Videogames are an experience, and as experiences the medium has the potential for artistic qualities. The medium can deliver on narrative, impression and so forth; the sum of these qualities creates deliberate experiences for the audience, greater than the individual elements. A “total work of art,” if you will.
That said, I have a problem with people calling videogames “art” in the sense that statues, paintings and films can be art. In doing so, people tend to use skin-deep measures of comparison. They deconstruct and cherrypick to prove whatever point they try to make, and they do this without examining the experience as a whole as it is meant to be. The review system certainly isn’t doing the medium any favors by following this exact method of critique (although I can’t really blame them all things considered).
Edit: to answer the TC’s last question, no I don’t consider GW2 art. It certainly has artsy visual elements and music, but my experience playing it has left me unfulfilled.
Him being Eir’s son who she never mentions seems rather out of the left field but who knows, the story just started. They will likely expand on it later.
I’m pretty sure its been stated that humans and norn can’t breed.
I doubt they could do that without retcon or more contrivance.
“In part 4 of F&F we find out that Eir was once conked with a tree branch and completely blanked out on ever having a son until the fateful day when the player meets Braham.”
I assume they had some falling out or something. Maybe its a painful thing for her to talk about so she doesn’t. I’ve not read the books so I don’t know how open she usually is about personal kitten. shrug
Random never mentioned kid of a famous hero is usually done terribly and TBH the writing in either of the GW games was never really brilliant to me but I’ll wait and see.
That’s because they’re often contrived- they’re brought in out of the blue to try and give depth to the plot without being planned beforehand. The causality behind their existence is often explained as the plot progression and that’s where it gets messy with facts conflicting with one another.
In Eir’s case even if something happened between them, losing a son is not something that would leave a person unaffected. It’s going to take some skillful use of Chekov’s gun to make sense of it all.
@Drew
I completely forgot about World of Tanks. But yeah it’s balanced such that there are multiple strategies for everything. Real good example of counterplay.
@ Vayne
Way to generalize. But no I have not seen any game that fits the criteria. I have also never seen any MMO that advertised itself as an eSport outside of GW2.
And to address the misguided vitriol you have against all PvPers, there were players from GW1 that had provided insight so great that even the developers took their advice from time to time. They didn’t care only about “their character,” because that would be silly. They cared about the health of the game itself. Then again there are those selfish players who can’t think outside their biases.
Anywho, getting off topic.
I am generalizing. I’m not saying EVERY PvPer is like that. I’m saying a percentage are. And btw, it’s a higher percentage than self-less PvPers like yourself. Most people are self-interested, no matter what area of the game you’re talking about, or even life. There are selfless people and selfish people. Guess which are more numerous?
True, but when balance and gameplay absolutely stinks, you don’t need a paragon or savant to tell something wrong. That’s why many have left, and by extension many who would care about balance.
Him being Eir’s son who she never mentions seems rather out of the left field but who knows, the story just started. They will likely expand on it later.
I’m pretty sure its been stated that humans and norn can’t breed.
I doubt they could do that without retcon or more contrivance.
“In part 4 of F&F we find out that Eir was once conked with a tree branch and completely blanked out on ever having a son until the fateful day when the player meets Braham.”
@ Vayne
Way to generalize. But no I have not seen any game that fits the criteria. I have also never seen any MMO that advertised itself as an eSport outside of GW2.
And to address the misguided vitriol you have against all PvPers, there were players from GW1 that had provided insight so great that even the developers took their advice from time to time. They didn’t care only about “their character,” because that would be silly. They cared about the health of the game itself. Then again there are those selfish players who can’t think outside their biases.
I wonder how many times these types of posts are made per day.
Does that make them any less valid? Or do you comment with genuine curiosity and agreement with the points made?
Yes, it does make them less valid. Every game that exists and has players get similar posts. The more players, the more complaints.
Well its easy to generalise without identifying specific points. So forgive me if I disagree. It wasn’t a whine post..it was pretty clear that there are legitimate issues with the game. But feel free to be an Ostrich
Disagreeing that your post has merit does not make one an Ostrich.
Virtually everyone who complains feels that THEIR post is “legitimate” and “not a whine” post. Yet the vast majority are. So feeling that way is silly. I liked the update. I felt it was fun and substantial. If you don’t feel the game has been added to a great deal in the last few months, I have no idea what game you are playing, frankly.
Well..“frankly” you’re obviously playing a different one from the rest of us. I would assume you are a lone ranger in the game. Have you talked to other players? I don’t know what server you are on, but on mine, sea of Sorrows, most people I talk to or listen to in general chat or Guild chat or random pugs are UNDERWHELMED.
I’ve never understood why some people take legitimate constructive criticism of the game as a personal attack. If you are personally happy with the current level of updates , then great. But I think you are in the minority imo.
Strange, my server is largely positive about the changes…in map chat anyway. Of course, it’s usually natural for unhappy people to vent and happy people to play anyway. The question is how many people happily playing stop in map chat to say, hey, I’m happily playing.
Most people who stop to say something in map chat are venting. So it’s not a great barometer of how well a patch does.
I thought the patch was fine. Not awe-inspiring by any means, but it was fine for a free content patch. Very few MMOs come out with as much stuff as GW 2 as often and many who try do a much worse job than this.
Try comparing what SWToR did as updates in the first six months, or Rift. Then you can complain. Until then, you’re just asking for something unreasonable.
Ok..irrespective on “content”..how do you feel they have performed regarding profession balance? What profession is your main toon?
I’m not tremendously stressed about profession balance, and you know, most players aren’t. The only real issue is that if you’re not in a guild, and you play a ranger, necro or engie, you might have trouble getting into pugs.
But I play in a guild. I have one of each professions. I’ve done dungeons with my engie and ranger, even a couple of with my necro. Mostly I use my mesmer though.
In the open world, I have no problem with any profession. Engies with the bomb kit, for example, are great for farming. My ranger is pretty kitten survivable in the open world. Engineers and rangers both have some place in PvP as well, as do necros.
So the real thing here we’re talking about is dungeons. That’s it…dungeons. And since my guild has beaten every dungeon with every professions (one of the guys who has the dungeon master title in my guild is a necro), I don’t really see the same problem some of you do.
If you’re playing a profession and having trouble getting into dungeon pugs, join a guild that doesn’t worry about running a dungeon five minutes faster. You’ll be much happier.
I have to agree with you. PvPers, the ones stressed over profession balance, have all but left, so it’s absolutely true that very few of the remaining population would be concerned about balance.
Couldn’t agree more with the OP. Blind praise gets you only so far.
If it’s a generally accepted truth that no game is perfect, why not look for the things that keep this game from being better?
@Vayne
It’s not the quantity that matters, it’s the quality. What Guild Wars 1 started with had more structure and soul. The campaign felt more fulfilling to complete than the scattered content you could rush through and ignore in GW2.
@DeWolfe.2174: Not at all. The point is that again ArenaNet rewards playing “effective” more than playing “smart”.
With the character-bound non-monetizable WXP they would have had the perfect opportunity to reward playing in a way which actually helps your server with the objectives instead of mindless zerging. Did they do it? Nope.
Still the guy running with the zerg gains a better reward than the guy escorting/speeding up dolyaks.
Still the guy running with the zerg gains a better reward than the guy scouting/checking in on contested objectives held by your server.
Still the guy running with the zerg gains a better reward than the guy getting into/staying behind to defend an objective against the enemy.
Still the guy running with the zerg gains a better reward than the guy staying behind and trebbing SMC from Durios for 45 minutes.
WTF?!
Why didn’t they add 1 WXP for each 10k damage you do with siege to structures?
Why didn’t they add 10 WXP for getting close/into a contested tower/keep?
Why didn’t they add 10 WXP for getting close to a series of objectives held by the enemy (once per 10 minutes)?
Why didn’t they add 10 WXP for escorting a dolly?
Let’s not forget that players are unrewarded for ordering upgrades and punished for doing so by the exorbitant upgrade fees.
That’s just stupid. You can’t blame players for following the reward path that ANet laid out for them. In fact, LOTS of players predicted this would happen and practically begged ANet to reconsider how they set up these rewards. This falls squarely in ANet’s lap.
If you make keep takes worth stuff, people flip em. You make people worth more, people trade kills or set up meat grinders and farm 1 specific keep or tower and let the rest of the map go to heck. Try to make it where there is no incentive for either and it’s all about fun? WTF where are my rewards!!?? What’s the point!!??
There really is no winning with this generation, both younger and older folks. Nobody wants to take responsibility anymore because we’ve been taught we can always blame someone else.
Responsibility of design falls on the designers. Players should not blame themselves for the fact that the designers are following an extrinsically incentivized reward system, but couldn’t follow through with the designs.
In reality, it not really an issue with ethics as you make it out to be. It’s a matter of pragmatism. If the game is bad enough players will simply move on, and many players have already moved on.
It’s a fiasco because it promotes a playstyle opposite than intended. It was intended to reward players for what they’re already doing. In reality it encourages grinding via zergballing. You can’t “play the way you want” with active zergballs rolling through the map.
An exp cap prevents players from grinding through the levels too quickly. The vertical progression is clearly there to get players to play longer, why not go the whole nine yards and gate progression?
And yet, the hero of the story is Frodo. The others are great characters that help him, but only Frodo can bear the weight of the ring. Without him all else fails. Without others, he still perseveres. In fact, the only other character that might be integral to destroying the ring is gollum, who we would hardly call a hero.
I’m sorry, I know what you are saying, but Frodo is the only true hero of the story. The others are notable allies. In GW2 you are barely even a notable ally and you certainly aren’t the hero.
That’s another reason why the movie fails. Peter Jackson’s trashing of Frodo at the Ford of Bruinen. In the book, Frodo – all alone at the Ford – stood up to the Nine. In the movie, Frodo might as well have been a sack of potatoes on Arwen’s horse. Boo, Peter Jackson. Boo!
I said this in another thread discussing Trahearne, but I feel that in GW2 my character (and yours, in your version of the personal story) should have joined all three Orders, worked with all three Orders, earned the trust and respect of all three Orders, thereby becoming the one person in all of Tyria who knew how they all operated, knew exactly what each could do, and knew how to get them to work together effectively. That’s how I would have done it.
I just can’t see Mr. Neutral Party Trahearne, who has never been part of any Order, who has no idea how they operate or what they do or go through on a daily basis, filling that role. That idea just didn’t work for me.
Plus, who would follow some gloomy gus always moaning about how things aren’t going to end well? Grumpy Cat has a more positive attitude. And definitely has more charisma.
I think it would have been more natural to learn why the orders hated eachother, experience all three of them fall (with one character) and then have Trahearne resolve the altercations albiet only to deal with Zhaitan. That would have been premise for him becoming the marshal rather than the “oh let tree boy deal with it” contrivance the game resorted to, and there also would have been drama to build off of, what with Trahearne being the only one keeping the fragile alliance together.
In my opinion Braham doesn’t look like a norn at all. He looks like he is a character from another game with another universe. And his hair style is breaking my heart.
But I guess I’m just “old fashion”. The younger audience might like such “norn” (like charr Rox, which made me laugh and cry at the same time).
After a second look I have to agree with you.
That is Rox tier bad. Look at at that face and those neck muscles. I can’t believe I’m saying this but maybe they should make that anime hair bigger so that it can draw attention away.
Maybe I’m being harsh and it’s just a bad angle, but then again aren’t characters supposed to be designed with lighting in mind? If it’s such a bad angle why would they use it as a teaser? Is he going to look like that for the majority of the storyline?
Meet Raya, a young, adventurous human woman who had to abruptly leave her high school class when destroyers overran it and subsequently destroyed it.
Now that’s more like it. Needs pointy ears though.
Obviously, Raya won’t be complete without an adorable and mystical mascot. Maybe if, before Raya departs on her journey to capture the six Draconic Heart Crystals, she’ll team up with KooKoo the Quaggan who can transform into the magical Heart Scepter.
Agree with OP. There’s always room for levity but it needs to be done right. Harry Potter had a lot it, but it fit within the world Rowling wanted to portray. Even then, much of the silliness and humor had a degree of depth and meaning.
I haven’t seen her yet in-game, but I’ve seen the picture. At first, I was like “Woah, what’s wrong with her face?” But then, taking another gander, I realized the only thing that really bothered me was that light wasn’t bouncing off her eyes, giving them an incredibly flat look. A little more of a smile might help, too. Also, to those angry about her being young and cutesy, think of Tybalt. He was adorable, and not at all a stereotypical charr character. Yet, he’s one of the most memorable characters in the game.
Players understood who Tybalt was through his dialogue and the personality that it showed the player. Some of it did come through in his appearance, but it was subtle.
Now in Rox’s case, even if she does have personality, I’m sure most players would be too busy angling the camera away from her face to notice.
Greyfur’s simple photo manipulation is hardly constructive. There are numerous factors you have to consider before simply downsizing the eyes.
For example, what is the proper anatomy? Do you really believe that the creators of this creature don’t understand what they’re doing? You think we do? Realistically, I’d say it’s entirely possible for a creature of that size and spec to be born with eyes that size. Why deny the possibility?
So you say there is nothing constructive in this thread, yet when an example is pointed out, you say that it doesn’t count? What is this I don’t even.
He has a point. You can’t just shrink the eyes. That would be ludicrous! You first have to consider all the imaginary factors that you can think of as a counter. For example. What is the player’s average threshold for pain? Do you really believe ANet doesn’t know how long the average players can stare at something so horrifying before passing out? You think we know if something is horrifying enough or not? Realistically, in my imagination, I’d say we haven’t pushed the pain threshold enough. Why deny ourselves that possibility of finding out?
On a serious note, players do actually know on some level. It’s not necessarily a level where they can verbalize it, though. That’s the thing with aesthetics. It’s more the impression than the actual intention and meaning that matters.
The despawn timer for rams should be 15 minutes if unmanned, imo. They are usually destroyed during failed sieges in even less time and they are effectively irrelevant after successful ones.
This doesn’t have anything to do with healers, really. The problem, in my opinion, is that the game is way too forgiving. I believe it stems from the “active combat” mentality and everything that seems to follow. You can move and cast, cancel any skill at any time, and use spells to move even faster. The thing is, games with well-made action combat require the player to leverage movement, positioning and attack. GW2 doesn’t. It certainly gives the illusion of active combat, requiring constant strafing and all, but with the lack of trade-offs to each attack the game loses a lot of its depth. The constant strafing becomes a baseline of combat, not a tactic nor a reaction. If you make a bad move you can simply cancel and/or dodge. All in all, much less thought is put into combat.
I’d say these mechanics make the game worse because the developers likely use this as a basis for the game’s rapmpant CC distributions. “Players are moving too much and are able to cancel their spells. Let’s give everything cc otherwise the game would be too easy.”
When you get down to it, Rox is a character made for the player to interact with. If shock and fear are not the intended reactions, then her design has strayed from ArenaNets intentions. It’s by no means the players fault for reacting a certain way. That’s something the designer needs to consider, not the player.
Also, unless she is able to dynamically adjust both the width and height of her eyes (which would be even more terrifying), it’s likely that she’ll be just as ugly throughout the campaign.
I think there are better ways to make characters stand out than to completely deform their facial anatomy.
its not the face its just the kitten anime eyes she has. For the love of … wate charrs dont have god’s …. errr… Just shrink them down befor this go’s live anet
Eyes are most important part of the face, and those eyes make seem as though Rox has had a few pieces of her cheek kittenemoved. Speaking of which, compared to the more common and lionesque charr, the lower part of her face looks it’s being squeezed together. Makes her look very alien-like.
You do realise that rams have a different siege cap altogether from the other types of siege? Placing flame rams will have zero impact on your defensive capabilities and vice versa. Apart from the wasted supply which is a different matter entirely.
Didn’t know that. But regardless, if you limit the number of rams by restricting them to doors, you limit the amount of siege wasted. Arrow cars, ballistae and trebs can at least be somewhat useful if the saboteur resorts to building them.
If this what they plan (or they code), it means there is a bug in their program. As rams is still counted toward siege cap (except golem). Which needs to be addressed.
Looks like solution: siege should have minimum lvl requirement to deploy it is a (bit) good solution. Its will not stop troll/griefer/saboteur, but with minimum lvl requirement, at least they need to leveling their character first. (as this does not required significant effort in coding and the probability to cause another bug is small).
Sounds good in theory, but leveling isn’t difficult at all in GW2. If the new progression system will be good for anything, maybe a minimum WvW level will suffice as a requirement.
You do realise that rams have a different siege cap altogether from the other types of siege? Placing flame rams will have zero impact on your defensive capabilities and vice versa. Apart from the wasted supply which is a different matter entirely.
Didn’t know that. But regardless, if you limit the number of rams by restricting them to doors, you limit the amount of siege wasted. Arrow cars, ballistae and trebs can at least be somewhat useful if the saboteur resorts to building them.
Edit to your edit: RNG is by no means bad. Even attacks in fighting games have a small degree of variance in their damage. It’s bad when it trivializes strategy, however. My point about the random and strategic statement is that the “randomness” keeps it interesting but it’s “strategic” in the sense that there was a clear and objective behind it. But if you remove 3 boons of a category, hey! No RNG at all!
I’ve already explained to you why this version of RNG is bad. Re-read the example. It is not conducive or healthy for a competitive environment when a team can win a game based on luck.
MMOs, and specifically Guild Wars 2, already suffer enough from this. There’s no point in adding even more.
It’s not adding more luck, it’s narrowing it down.
When there’s a 66% chance to dispel stability on somebody stomping, it’s about luck.
Not unless you take away all three, or if there’s only stability. It really depends on the availability of boons. Still it’s far less random than the current system.
There’s nothing inherently random about the current system.
In the sense that it’s not deliberate, Mr. Tedious.
I’ll go ahead and quote it a third time
Inaction or inability of the player to accomplish something deliberately is not the same thing as random.
There is nothing random about the current system. It is impossible for an entirely random mechanic to be less random than a nonrandom mechanic.
Okay, you win. I’ll start using “not deliberate” from now on. You can go pat yourself on the back, and be on your merry way if you’re not going to contribute.
Edit to your edit: RNG is by no means bad. Even attacks in fighting games have a small degree of variance in their damage. It’s bad when it trivializes strategy, however. My point about the random and strategic statement is that the “randomness” keeps it interesting but it’s “strategic” in the sense that there was a clear and objective behind it. But if you remove 3 boons of a category, hey! No RNG at all!
I’ve already explained to you why this version of RNG is bad. Re-read the example. It is not conducive or healthy for a competitive environment when a team can win a game based on luck.
MMOs, and specifically Guild Wars 2, already suffer enough from this. There’s no point in adding even more.
It’s not adding more luck, it’s narrowing it down.
When there’s a 66% chance to dispel stability on somebody stomping, it’s about luck.
Not unless you take away all three, or if there’s only stability. It really depends on the availability of boons. Still it’s far less random than the current system.
There’s nothing inherently random about the current system.
In the sense that it’s not deliberate, Mr. Tedious.
Edit to your edit: RNG is by no means bad. Even attacks in fighting games have a small degree of variance in their damage. It’s bad when it trivializes strategy, however. My point about the random and strategic statement is that the “randomness” keeps it interesting but it’s “strategic” in the sense that there was a clear and objective behind it. But if you remove 3 boons of a category, hey! No RNG at all!
I’ve already explained to you why this version of RNG is bad. Re-read the example. It is not conducive or healthy for a competitive environment when a team can win a game based on luck.
MMOs, and specifically Guild Wars 2, already suffer enough from this. There’s no point in adding even more.
It’s not adding more luck, it’s narrowing it down.
When there’s a 66% chance to dispel stability on somebody stomping, it’s about luck.
Not unless you take away all three, or if there’s only stability. It really depends on the availability of boons. Still it’s far less random than the current system.
Edit to your edit: RNG is by no means bad. Even attacks in fighting games have a small degree of variance in their damage. It’s bad when it trivializes strategy, however. My point about the random and strategic statement is that the “randomness” keeps it interesting but it’s “strategic” in the sense that there was a clear and objective behind it. But if you remove 3 boons of a category, hey! No RNG at all!
I’ve already explained to you why this version of RNG is bad. Re-read the example. It is not conducive or healthy for a competitive environment when a team can win a game based on luck.
MMOs, and specifically Guild Wars 2, already suffer enough from this. There’s no point in adding even more.
It’s not adding more luck, it’s narrowing it down.
As the players have stated before it’d be difficult to tell what’s even going on. The game’s too chaotic to support that kind of a system, especially with the way boons can be reapplied.
That is not an inherent issue with the game. It is a skill issue of the players. Again, players can account for this. Whether they deem it necessary or are able to accomplish it is different from being unable to do it.
Let’s take Stand Your Ground and Save Yourselves, for example. The only way to practically remove the stability at that point is to use some sort of complete boon strip like Corrupt Boon.
Yes and that’s why boon stripping is so weak.
Boon stripping is weak, because players are able to account for the deterministic nature of boon removal and account for this by shielding them?
Funny, I remember not one post ago you saying this exact same thing was too chaotic to possibly use to any meaningful degree. And now that very thing is what makes boon removal weak.
How about It’s weak because of both. Because there can be boons applied at any time by boon factories and because fights are so chaotic. I was really replying to you second statement, anyway.
As the players have stated before it’d be difficult to tell what’s even going on. The game’s too chaotic to support that kind of a system, especially with the way boons can be reapplied.
That is not an inherent issue with the game. It is a skill issue of the players. Again, players can account for this. Whether they deem it necessary or are able to accomplish it is different from being unable to do it.
Let’s take Stand Your Ground and Save Yourselves, for example. The only way to practically remove the stability at that point is to use some sort of complete boon strip like Corrupt Boon.
Yes and that’s why boon stripping is so weak.
The speed of the game keeps strategy from being feasible the majority. It might not be so bad for a “pro” (emphasis on might, because I know how bad this game is with telegraphing) but its excludes other players. Isn’t there something a bit off about that? I mean I can tell exactly what’s going in in an SCII match and I’m not pro.
As the players have stated before it’d be difficult to tell what’s even going on. The game’s too chaotic to support that kind of a system, especially with the way boons can be reapplied.
And to answer your question, no it wouldn’t be trivial, but only incidentally so. The thing with strategic play is that strategies are deliberate, not incidental.
So can we stop arguing with the semantics and actually contribute now?
Edit to your edit: RNG is by no means bad. Even attacks in fighting games have a small degree of variance in their damage. It’s bad when it trivializes strategy, however. My point about the random and strategic statement is that the “randomness” keeps it interesting but it’s “strategic” in the sense that there was a clear and objective behind it. But if you remove 3 boons of a category, hey! No RNG at all!
But limiting rams to gate will NOT fix the issue of people purposefully wasting supplies hence this would just be a band aid and people will find another way to waste supplies.
Even after you remove all siege and supplies mechanics form the game, people would STILL be able to grief others by simply NOT fighting and wasting a spot on the map…and you can not force people to fight or tell them how to play.
The ram issue is a problem but I think most of you guys are not able to see the bigger picture. Remove one thing and people will use another.
Yes limiting rams to doors of enemy keeps would help but it still would not stop people from wasting supplies if they want to
That already happens with players ordering frivolous upgrades during siege. Sectioning and limiting won’t fix the siege cap problem, but it will help contain it and make attempts more difficult.
I see.
Boon removal is strategic or at least it always has been when I took Bountiful Theft (problem was that it’s the only removal, not including FS)
Pretty sure boon removal isn’t random, I have never seen it be random the results are always predictable. Problem is the interface sucks and doesn’t make knowing which boon was just applied known well like it was in GW1. This is also true for conditions, since the stacks don’t move on reapplicaiton they just increase…
What is random about boon removal (excluding Nullification)? The interface doesn’t make discerning what these are even remotely intuitive however and if you didn’t see them apply them you wouldn’t know at all. Hopefully this get’s changed so added and refreshed boons move left-right so you know what is at the Top and what’s at the bottom. Am I missing your meaning?
Irrc, the oldest boons are removed, so it’s not random in that sense. It’s random in the sense that the process is too chaotic. The one applying the boon can certainly control which which ones are the oldest, but because fights are so fast and front-loaded I’m sure there not much consideration is put into which boons are applied and in which order. It just just happens, and there’s little actual strategy involved.
Depends on how it’s implemented. I don’t mean to make it sounds as though I’m suggesting that one new mechanic will balance an inherently unbalanced system. Implementing changes like my “boon sickness” will require rebalancing things like the frequency of application, availability of both boons and boon removal, etc. That’s stuff’s complicated. It’s something for the devs to figure out :P I’m just throwing out ideas.
How about adjusting the boon application/stripping dynamic?
Here are some changes that I think will make the dynamics a bit deeper.
Boon Sickness
Once a boon is ripped off, it can’t be applied again for a period of time. This will create windows of opportunity when attacking boon factories and also force boon builds to better time their buffs.
Selective Boon Removal
Allow players to remove specific categories of boons. Current boons can easily be divided into “defensive” and “offensive” though I’m sure the categories can be more specific. The current system is too random and it promotes an all or nothing style of gameplay with boon removal. It favors Necro corruptions while leaving the boon stripping abilities of other professions effectively irrelevant.
Edit: When I type random I really mean “not deliberate”
Credit goes to Larynx.
The playerbase that wanted burnt cabbage didn’t wait around for it, and by the time it got here the people wanted pizza.
Vocal playerbase that remained was trained by a certain other MMOs to think that they wanted burnt cabbage, when in reality they only liked the idea of it.
Progression is simply incentive; it’ll help retain players, but it won’t bring back players who have left WvW due to fundamental design issues. I don’t recall these players specifically asking for “progression,” either. Purpose and engagement maybe, but not “progression.”
Another video I feel that is related to this topic:
- I think the authors misunderstand the idea of operant conditioning. It’s not some dubious mind trick that you build into your game to hook players. It’s a fundamental mechanism how animals including humans work. I press keys on my keyboard because I’ve been conditioned to see it produce letters on the screen. Should the monitor turn black all of sudden, my behavior of typing letters would change, because the “reward” is gone. Reward must be seen as functional term. It need not be some actual glittering prize.
Operant conditioning is a sound theory how tools are integrated into behavior, but it’s too general to explain alone why humans do the things they do.
I think their point was that it was being exploited, and that the emphasis of design was focused on it rather than the game’s quality. To quote “it’s a lazy and cheap” way of simulating engagement.
Also, to those angry about her being young and cutesy, think of Tybalt. He was adorable, and not at all a stereotypical charr character. Yet, he’s one of the most memorable characters in the game.