Guild Wars 2

DocHolliday.5921:

Mungrul.9358:

Incoming rant from a disgruntled ex-player:

That OP is pretty good, but I still think that MMO players as a whole have become far too obsessed with the concept of rewards, and developers have been pandering to them to the detriment of what should really matter: game-play.

Removed most of the quote to save space. I agree with all of your points. Also liked the OP. This plays into what I rediscovered today when I came back for a couple hours after having quit months ago. Sadly, I’ll be leaving again for those same reasons. There’s just nothing here for me right now. I miss the first GW, and would still be playing if my account hadn’t got hacked. This was before they implemented the account roll-back feature, and at the time all they could do was tell me I was SOL. I just didn’t have the heart to regrind my Obsidian set and everything else.

The problem is that a company really CAN’T be the driving factor to changing player behavior. If your customers want [x], and you think it’s for the best they don’t have it, and should have [y] instead… guess what happens when you try to sell [y]?

Customers drop you like a bad habit, and buy from a different vendor that gives them [x].

Substance E.4852:

chemiclord.3978:

What I mean by all this is… this is the first world problems of first world problems.

It’s like the 1%ers of problems. If you’re honestly raging about competitive balance in COSTUME BRAWLS… how the hell do you play this game long enough to even get into costume brawls in the in first place?

The same could be said for people who complain about spvp. Many don’t play that mode and it doesn’t matter to them if it’s imbalanced as hell yet we are all expected to care when something becomes OP flavor of the month.

sPvP is a distinct game mode that is designed (in theory) with balance in mind.

Costume Brawls are a diversion within an already existing mode. Balance would be nice, sure, but it rightfully should be WAY down on the list of concerns for the developers. Is it even INTENDED to be balanced for that matter? If not… you might as well be farting into the wind.

Offended by? Not at all.

Not the slightest bit interested in? Yes.

Well, if you absolutely don’t want to get rid of the downed state (and considering how much of their gem store is filled with customized finishers, I don’t see it going away), you can at least make the finishing blow much quicker to perform.

What I mean by all this is… this is the first world problems of first world problems.

It’s like the 1%ers of problems. If you’re honestly raging about competitive balance in COSTUME BRAWLS… how the hell do you play this game long enough to even get into costume brawls in the in first place?

Raine.1394:

And, I find that the short/steep power curve in WoW is actually easier than GW2’s long/low power curve. As mentioned, when a new tier drops in WoW I grind for a couple months and I’m done. The rest of the tier I can relax and play what I enjoy. With the long/slow grind of GW2 the grind is never over. That sword is always over your head—especially if you are an altoholic. One thing GW2 has taught me is that a short/steep power curve can actually be easier on you in terms of grindiness.

While this is true, the problem with the short/steep power curve is that if you put down the game for any extent of time… the chances of you catching up to the current tier of content is pretty small. You simply don’t have the gear to complete the current level of content, and by the time you are, the bar has been raised (if not abandoned entirely by a new expansion).

You wouldn’t be able to step in a Tier 13 raid (or whatever the max level is), without at least getting a good helping from 12… which requires a heady amount from 11… and so on and so on.

And even IF Ascended is completely out of your reach, it’s not such a huge increase that even IF new content was scaled to it that it would be impossible to complete with a full set of Exotics (if not rares).

Not trying to say that EITHER method of vertical progression is inherently better; but that both have their problems. I personally would rather have the problem of never quite having “BiS” rather than having entire swaths of content beyond my reach.

I think you would find ANY game support to be EXTREMELY reluctant to talk to a player concerning another player’s account. It’s just not done, and for very good reason. You aren’t that player. It isn’t your account. The information is NOT yours to request.

Call up Blizzard, and ask them to restore [x] to another player’s guild/account, and you would get the same answer.

Smith.1826:

chemiclord.3978:

There seems to be this artificial distinction between vertical progression of skills and of gear. For some reason, one is okay… and the other isn’t.

I’d say they’re both pretty silly. Based on their initial stances for GW2, I was given the impression that this would’ve been something they learned not to do.

I’d say vertical progression, at least for the MMO market, is one of those necessary evils that has to be changed by players, not by developers. Guild Wars 2 tried to be one that eschewed such progression… just to have players walk away because it didn’t have “anything to do” at max level.

As you can’t crank out raid content of any sort (either vertical or horizontal) two weeks at a time, Arena.net settled with this sort of busy work (which is all I really think it is), while they fashion more content.

There seems to be this artificial distinction between vertical progression of skills and of gear. For some reason, one is okay… and the other isn’t.

Dark Catalyst.1028:

I feel like a sucker because I bought into their statements about top tier gear being easily accessible and all of the horizontal progression nonsense.

And ya know what? For what, it started out that way. There’s no reason to believe at the time of launch that they had every intention to do anything but that.

Then it changed. There’s one of two explanations that I can think of.

1) The game was doing perfectly fine; the GW1 veterans were carrying the title with high retention and it was more than enough to support the game, and Arena.net decided, “Ya know what… kitten them. We hate them and want to make them cry. So let’s completely change what we wanted to do and was working just fine!”

OR

2) The game wasn’t doing nearly as well as Arena.net wanted, and the GW1 veterans were only a fraction of what they needed population wise to support the model they desired. So they had to find out what could bring in players from outside the “old ways” and decided that the MMO players they needed to rely on WANTED vertical progression and to grind out their shinies.

Which one do you think is more likely?

IndigoSundown.5419:

In GW, the acquisition via grind of greater power was solely through the faction/reputation skills. However, most of them maxed out partway through the progression (e.g., Sunspear skills maxed at rank 5 of 10 — or 4 in the case of Never Rampage Alone), and the higher ranks took longer than the lower ones. The benefits of the Lightbringer title were a notable exception, scaling through max rank of 8, and R8 was pretty much required for DoASC — but that was endgame stuff.

A lot of GW title grind was fueled by the Hall of Monuments and GW2. I’d guess fewer people would have gone for GW titles if there was no GW2 carrot. GW2 does not have that incentive.

GW cosmetic and rep grinds were generally undertaken after the character had completed the story and had max armor/weapons. I won’t say max stats because a lot of characters never slotted a Superior Rune of Vigor, for instance. GW2 was that way at launch. It might still be that way for people with one character, but those who had multiple 80’s in exotics and/or multiple armor/weapon sets for different builds are facing a steep climb to get back to having BiS, especially once armor crafting hits (and assuming the alternate means to acquire armor is as unfriendly as drops for weapons). This last is the most notable difference between the two games.

And see, I don’t really make a distinction between grind for gear and grind for skills. Vertical progression is vertical progression. And there was more than a few “Require Level 8 Ursan (or Lightbringer, etc)” groups out there… just like the Zerker elitists nowaways.

I didn’t find that terribly game-breaking in GW1, and I don’t find Ascended all that bothersome in GW2 for that same reason. Yes, if we start going down that slippery slope of having to regear every 6 months or so that’ll be it for me… but I will worry about that when (or if) that happens.

Ahlen.7591:

GW2 has less grind than almost any game ever made.

GW2 has less grind than GW1.

I dunno if I’d go quite THAT far. GW2 has a good chunk of grind to it.

Now, what I tend to take to task is this nostalgia from GW1 vets that it was a grind free utopia where you were NEVER required to have [x] level of something or risk being at a disadvantage.

I’m not sure there was any grind in GW1 that is quite as extensive as the entire Ascended climb (assuming you start from crafting level 0… and that armor will be roughly equal in time spent). But GW1 had a lot MORE options for that lesser grind by the end of its run (and even then outside of a handful of reputation skills, the grind was by and large cosmetic in nature).

Dark Catalyst.1028:

Since this was ignored, I’ll post it again. Because it’s left me a bit confused

1. People who like ascended claim that the power increase is supposedly minor at best.
2. We can’t cap WvW at an exotic gear level because that would invalidate all the “hard work” people put into getting their little pink weapons/armor.
3. Supporters also claim that ascended doesn’t matter in WvW because WvW is balanced around things other than player stats.

So if the power increase is “minor at best” and WvW is balanced around things other than player power, then why are you wasting your time grinding these weapons out? Why are you resistant to capping WvW gear at the exotic level?

How would do that, though? WvW is linked with the PvE aspect. Do you expect people to carry an exotic set IN ADDITION to the ascended set they’ve built or are building? Would you have expected to have players hold on to their rare gear as they got exotic?

Is it possible to “scale down” ascended gear to exotic stats? Is it possible to “disable” infusions that increase stats when in WvW? What would that entail? Would you be willing for Anet to put new content on hold to program in an entirely new method to scale down ascended gear just for the sake of WvW (which was supposedly never intended to be a level playing field to begin with)?

I mean, I personally don’t see anything wrong with the idea… but I’m not sure the effort needed to make it happen would be worth it.

GW1 had TONS of grind… and guess what… when it came to reputation skills, it was a massive grind in the sake of vertical progression too.

Probably can’t see that unless you put down the rose-colored glasses, though.

Turns out MMO players played other MMOs with grind because… they kinda like the grind and vertical progression, and stopped playing Guild Wars 2 because it didn’t have those things.

Who knew?

Ranger – Preparations as an alternative to the pet mechanic.

IndigoSundown.5419:

You haven’t been paying attention, then. This suggestion has been made many times, some of them in this thread, by suggesting that mobs behave more like players.

While I personally would LOVE to see mobs have an AI that plays more like a player would… Arena.net had better, more complex AI in place during the betas. The general consensus was that players despised it, and made combat too frustrating.

Bringing it back to that earlier level now would kitten off more people than it pleased, of that I am certain. So the solution is to find alternate ways for enemies to deal damage while keeping the enemy dumb.

To me, the answer is two fold:

1) I don’t necessarily mind the one-hit kill mechanics regardless of your build. It forces you to be alert and conscious of your own position at all times. That’s a GOOD thing, believe it or not.

2) But ADD a smaller, faster, steadier stream of damage… something that won’t outright KILL a zerker geared player, but something that makes his conscious of having to step back to range, heal, and have to slow down their own damage… this would also give the option of tough and vit builds being able to stay in melee range longer (and the higher damage that inherently comes with it).

Those two mechanics combined would give people some options and variety. Would there be a “better” one? Sure. There always will be, but there’s room to tweak fights so that EVERY boss and trash encounter isn’t best done by a single stat type.

It might disappear for you, but the logs are still available for Arena.net to look at. Report them if you think it’s inappropriate.

1) There really does need to be an open forum on the state of condition damage in this game. It’s not working in any way resembling viable.

2) The lack of particularly effective roles outside of pure damage. You have a ton of gear options and a wide variety of build potential… but with the mechanics the way they are in PvE (big damage spikes and one-hit kill abilities), it’s pretty much go Berserker (occasionally Assassin) or go home.

3) A discussion as to exactly what your target audience is; as in right now, not at the beginning. There are a sizable number of Guild Wars 1 fans who feel betrayed and lied to because they feel the game has changed significantly and that they aren’t wanted any longer. There needs to be some honesty as to why perceived changes to the pillars of the game have been made… or if Arena.net doesn’t think they have… to detail why or why not.

Galtrix.7369:

And no, it is not “Confirmation Bias”. How is it bias when I want the Ranger to succeed, but the Elementalist comes out on top? I didn’t want that to happen. I’ve played a Ranger since the beginning of Guild Wars 1, so don’t tell me that I want them to fail. Let me say this…. I am a person that has created and planned builds since the beginning of time. (Slight exaggeration). If I can make two builds and compare them along with damage and overall usefulness, I trust myself enough that I will compare them to the best of my ability and the results will make the best of the class. Therefore, I trust in myself and stand firm on my belief that Elementalists do much more damage than Rangers.

It’s confirmation bias because you WANT to believe there is some “broken” about Rangers, something that can be “fixed.” I’ve tested the two as well, and I am getting the exact opposite results that you apparently are. The Sword/Warhorn build I’ve worked with kicks the living kitten out of ANYTHING the Ele brings to the table, and in some cases, it’s not even close.

Elementalists have been nerfed HARD over the last two patches, which is why I’m curious when you actually did these tests. If it was two months ago, then you’re basing your opinion on outdated information. If it was recently, I want to see what builds you are comparing, and against what targets. I would LOVE to try and replicate your findings.

Galtrix.7369:

I don’t “think” rangers have lower damage than Elementalists. I know for sure that they do. The dps difference was extremely wide. Granted, I was using a staff on my Elementalist, but that shouldn’t matter too much. I don’t understand how you think that a ranger can do more damage than an Elementalist. I mean, I’ve made both classes a glass cannon with the best builds I could think of… And I tested them.

And so have I. Unless you go Dagger/Dagger (effectively the Ele’s “melee” option), Ele’s ranged damage simply does not measure up to what a Ranger can do (while admittedly the very narrow build I mentioned earlier), and even D/D is hurting over the last couple patches.

I’m beginning to wonder the last time you rolled ele, because what you’re saying is not matching up with what ANYONE else is observing. Simply put, I think your “tests” are actually an example of “confirmation bias.” You WANT Ranger to come up lagging, and so they do.

Pretty much what the two above have claimed.

But that’s really more a player-side problem than a developer-side one.

I’ve had a level 80 of every class except warrior at some point. That you think an elementalist is FAR ahead of a Ranger is laughable. If anything, it’s the other way around.

Necros, Engineers, and Eles all have trouble sustaining the same sort of damage a Ranger can. Mesmers are better in bursts (and boy can they have some burst when everything comes together right). Thieves, Guardians, and Warriors all are better by and large (though I haven’t leveled a Thief up to 80 since the latest supposed nerfs, so that might have changed).

Are there issues? Oh absolutely. To match up damage wise, you’re rather restricted to a very specific weapon set (1 hand sword/offhand, usually warhorn), with a 1-skill that can be cumbersome to handle. Pet AI remains a problem, especially if you’re trying to run a pet that uses an F2 enemy target. But those are issues that aren’t specific to Ranger, honestly… they’re symptoms of a larger mechanics issue; the AI as a whole is pretty stupid, and the problem with conditions in group situations cuts out a lot of what COULD be effective in terms of potential builds (as a lot of ranger weapons hinge on some sort of condition application).

The things that you HAVE noticed (for example survivability) are more handy in the open world than in group instanced content, and yes that hurts viability… but what hurts the Ranger’s presence in groups even more are the masses who continue to insist that they are a ranged class even as the mechanics of the game itself scream otherwise.

Rangers aren’t in what I call a “good” place… but they aren’t exactly in a “terrible” place, either… at least, no more terrible than other classes not named Warrior and Guardian.

Well, what I did when I was going for my legendary was to just throw in whatever rares I found. I wound up with A precursor at the end of the day (in this case Zap), and was able to effectively trade it for the one I wanted through the Trading Post.

Galtrix.7369:

I like Rangers. I’ve played them since the beginning of GW1. I really like the playstyle, but the damage is just incredibly bad. It takes me 2 minutes to kill one monster that’s my level. I can two-hit the same monster with my warrior. I agree though, all professions are viable in open world.

If you’re bearbow perhaps.

If you’re playing the ranger as an inside/out combat class, it doesn’t take much longer than a warrior to kill the same mob at all. Part of it is that the mobs in PvE are all pretty easy; part of it is that when maximized, rangers don’t lag THAT far behind.

Ranger lags damage wise, but it’s not THAT bad to be completely broken and unplayable… unless you’re trying to be an archer with your pet as tank.

Companies really can’t afford to be the one that drastically changes a genre. Too much of their own money is tied into it for them to be counted on to take that risk.

The players themselves have to be willing to take the onus to change how they play their games. The MMO market seems unwilling to do so to any great extent. Arena.net tried, the player base wasn’t willing to follow, Arena.net had to alter their designs to fit what the market wanted.

Oh well.

papryk.6273:

the new targeting system is really frustrating…
closest enemy targeting should not prioritize champs

chemiclord.3978:

There IS a “closest enemy target” option. I believe it’s “C” by default.

no kitten sherlock…that’s what OP is talking about

Yes, I noticed that shortly after replying, which was why I deleted the message, Watson.

Ashen.2907:

Exactly. And this is why all feedback is dangerous. Not because there is anything inherently dangerous about feedback but because acting on it/not acting on it is dangerous. Its the job of the development studio to try sifting through the feedback to navigate the best path for the game.

The problem I tend to have with fan feedback is the tendency for fans to equate “not acting” with “not listening.” When you tell someone their criticism isn’t wrong, but then don’t fix it… well, then that means you just don’t care. You’re not REALLY listening, so that means I just need to scream louder and be more insulting. If you STILL won’t listen, well then I’m just gonna throw a temper tantrum until you do!

1) I want to see new content; new zones, new races, etc. I’m not particularly picky as to how that content is disseminated. If it can be done via Living Story… great. If it requires expansions, so be it.

2) I’d like to see Guild Halls and expansion of your “home instance.”

3) I’d personally like assurances that the current gear and player levels will stay static (but that’s a faint hope).

I’m sure there are others, but I’m tired and can’t think of two more offhand.

Ashen.2907:

Again, you might want to read the whole thing before claiming that he said something that he did not.

Lets visit the example of Living Story again:

Player A says he likes the LS updates.

Player B says he does not like the LS updates.

Which of them is wrong ?

Neither of them.

But now the next question is; which one should Arena.net listen to? It’s easy to accept any and all criticism. It’s not quite so easy to decide whether or not to act on it.

sirflamesword.3896:

chemiclord.3978:

I like the passage, as there is a lot of wisdom to be had there.

I don’t like it being used by angry, bitter, spiteful fans who try to use it as justification to spit mean-spirited venom.

If that was pointed at me then, well it’s probably dead on. Sad that after 8 years with playing games made by Anet that I’ve gotten to this point though.

Wasn’t really pointed at anyone specifically.

I’ve seen variants of this sentiment from creators before (hell, I myself prescribe to the idea that no one who dislikes what I do is wrong); but at the same time, just because someone doesn’t like something you do, doesn’t mean you should drop everything to change it for them. Sometimes, you just have to be able to say, “Sorry, then this isn’t the game/story/movie/show for you. Good luck finding something you like.”

This sort of sentiment is similar to “the customer is always right”; which actually isn’t true at all. It’s an axiom that is important to keep in mind, but it’s not a hard and steady rule. Sometimes, customers can be unreasonable… and sometimes critique can be unreasonable too. Where a creator draws that line is up to them… but I think it’s important that line exists somewhere.

I like the passage, as there is a lot of wisdom to be had there.

I don’t like it being used as justification by angry, bitter, spiteful fans to spit mean-spirited venom.

It’ll be ignored here.

For whatever reason, the developers think Ranger is largely balanced. While I don’t agree that everything is fine, I also don’t believe the class is horribly broken beyond repair either.

It seems to me that the two largest problems I have with the class mechanics currently are merely microcosms to larger issues:

1) The Pet AI is still dumber than Harry Dunne after severe head trauma. Any pet that has an attacking F2 skill might as well be a coin flip that it actually hits. It doesn’t move out of AoE attacks, and it’s no guarantee will move position if its target is obstructed for ranged pets. The increased health has kinda sorta cured a symptom, but really hasn’t addressed the disease.

The issue here is that the AI in the game as a whole has a collective IQ somewhere below a toilet seat. I’m not sure there’s an easy solution to that, because when the AI was actually reasonably intelligent (during the beta events), players whined that it was too frustrating to fight against. Creating an entirely separate AI just for minions and pets I can only imagine would be rather… impractical.

2) The entire condition conundrum SEVERELY limits the number of effective builds a ranger can use, as nearly every weapon in the Ranger kitten nal utilizes condition damage to some degree. But that’s a problem that affects SEVERAL classes, and not just Ranger.

If there could be a resolution to those two issues, I think the rest would fall into place.

Many of the other complaints I’ve read I’ve generally found to be player-side problems; players that REALLY don’t want to accept that ranger in GW2 is a melee-primary class that utilizes ranged damage secondary. It seems they want something akin to WoW’s Hunter or FFXIV’s Archer.

Or the entire “sword #1 problem”, which I don’t think the players themselves can even agree is a problem at all.

Personally, I think the easiest solution that could be implemented immediately is to reduce the amount of damage that the pet contributes to the class, and transfer that to the Ranger him/herself. Instead of 40/60 more like 20/80; a percentage that you would still want to keep your pet alive (unlike in GW1 where the pet could mean so little to your damage that a lot of Rangers would eschew a revive skill)… but wouldn’t absolutely CRIPPLE you if a sequence of damage laid waste to both.

I also like the idea of bringing back Preparations as an alternative to the Pets, but I can see how that would be a balancing nightmare just within the class itself, much less in the game as a whole. It would be a much longer term solution that would take quite a bit of time to implement properly.

EDIT: Really? kitten nal is censored? Do you NOT have any soccer fans here, or is Manchester United ALSO censored?

The State of the Ranger After Major Patch will be going into the Ranger sub-forums where it belongs, I suspect, where the bearbow masses will cry and bemoan their horrible fate together.

Young Somalia.1706:

Guild Wars had a following.

Look where it ended up

With a (by all accounts outside of this forum) a very successful sequel?

One group complains that items are temporary and that it’s not fair they’ll never have a chance to get them.

Another group complains that recurring items take away the novelty and make it feel like their efforts to gain them are worthless.

Who should Arena.net listen to?

I have found my Moas don’t die IMMEDIATELY now, which is handy… but it’s still not quite something I can send in and just forget about.

Which (at least on those grounds) is okay. There’s still some really funky targeting those little guys do that needs a LOT of work yet. I don’t run any pet with an F2 that attacks a mob because there’s still no better than a 50/50 chance it’s gonna be pointing the right way.

I dunno if I’d say it’s closer to an FPS more than it leans towards “platform” play.

I mean, it’s like clockwork at this point.

Patch day followed by irrational rage and complaining. I can’t IMAGINE why developers wouldn’t want to collaborate with the people on these forums!

If you’re not a melee kind of person, GW2 isn’t the game for you.

The entire mechanics are based around ranged being a way to get the heat off while offering some support to those still in melee range. The bulk of your damage is done in melee, and that’s been true since the first beta event.

rhapsody.3615:

I run the champ train sometimes and I don’t see the same players every time, so I doubt people are doing it to the point that they forget how to play. A bad player is bad, champ train doesn’t cause it.

If you kill a champ in Frostgorge or Queensdale, it would be appreciated by the champ farmers if you’d let them know. Ignore the whiners, the train moves on. And if you’re having overflow at jormag, try killing him on another server.

I am NOT going to worry about where the zerg is when I see a champion. I am NOT going to wait for the army to show up.

Does that mean I go out of my way to engage and kill every champion I see just to make the farmers cry? Of course not. That’s just being a tool. But if I’m grouped up with some of my guild and we see [Group Event]: Kill Champion (x), whether that champion is on the zerg’s itinerary is the last thing on my mind.

And ya know what? By and large, I have had no problem with the champion train, and I don’t think they’ve had a problem with me or my groups. In the last couple months or so, I can safely say there’s been two incidents (both by the same person) who got indignantly furious that I DARED kill a champion out of turn in Frostgorge, and that fellow probably did not enjoy his short ban.

The zerg farm isn’t the problem that non-farmers want to paint it out to be, and those that are a problem are a very distinct minority.

Vayne.8563:

Obviously there’s a thought process you’re missing.

By the end of year 1, Guild Wars 1 came out with Factions. That would have added to the number of sales by the end fo the first year. Guild Wars 2 is using a different method to provide content. One that doesn’t involve sales.

Let’s say 2 million people bought Prophecies during the first year (I have no idea if that’s how many did, but let’s pretend). And let’s pretend that 1.5 million of them bought factions. That would bring Guild Wars 1 up to 3.5 million sales, but only two million players.

Anet didn’t release an expansion, so the success of the game can’t really be shown by how many sales it made, once Factions came out. You’re no longer comparing apples to apples.

But you can compare how much each game made.

That, of course, has it’s own drawbacks, but it’s about as reasonable as trying to compare sales directly.

While that thought process is fine and dandy, I’m not sure how it’s relevant to the discussion at hand; pertaining to the “carryover” of player from GW1 to GW2.

I do suspect that percentage of veterans IS lower than us veterans would like to admit, though.

1) The entire mechanic needs to be overhauled really. And I think that’s what’s taking so much time.
2) It’s really tied into #1. Viable condition builds just by themselves will open up a lot of different styles of play (condition primary or hybrid).
3) Working as intended. You’re not going to see that change.
4) Patently false.
5) Blame the players for complaining that the AI was too frustrating to fight in beta testing. Rather limits how fights can be made more challenging (something ELSE players apparently want). This is what is called a player-side problem.
6) Working as intended. You’re not going to see that change.
7) A convenience at best. Personally not game breaking.
8) Could you be a bit more specific?

Of your 8 things that need fixing, Arena.net would claim 6 of them aren’t broken to begin with. Of the other two, one definitely DOES need an answer (pertaining to condition damage), the other really depends on what you think is actually broken.

NornBearPig.9814:

When it comes down to it, the core gameplay of GW1 (combat mechanics + MtG-like skill drafting) is worlds apart from it’s sequel. If the game was stripped of the similar graphics and lore, players would have no idea these two games were made by the same people, from the same franchise.

I think you could say that for the majority of sequels, though.

I’m not sure just how valid of a criticism that is.

Nokaru.7831:

Finally, the way they handled Agony Resistence is ridiculous. It was meant to be a form of progression for Fractals of the Mists, but now you can attain more Resistance via Guild Missions and now Ascended Crafting. How does it make any sense that players progress through Fractals of the Mist by not doing Fractals? It is completely dysfunctional progression.

It WAS initially only available through Fractals.

Players whined and complained that they shouldn’t have to do Fractals to get the gear that only mattered in Fractals. I’m not kidding.

I simply have two bits of advice for you, Chris:

1) No matter how much you beseech the player base, there are GOING to be elements that their sole goal is to simply scream and complain as loud as they can. To them, you aren’t there to discuss things, you are there to yell at. They WILL look for any reason to be insulted, and if worse comes to worse they WILL make up reasons to be insulted if they have to.

You can NOT let that small group of people dictate the conversation, and you can NOT let them run you (or other developers) off, nor can you use them as an excuse to ignore the rest of the feedback. Yes, they are going to be crude and hurtful and spiteful, but you’re gonna have to power through it, no matter how unfair it is, if you want to keep those lines of communication open.

2) Metrics and customer feedback, be it through forums or polls or beta test realms or surveys, are all well and good. It never hurts to know what your players like or don’t like. But at the end of the day, this is YOUR game (and I say that in the plural sense encompassing the entire company); and you shouldn’t be afraid to do what you want to do, or reject ideas from the community, no matter how popular they sound.

Players will respect decisions that they don’t like if it shows a creative passion rather than a feeling that you’re simply trying to milk as many dollars as you can.

When the ascended rings first came out, there was only one way to get them (people who dove into the Fractals past level ten), and the same complaining that “We shouldn’t have to do [x]” was prevalent then. Eventually other ways to get those same items were introduced.

I suspect Arena.net wanted to show crafting professions a little love, and threw them a bone by giving them first shot at these ascended items, and eventually, there will be other ways to acquire said armor and weapons.

Relax. I swear, it’s like a broken record in here sometimes.

I think another reason from Arena.net’s perspective to avoid raid instances is for the same reason World of Warcraft implemented several difficulties to their raid content from “heroic” all the way down to “press [x] for loot.”

Raids instances traditionally are content that a VERY small portion of your audience will ever see in its entirety. For example; at the time of Burning Crusade, for example, something around less than 0.1% of active accounts ever saw M’uru in the Sunwell Plateau, for example. Even less saw Kil’Jaeden (because M’uru was a guild killer even for heavily invested raid guilds).

That’s not really a very good investment for content from a developer’s standpoint. WoW can do that “simpleton” tier because they really DO have a gear treadmill where people who play the lowest difficulty gets significantly less impressive loot.

As Guild Wars 2 does NOT (at least not yet), they’d face a conundrum: there’d be very little incentive for players to actually attempt the harder levels of difficulty outside of simply wanting the challenge (which as these forums demonstrate is a TERRIBLE motivator), and making the challenge worth it would inherently cut off a vast percentage of the player base from seeing the content they want you to see. Nor can Arena.net simply make the content stupid easy because then you’ll have masses complaining that it’s too easy and there’s no point if ANYONE can do it.

As such, I can see why Arena.net would be reluctant to work with raid instances. They likely don’t see any option that has them coming out ahead.

I don’t understand… Tequatl is supposed to be completely ignored and Sparkfly Fen is a ghost town!