ETA: To the rather sad person who just came on TS3 and played a bunch of stuff: Really sorry that you don’t agree and apparently can’t afford to pay a sub, but games need to be made to be fair and financed somehow.

With, or without, rude people like you.

ETA2: If you have something to say, come and say it politely, on here, like a civilised human being.

I don’t bite (much).

Olvendred.3027:

However… you can’t force the other people in your party to support a kick vote. And, in not supporting the kick, they haven’t actually done anything wrong.

Well, they kind of have, though, haven’t they?

Supporting completely unnecessary hate speech, as supposed “freedom of speech”, is doing something wrong.

Maybe they’re not breaking the rules, as such, but morally speaking it’s still wrong.

The very reason people, like the person who said this stuff, think they can get away with it, is because other players do nothing to try to stop them and even, in some cases (like this one), support them.

Maintaining freedom of speech is vital, when it comes to things like civil liberties, political and economic matters, human rights issues etc. (and even personal opinions about things like games!); but it is completely unnecessary and totally undesirable, when it comes to something like hurling, completely unconstructive, prejudiced personal insults around.

Pockets.3201:

They can fill the gemstore will all sorts of freshly made garbage, but they can’t be bothered to sell something people are actually asking for. Which they’ve already made.

Obviously, too many repeats and they will get “ANet never produces anything new.” and “Waaaaah, I don’t feel special anymore, because noobs can now also get my precious [insert temporarily unavailable item here].” comments.

But, it would seem the obvious answer to the former complaint (the latter one should always just be totally ignored) is to add a bit more room to the gemstore, so you can offer both, at the same time.

I was kind of hoping they would reintroduce the baby animal minis for Easter, but no.

Neural.1824:

Tigaseye.2047:

BTW, you have got to love how some people try to pull the “childish” card whenever anyone disagrees with their POV.

That reaction is just so very grown-up.

Sure it’s not projection, at all…

Actually a big part of the problem you’re running into is the very common misconception they hold that Arenanet and all it’s employees from the monetizers down to the janitor are pure as driven snow and incapable of doing anything that would remotely be unethical.
You can’t win against them when they see Anet as benevolent gods who can do no wrong.

True.

It’s like Stockholm Syndrome.

What I find interesting, is the way some people will defend stuff like this behaviour, which is totally unacceptable in most civilised people’s opinions (and is even illegal in the UK) as “free speech”.

Whereas, if you dare to say anything less than glowing about the game, many people (often the same people) won’t accept it.

Seems the real social taboo, in these games, is honesty about the drug of choice.

That, to me, is pretty sad.

AdaephonDelat.3890:

Tigaseye.2047:

AdaephonDelat.3890:

Tigaseye.2047:

AdaephonDelat.3890:

Tigaseye.2047:

No, it’s not better.

Or, it’s not better than the game I played before.

It looks better, it’s more female-friendly than the other game’s current xpac (visually speaking) and levelling is more fun, but it’s not fundamentally better.

In my opinion, it’s definitely worse.

FTFY. And if you love that other game so much why not go play it, instead of complaining about how much you dislike this one because it’s not like that one?

Because, as I already explained, some things about the current incarnation of that game were annoying me to the point that I was no longer enjoying it as much as I should have been.

Obviously, that is my opinion.

No need to edit my post to suit your whims.

Especially as I doubt very much that you would have bothered had I gushed about how great this game was, in every way.

Then a definitive answer would have been fine, right?

True I wouldn’t have edited if you’d done that. I would have read it, thought “My god what a moron no point even talking to them” and skipped merrily on my way happy in the knowledge that I don’t know them in real life. You seemed vaguely correspondence worthy but I’m beginning to rethink that stance as well.

So, I would be moronic for saying I liked everything about the game, but as I said I didn’t like everything, I had to be edited by you to ensure everyone realised it was my opinion?

I tend to think you’re fibbing, because it’s pretty obvious that what annoyed you about my post was my criticism and the only way you felt you could counter that feeling of annoyance was by editing me.

If you wanted a chat, you could have just said so…

Got no issue with criticism. Got my own issues with the game as well (before you call me out Traits (being fixed), Storyline (being fixed), removal of WvW from map comp (not gonna be re-instated), unfriendliness of guild missions to small guilds (still doable just a pain in the kitten).)

My real issue was the way you walked into the thread and basically turned round and said “No! Your opinions and things you like about this game are wrong! The whole game is kitten!”. So that’s my issue with you. Rephrase it constructively and I couldn’t give a flying kitten (and yes I think that just spewing love over everything is about as constructive and moronic as spewing bile everywhere).

I wasn’t contradicting the OP.

I was merely disagreeing with their assessment and trying to do it in a succinct way (for once).

The problem is, you can’t win with this type of stuff.

Because, while I was brought up (as a female) to say “in my opinion” and “I think” and “I feel” every sentence, just in case I offended someone like you, I have also been told, by other people since, that I shouldn’t dither around like that and that I have every right to just state my opinion in a straightforward way.

Also, if you read the OP’s post, s/he didn’t say “I think”, or “I feel”, or “in my opinion”; s/he just said it all like it was fact (which is, at least partly, why I responded as I did).

So, why am I being singled out, here?

Pretty obviously, because I have said something you don’t like (either on here, or on another thread), whereas, the OP hasn’t.

BTW, I’m logging now.

So, I guess you’ll have to find someone else to talk to.

segman.3560:

Tigaseye.2047:

segman.3560:

If everyone is toxic, noone is toxic.

Pretty sure that’s not how it works…

The point is blaming players for terrible design flaws is wrong.

Well, that’s very true.

You won’t get any argument, from me, on that.

AdaephonDelat.3890:

Tigaseye.2047:

AdaephonDelat.3890:

Tigaseye.2047:

No, it’s not better.

Or, it’s not better than the game I played before.

It looks better, it’s more female-friendly than the other game’s current xpac (visually speaking) and levelling is more fun, but it’s not fundamentally better.

In my opinion, it’s definitely worse.

FTFY. And if you love that other game so much why not go play it, instead of complaining about how much you dislike this one because it’s not like that one?

Because, as I already explained, some things about the current incarnation of that game were annoying me to the point that I was no longer enjoying it as much as I should have been.

Obviously, that is my opinion.

No need to edit my post to suit your whims.

Especially as I doubt very much that you would have bothered had I gushed about how great this game was, in every way.

Then a definitive answer would have been fine, right?

True I wouldn’t have edited if you’d done that. I would have read it, thought “My god what a moron no point even talking to them” and skipped merrily on my way happy in the knowledge that I don’t know them in real life. You seemed vaguely correspondence worthy but I’m beginning to rethink that stance as well.

So, I would be moronic for saying I liked everything about the game, but as I said I didn’t like everything, I had to be edited by you to ensure everyone realised it was my opinion?

I tend to think you’re fibbing, because it’s pretty obvious that what annoyed you about my post was my criticism and the only way you felt you could counter that feeling of annoyance was by editing me.

If you wanted a chat, you could have just said so…

Naus the Gobbo.5172:

Tigaseye.2047:

No, it’s not better.

Or, it’s not better than the game I played before.

It looks better, it’s more female-friendly than the other game’s current xpac (visually speaking) and levelling is more fun, but it’s not fundamentally better.

In fact, it’s definitely worse.

Glad you are sticking around just to tell people the game is bad and they shouldn’t play it.

Thanks.

I’m glad you’re glad.

Torenn.2598:

Tigaseye.2047:

No, it’s not better.

Or, it’s not better than the game I played before.

It looks better, it’s more female-friendly than the other game’s current xpac (visually speaking) and levelling is more fun, but it’s not fundamentally better.

In fact, it’s definitely worse.

Out of curiosity, what exactly are you referring to when you say it’s more female-friendly?

Nothing much, just that, aesthetically, I find it more female-friendly than some other games.

Some of it is almost sickeningly sweet, TBH, but on the whole it’s nice and it’s definitely less overtly male-looking than some other games.

When I refer to male/female, here, I obviously mean in a purely conventional, completely stereotypical, hetero type way.

I’m not trying to say that all men only like darkness, spikes and Orcs and that all women only like pink, fluffiness and unicorns; as I am fully aware that there are overlaps and in fact, complete reversals, in tastes and associations.

However, as a hetero woman, I personally find the design philosophy less overtly, conventionally “straight male” than some other games.

Which, on balance, I (not surprisingly, I suppose) find more appealing.

BTW, you have got to love how some people try to pull the “childish” card whenever anyone disagrees with their POV.

That reaction is just so very grown-up.

Sure it’s not projection, at all…

Essence Snow.3194:

Azala Yar.7693:

Lynne.8416:

I wouldn’t mind the unidentified dye drop were increased or at least put back into the gathering.

High supply will result in low prices for all dyes even those that don’t cost much now. It may increase unidentified dyes sales as they would be lower as well.

They can’t really do that as it would ruin the dye market.

Just out of sheer curiosity, what effect would ruining the dye market actually have? A few players making gold off dyes cease doing so? Am I missing something?

Yes, that those “few players” are, almost certainly, all camping this thread.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Tigaseye.2047:

I’ve listened, I just don’t happen to agree in the case of the most extreme priced dye(s).

As far as I can tell, you have yet to point out a specific dye that has increased to an extreme amount.

I pointed out one that currently costs 234g.

Surely you know which one that is?

Not sure it’s “increased” to that, but it costs that.

Cloudz.6890:

So what I’ve gathered is Tigaseye is in favor of a flat drop rate (or price) for all dyes right? E.g the basic red dye should be as rare/common as Abyss Black.

Would you (Tigaseye) be ok with this concept being applied to all items? I have a stance on this, but I’d like to know how far you want to take the concept of fairness.

No, I already said I didn’t mind if some dyes cost a little more (or, quite a lot more, proportionately).

I believe I said a maximum of 20g?

I understand that gamblers like some kind of risk/reward type high, so that’s (partly) why they vary in “rarity”.

I just find the combined store price of three complete armour sets excessive, for one (let’s face it, pretty basic) colour, that’s all.

Do my thoughts on that extend to everything?

Well, as I have also said, I have a significantly greater acceptance of higher priced items that actually involved some work, on ANet’s behalf, to produce.

Having said that, I wouldn’t want to pay anything over about 80g for a weapon skin, personally.

So, if I ran the game, that is what I would try to go for as a maximum – in other words, I would reintroduce old skins, to make that happen.

But, I don’t find the more highly priced weapon skins quite as laughable as I do the very highly priced colour(s), no.

Undesirable, yes.

Laughable, no.

Zalladi.4652:

Tigaseye.2047:

No, it’s not better.

Or, it’s not better than the game I played before.

It looks better, it’s more female-friendly than the other game’s current xpac (visually speaking) and levelling is more fun, but it’s not fundamentally better.

In fact, it’s definitely worse.

All of which are subjective statements, and that is perfectly fine, but personally I have found it difficult to return to other MMO’s after experiencing this one, for all the reasons the OP stated.

Well, I’m not going to go too deeply into the subjective/objective thing, here, but I will just say that when, for example, certain design decisions encourage boring and very rigid gameplay solutions, that is (I would have thought) objectively speaking worse than a game without those problems.

I wouldn’t mind betting that this game is better than a lot of games, of this genre, out there.

So, I’m not overly surprised that people think it’s the best, especially if they haven’t tried its (and every MMO’s, still) main rival.

It’s probably the second best game of this type I’ve tried, personally and in some (more aesthetic) ways, quite possibly the first.

Unfortunately, looks aren’t everything.

AdaephonDelat.3890:

Tigaseye.2047:

No, it’s not better.

Or, it’s not better than the game I played before.

It looks better, it’s more female-friendly than the other game’s current xpac (visually speaking) and levelling is more fun, but it’s not fundamentally better.

In my opinion, it’s definitely worse.

FTFY. And if you love that other game so much why not go play it, instead of complaining about how much you dislike this one because it’s not like that one?

Because, as I already explained, some things about the current incarnation of that game were annoying me to the point that I was no longer enjoying it as much as I should have been.

Obviously, that is my opinion.

No need to edit my post to suit your whims.

Especially as I doubt very much that you would have bothered had I gushed about how great this game was, in every way.

Then a definitive answer would have been fine, right?

Azure The Heartless.3261:

To each their own.

Some people have valid complaints, other people just aren’t capable of being satisfied.
Its up to them whether they are here or not though.

I’m capable of being satisfied.

I’m also capable of comparing two games and seeing both the positive and negative elements of each.

No, it’s not better.

Or, it’s not better than the game I played before.

It looks better, it’s more female-friendly than the other game’s current xpac (visually speaking) and levelling is more fun, but it’s not fundamentally better.

In fact, it’s definitely worse.

segman.3560:

If everyone is toxic, noone is toxic.

Pretty sure that’s not how it works…

Do you have a screenshot of it?

AdaephonDelat.3890:

Tigaseye.2047:

Ballads.2509:

77% of all made up Statistics contain the #7.

I don’t think that can be true, because at least 50% of them contain the #9.

(I could have said 99% of them do, but I’m too honest)

So that means that 79% of them are correct?

Or incorrect?

I’m sure it’s a very statistically important number, in some way.

Has to be.

Svarty.8019:

The free market shall decide*

*except for all the times it shall not.

Quite.

Ballads.2509:

77% of all made up Statistics contain the #7.

I don’t think that can be true, because at least 50% of them contain the #9.

(I could have said 99% of them do, but I’m too honest)

Chris McSwag.4683:

Tigaseye.2047:

Nothing that has been said here has, or will, change my mind on that.

Thank you for confirming my previous post. Honestly find it sad that you’re not willing to even try to listen or understand the many good answers in this thread, though i am fully aware that you don’t give a kitten about that as my opinions are different than yours.

With your logic i don’t even see why you’re willing to pay anything for dyes – why not have a few ones accessible by all?
Why should precursors be rare when they can be a guaranteed drop from every mob just by a quick change of code?
Why even have a trade post? Everything should be free!

I get it, you don’t like the way the free market works and would rather have a limited market where everyone can get everything without much effort – but i personally find that idea incredibly boring.

I’ve listened, I just don’t happen to agree in the case of the most extreme priced dye(s).

I think I have argued my case pretty well and demonstrated that I do understand how these things work.

There is no point in me repeating myself any further, as this isn’t even my battle and I have no horse in this race.

Unlike some of you, I am not currently looking to buy, or sell, the most expensive dye(s).

All I am saying is that this kind of thing doesn’t paint ANet in a good light (if you’ll pardon the rather too apt expression!), at all, IMO.

They can, obviously, choose to take that (unbiased) observation on board, or totally ignore it and carry on with business as usual.

Entirely up to them.

Chris McSwag.4683:

Azala Yar.7693:

Rarity has nothing to do with cost of being produced and doesn’t necessarily mean it will be worth much. If there’s no demand the value will be extremely low.

There is no point to continue the discussion as regardless of how valid points you make, OP neither will or want to understand or listen to them as they are different to his/her own(which of course are the only right ones).

I’m not the OP.

Azala Yar.7693:

Tigaseye.2047:

Because it’s not, actually, rare…

IRL, things that are sold as rare are actually rare (or should be) and they are normally relatively expensive to produce.

Whereas, this colour “dye” is no more, or less, rare than any other and none of them are, actually, rare and it costs no more to produce.

Its supposed “rarity” is completely arbitrary (as in, invented by ANet).

So, even though they may not, actually, set the price on the TP – because they have complete control over its supposed “rarity”, they might as well do.

Because, if they wanted to, they could up the supply 100x, or reduce it 100x, whenever they liked.

…and yes, it does have to do with right and wrong.

IMO, there should at least be some correlation between effort put in, in something’s design and the price charged.

When there isn’t, it just looks like something verging on a scam.

Especially when you add in the fact that Black isn’t actually black, when the colour (or lack of colour) black is an already very well established, predetermined concept.

Something is worth what people are prepared to pay for it.

If there is a surplus of anything it tends to be cheap unless it comes from one supply source then it can be controlled.

In the case of the black dye it would suggest that it’s rarer as the price is higher. Being black there will also be a higher demand for it than a lot of other colours. If black was common the price would be a lot less than it is.

Rarity has nothing to do with cost of being produced and doesn’t necessarily mean it will be worth much. If there’s no demand the value will be extremely low.

Yes, I get how basic supply and demand works, thank you.

There is nothing stopping ANet looking at the prices on the TP, for certain dyes, and trying to adjust the supply side accordingly and yet they don’t.

That is their responsibility.

The point (once again) is that it is obviously a total supply monopoly, the fake “rarity” is arbitrarily set by the only “supplier” and both its (low) supply and (very high) resulting price have no correlation with the actual effort required to produce it (if any).

I have a problem with that.

I don’t think it makes ANet look as good as they could do.

Nothing that has been said here has, or will, change my mind on that.

What does make them look good (or would do), is making sure that their basic product is well designed, balanced, logical, runs well and is non-exploitable and then producing beautiful armour sets/outfits, minis, toys etc.., which most people (I hope) will happily spend their spare cash on.

As they can clearly see the effort and creativeness that has gone into their design.

As opposed to a colour, for colouring in armour with.

Not to say they can’t, also, sell dyes and look good.

They should just aim to reign-in the top end prices, IMO.

A colour should not cost more than an entire armour skin, period.

rapthorne.7345:

Tigaseye.2047:

rapthorne.7345:

Tigaseye.2047:

serenke.4806:

Tigaseye.2047:

Novuake.2691:

Its a sought after vanity item. I don’t think you have a right to complain.

These allow people to personalize their toons to a more significant degree.

I have every right to complain, as does everyone.

To put my complaint in context, I am someone who has “invested” a considerable amount of money into this game (relative to the amount of time I’ve been playing it, so far).

So, it’s not like I begrudge ANet a living.

I just draw the line (and giggle, frankly) at one colour (and it is just a colour) being sold to us for 100s of gold (which is, after all, 10s of $/£).

Seems to me, any one colour should be no more than around 20g.

I think a luxury car should be no more than 5000$ because it’s laughable that some car makers ask hundreds of thousands of dollars for their high-end models. As someone who continuously invests a lot of time into work, i think it’d be only fair if these models became available in a price range that everyone can afford.

Oh dear…

Are we really trying to compare a real life luxury car, made of real life materials and with real life high labour, storage, advertising and transportation costs, to a pretend dye (so, essentially, a colour) in a game? ><

OK, let me try to put this in terms you can, perhaps, relate to.

Minis are only 350 gems (so, about £3.50), whereas, one of the “dyes” (colours) is currently about 234g on the TP (so, about £23.40).

Now, admittedly, I don’t know all the ins and outs of designing a miniature animated animal, compared with providing yet another colour, which can then be used to shade in bits of pretend armour, but I can assure you I place far more value on the former.

At it’s core it’s supply and demand.

There are a huge number of colour variants in the game, and there are some very cheap substitutes for certain hues that you can obtain in place of a more expensive one, for example, the midnight dye range is a good substitute for black if you’re happy with tints (which I, personally, actually prefer to just pure black).

When people can’t afford a more expensive product, most settle for a cheaper substitute, which is what I suggest you do here.

This isn’t about me, or my sour grapes, or whatever.

I also happen to prefer coloured tints – or just colours – in games.

I am just someone with a very strong sense of fairness, a very strong sense of right and wrong and this system stinks, as far as I’m concerned.

Fair ways of making money are fine – especially in a game which relies on people buying random stuff to function.

As I say, I have paid more than my fair share, so far.

But this?

No.

It feels exploitative and that kind of feeling tends to pollute how people feel about a product, in general.

I don’t see what’s exploitative about something that’s rare and in high demand being expensive in the TP.

In a game where a large part of things is looks and customisation, I see no reason why certain aspects of that customisation shouldn’t be more difficult to obtain or more exclusive.

It has nothing to do with right and wrong. From what you’re saying your primary issue is the TP price. ANet do not control the value that players place on the items they release, ANet did not introduce the item and tell players they must list it at X price on the TP. You also assume that you have to spend X amount of gems to obtain the gold, when it’s easy enough to obtain 100g+ in a week or so just by doing dungeons daily and salvaging drops/selling mats

Because it’s not, actually, rare…

IRL, things that are sold as rare are actually rare (or should be) and they are normally relatively expensive to produce.

Whereas, this colour “dye” is no more, or less, rare than any other and none of them are, actually, rare and it costs no more to produce.

Its supposed “rarity” is completely arbitrary (as in, invented by ANet).

So, even though they may not, actually, set the price on the TP – because they have complete control over its supposed “rarity”, they might as well do.

Because, if they wanted to, they could up the supply 100x, or reduce it 100x, whenever they liked.

…and yes, it does have to do with right and wrong.

IMO, there should at least be some correlation between effort put in, in something’s design and the price charged.

When there isn’t, it just looks like something verging on a scam.

Especially when you add in the fact that Black isn’t actually black, when the colour (or lack of colour) black is an already very well established, predetermined concept.

rapthorne.7345:

Tigaseye.2047:

serenke.4806:

Tigaseye.2047:

Novuake.2691:

Its a sought after vanity item. I don’t think you have a right to complain.

These allow people to personalize their toons to a more significant degree.

I have every right to complain, as does everyone.

To put my complaint in context, I am someone who has “invested” a considerable amount of money into this game (relative to the amount of time I’ve been playing it, so far).

So, it’s not like I begrudge ANet a living.

I just draw the line (and giggle, frankly) at one colour (and it is just a colour) being sold to us for 100s of gold (which is, after all, 10s of $/£).

Seems to me, any one colour should be no more than around 20g.

I think a luxury car should be no more than 5000$ because it’s laughable that some car makers ask hundreds of thousands of dollars for their high-end models. As someone who continuously invests a lot of time into work, i think it’d be only fair if these models became available in a price range that everyone can afford.

Oh dear…

Are we really trying to compare a real life luxury car, made of real life materials and with real life high labour, storage, advertising and transportation costs, to a pretend dye (so, essentially, a colour) in a game? ><

OK, let me try to put this in terms you can, perhaps, relate to.

Minis are only 350 gems (so, about £3.50), whereas, one of the “dyes” (colours) is currently about 234g on the TP (so, about £23.40).

Now, admittedly, I don’t know all the ins and outs of designing a miniature animated animal, compared with providing yet another colour, which can then be used to shade in bits of pretend armour, but I can assure you I place far more value on the former.

At it’s core it’s supply and demand.

There are a huge number of colour variants in the game, and there are some very cheap substitutes for certain hues that you can obtain in place of a more expensive one, for example, the midnight dye range is a good substitute for black if you’re happy with tints (which I, personally, actually prefer to just pure black).

When people can’t afford a more expensive product, most settle for a cheaper substitute, which is what I suggest you do here.

This isn’t about me, or my sour grapes, or whatever.

I also happen to prefer coloured tints – or just colours – in games.

I am just someone with a very strong sense of fairness, a very strong sense of right and wrong and this system stinks, as far as I’m concerned.

Fair ways of making money are fine – especially in a game which relies on people buying random stuff to function.

As I say, I have paid more than my fair share, so far.

But this?

No.

It feels exploitative and that kind of feeling tends to pollute how people feel about a product, in general.

…and another thing.

Why is Black not black?

Why is it, so very obviously, dark grey?

Black is supposed to be a complete lack of light – it is supposed to be as dark as one can get.

So, how come other dyes are darker?

I think we all know the answer to that in this case and that is (far too) easy money, but still…

serenke.4806:

Tigaseye.2047:

Novuake.2691:

Its a sought after vanity item. I don’t think you have a right to complain.

These allow people to personalize their toons to a more significant degree.

I have every right to complain, as does everyone.

To put my complaint in context, I am someone who has “invested” a considerable amount of money into this game (relative to the amount of time I’ve been playing it, so far).

So, it’s not like I begrudge ANet a living.

I just draw the line (and giggle, frankly) at one colour (and it is just a colour) being sold to us for 100s of gold (which is, after all, 10s of $/£).

Seems to me, any one colour should be no more than around 20g.

I think a luxury car should be no more than 5000$ because it’s laughable that some car makers ask hundreds of thousands of dollars for their high-end models. As someone who continuously invests a lot of time into work, i think it’d be only fair if these models became available in a price range that everyone can afford.

Oh dear…

Are we really trying to compare a real life luxury car, made of real life materials and with real life high labour, storage, advertising and transportation costs, to a pretend dye (so, essentially, a colour) in a game? ><

OK, let me try to put this in terms you can, perhaps, relate to.

Minis are only 350 gems (so, about £3.50), whereas, one of the “dyes” (colours) is currently about 234g on the TP (so, about £23.40).

Now, admittedly, I don’t know all the ins and outs of designing a miniature animated animal, compared with providing yet another colour, which can then be used to shade in bits of pretend armour, but I can assure you I place far more value on the former.

Novuake.2691:

Its a sought after vanity item. I don’t think you have a right to complain.

These allow people to personalize their toons to a more significant degree.

I have every right to complain, as does everyone.

To put my complaint in context, I am someone who has “invested” a considerable amount of money into this game (relative to the amount of time I’ve been playing it, so far).

So, it’s not like I begrudge ANet a living.

I just draw the line (and giggle, frankly) at one colour (and it is just a colour) being sold to us for 100s of gold (which is, after all, 10s of $/£).

Seems to me, any one colour should be no more than around 20g.

Chris McSwag.4683:

They are only ‘ridiculous’ because there is high demand, low supply and people are willing to pay. Run a few dungeons and then buy what you want

No, some are quite literally ridiculous, however high the demand and low the supply is.

In fact, I will up that “ridiculous” to laughable.

Not too many, but some.

…and who sets that “high demand, low supply” scenario?

That’s right, the owners of this forum.

…and I don’t do dungeons in this game, in their current sorry state.

Please see my previous posts for reasons why (if you want).

Wanze.8410:

Tigaseye.2047:

I know, IRL, you can buy things with 0 practical purpose, for astronomical amounts, too.

But, this is not real life, this is just a game and you know that, when this game ends, you will be left with nothing.

Whereas, IRL, hopefully you will at least still have that pretty, but useless, thing until it’s game over for you and even then, you can possibly leave it to someone else.

…and even if it is lost, or stolen, at least someone somewhere still has the use of it.

Whereas, with something like this, in a few years it’s just gone.

The refractors can be slotted and used, then salvaged and sold again.

I suppose that’s something…

Still, after a few years they’re still going to be gone, aren’t they?

…and I know everything is, but I just seem to have a psychological ceiling over which I won’t buy any one thing.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Tigaseye.2047:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Tigaseye.2047:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Tigaseye.2047:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Tigaseye.2047:

OK, so here is a suggestion:

We have heard that outfits can’t, automatically, be made into armour skins, as the different armour weights have different rules regarding where they begin and end etc..

So, maybe the answer is to continue to allow people of all armour weights to wear all the outfits, but classify them as either light, medium, or heavy armour?

Then, you could allow chars of that armour type only to mix and match the pieces.

So, for example, in the case of Balthazar: light and medium armour-weight classes would still be allowed to wear it as an entire outfit (and hide certain parts of it), but only heavy armour classes could mix the shoulders (for example) with their other heavy armour pieces.

Not sure if there would be anything preventing that, but assuming most of the outfits have been designed on the premise that they are either heavy, medium, or light armour (and follow those gear design “rules”), wouldn’t that be a pretty practical and fair compromise?

They did say that the outfits could be considered as a fourth armor weight so I doubt they have a way to make one set “know” it’s light armor and another set “know” it’s heavy so that only those professions could hide parts of it.

If they could set it so that parts of it can hide and let the regular armor show through for all armor weights, that might be an option that would satisfy a lot of people.

Oh, OK.

I like your idea in theory.

However, surely, if outfits are not currently designed as any existing armour weight class, that would also mean that allowing existing armour to show, in some slots, could cause the same (potential) problems as mixing parts of the outfit with other pieces?

No doubt there would be lots of clipping, if that’s what you are asking. But if the clipping bothers people they could toggle the outfit part back on.

Well, yeah, I tend to agree.

But, then I tend to think that, anyway, with allowing people to use parts of the outfits as skins.

They could just say something like “…the composite parts of this outfit can also be used as armour skins (please note: clipping may occur in some cases).”.

But, I guess that would still incur a little more work, as they would have to break them up to allow them to be used as skins?

I wasn’t thinking of using them as armor skins. More like, turning the outfit’s headpiece off lets the regular helm show through. Same as for the gloves. It would mean more toggles on other armor pieces and rewriting it so toggling outfit sections off lets armor pieces show instead but this might satisfy a lot of people’s objections to outfits.

Of course there would be massive, unavoidable clipping. /shrug.

Yeah, I agree with you that that would be good.

Although, say your idea was implemented and you only wanted to use the boots (or gloves, or pants, or whatever) from an outfit.

So, you toggled the rest of the outfit off (and the rest of your regular armour on), to only allow the boots from the outfit to show.

Wouldn’t that, effectively, be allowing the boots to be used as a skin anyway?

…and wouldn’t that, potentially, cause exactly the same kind of issues?

Obviously, it would mean that it would be transmutation charge-free, so that would be a plus for the player, but still.

I still agree with you, but I think that would probably be ANet’s reaction?

Yah, essentially that would be using them as transmutation free skins, with the restriction that only one outfit could be worn at one time so you couldn’t mix and match from different outfits.

Since ANet gives T charges away free for mapping (Rata Sum only takes about 10 minutes), 3 each 28 login days and for doing PvP (just doing the PvP daily gives you one free T charge every other day), I doubt they would care about the T charges.

Well, you say that, but they still have them on sale, so I guess they are selling them (I know I bought some, for example).

I think the way they’re given out so freely in PvP, but not given out at all in PvE (apart from via endless map completion), or WvW, needs to be looked at, anyway.

Seems completely unfair that people who do PvP have them piling up in the bank, but others have none.

…and I know there are probably other unfair things, the other way around, but they should be looked at, as awell.

Forcing people to do parts of the game they don’t like, or risk being completely swamped with one thing and/or completely starved of another is not ideal.

Especially if you can’t even trade the things you’re swamped with.

pdavis.8031:

Tigaseye.2047:

pdavis.8031:

Reagrdless of what percentage of getting kicked for watching the cutscene, one thing that that person said was correct. Watching cut scenes without letting the party know does result in a chance to get kicked. It’s just polite to do so. Some players don’t care, others make a big deal about it. If you are running the dungeon the first time, at the very least you should put that in the LFG, or let the party know this is your first time, and ask if its ok if you watch the cutscenes.

There are many people who don’t mind taking a noob. These groups fill up FAST on the LFG thats why you don’t see many of them, unless you are watching it. I myself prefer noobs over those who consider themselves experts. The few things that bother me about having noobs are that they don’t let the party know that it’s their first time, the don’t ask to watch the scenes (again I don’t mind, but it’s nice to do thats what they are doing), and don’t listen to whats going on in chat.

If you are a noob. LET YOUR TEAMMATES KNOW!!
watch chat, pay attention, and ask if you don’t know what to do.
Do these things, and you’ll have a much better time in dungeons.

Oh, come on…

You have to ask permission to watch the cutscenes?

No, the answer is to not join anything that mentions “zerker”, or “speedrun” ever.

Other than that, your only other potential issues will be long lectures on how to build, what to wear, where to skip, where to stack, which (melee – forget ranged) weaps to use etc..

Doesn’t sound like too much fun, does it?

Actually, maybe the answer is just to not do GW2 dungeons, at all.

No you don’t have to ask. But its the polite thing to do. If you do ask, and are told no, than that group isnt for you.
Ive had many a pleasant and enjoyable runs with new players where everyone is cool. “How is that possible!?” You may ask. Well, because the noob wasn’t a heel, respected the groups time, and let us know they were new.

And yes. Dont join groups you don’t meet the requirements for. That’s a given.

No, it’s not polite, it’s ridiculously subservient.

If I joined a (non speedrun type) group, I would never require anyone to tell me they intended to watch the cutscenes.

It’s completely up to them if they want to.

…and BTW, I consider it extremely impolite to describe a fellow player as a “noob”, so I guess politeness is very much in the eye of the beholder?

To me, you are the impolite one, especially as a more experienced player, calling people “noobs” and requiring them to ask you for permission to play their game the way they like.

CureForLiving.5360:

Wanze.8410:

polyluminescent refractors.

Only several hundred gold in the TP :_(

I think that is my problem with the game, from this POV.

There are just some things that are way too expensive.

…and yes, they’re all optional and I totally understand that the game doesn’t make money in other ways (and god knows, I’ve spent enough on it to prove I get that!).

But, to me, there is just no justification for single items to be over a certain amount; even taking all that into account.

It’s all just arbitrary prices, for non-essential things and I have a psychological barrier.

I know, IRL, you can buy things with 0 practical purpose, for astronomical amounts, too.

But, this is not real life, this is just a game and you know that, when this game ends, you will be left with nothing.

Whereas, IRL, hopefully you will at least still have that pretty, but useless, thing until it’s game over for you and even then, you can possibly leave it to someone else.

…and even if it is lost, or stolen, at least someone somewhere still has the use of it.

Whereas, with something like this, in a few years it’s just gone.