I know why people think PvP and WvW are the same thing but they are not. PvP is a very specific area of the game with its own mechanics. You cannot get the PvP daily by doing WvW. So no, it is not clearly just a PvE daily since the separate area for Pvp requirements has nothing to do with WvW. People like you can pretend that in GW2 PvP and WvW are synonymous but that doesn’t make it so
This is like claiming that the Jade Quarry in GW1 was not “technically” PvP, since your main goal was gathering supplies and capturing several points of interest on the map in order to do so….sound a little familiar? WvW is Jade Quarry on a much larger scale, and Jade Quarry was clearly PvP. No one in GW1 tried to fool themselves into thinking it was part of the PvE metagame.
Your notion is that, because WvW wasn’t built to specifically revolve around Glory, that this alone makes it not a PvP system. But PvP is not defined as “has specific characteristics to it”, it’s defined as player vs player. Which is precisely what WvW is all about.
WvW is not PvP, these are two completely separate aspects of the game.
It pits players against each other, ergo it is Player vs Player, albeit on a larger scale.
It is hysterical that people complain about 50 WvW kills which you can get in 15 minutes from EBG. You then turn around to others and say if you don’t spend hours running a dungeon you don’t deserve the rewards. lolz, just lolz.
It’s not about the kills, it’s about the fact that this game which was supposedly fully optimized still runs poorly on great computers (even mine will chug at times in a large WvW brawl). WvW is the worst offender by far and is kitten near unplayable for some despite those computers fulfilling at least the minimum specs that the developers posted for their game. So it’s not “lol get a better computer”, because the devs said that a computer of X specifications would run this game fine and yet there are people with specs that high (or even higher) still having issues.
Where does it say anywhere that the Monthly is a PvE daily?
“Monthly” is a PvE achievement chain (just as “Daily” is a PvE achievement chain). “Monthly PvP” is the PvP version of monthlies. That is where WvW belongs, not in the regular Monthly.
So yes, it clearly is a PvE setup, seeing as how there’s a separate location for PvP requirements.
Put back the WvW in my opinion. If you are going to force dedicated WvW players to run dungeons then you should force the PvE dedicated people to have to take SM castle or something equally as annoying
But you’re not playing PvE when you do WvW, you’re playing PvP. The devs can pretend that it’s not PvP all they like, but that’s exactly what it is and they need to start treating it like a PvP system.
A staff post has stated that they need to completely re-do a portion of coding to fix the culling issue and that normal estimations for such a task would take 5~10 years.
They’re trying to do it within a few months.
So… Quit whining. They’re being real troopers.
They don’t get props for fixing something that should have been working before release. There were people as far back as beta telling the devs that this game was not ready and they released it anyways because they were convinced that it’d do great, whether they paid attention to their players or not. They started believing their own hype. Now they’re paying for that mistake.
So….they don’t have 5 to 10 years to fix their game to the quality level that people demand from their PvP. They have maybe two more months at best before they can expect to see yet another exodus. And once again, that’s a time scale they put on themselves, not one that the players “forced” on them.
I’ve been hearing people in my map chat reporting that, after finishing their Fractals run, it didn’t count towards their dungeon participation. Can anyone confirm this?
And if it’s true….er, why? Fractals is a dungeon, isn’t it? So I don’t get why it wouldn’t count. I must be missing something here. :/
If you’re fine with the current dye system I don’t see what your problem is. A minor deviation was made from a post by one of the ANet artists over two years ago, and a rationalization for the change was posted by an ANet employee in the official forums. What else do you want from them exactly? Maybe a line by line personalized email for every set of patch notes?
Not exactly, but I do expect them to do a better job explaining what they’re doing, preferably before they do it. They’ve taken some steps towards this, with Colin posting more often….but then we had the “AoE across the board tweaking” debacle in which they took a big step backwards.
A little dialogue between players and devs is good for a game. Instead of saying “we’re looking at doing this” and not filling us in, give us your reasoning behind the decision. We’ll be able to have a discussion over it, and you might find that players have some good points to bring to the discussion, even if we don’t agree in the end.
Actually, I think Ms McCoy gave too much information there. Unless she’s being very clever, she may have just gave it away. I now have strong suspicions that this is a dredge event.
Now hear me out:
Firstly, the devs have confirmed that it has nothing to do with the dragons. This implies another enemy is causing the problems, one who is a common enemy to all of the races. The dredge fit that bill, as they are hostile to all races.
Second, the events described by the refugees include “the ground shaking” and “steam vents rising up from underground”. The dredge are exceedingly smart with regards to technology (such that even the asura respect their prowess) and live underground in the regions where these events are supposedly taking place. After all, the affected regions are both populated by significant outposts for the dredge, Moleberia and the Burrows of Moledavia, which have been known to harass the local population on a regular basis.
And now there’s the specific text she gives….that really makes me think dredge:
The leaders in these cities are considering how to mobilize a response, but for the moment, chaos reigns, and great danger brews just below the surface. One day soon…
One of the common declarations of the “Moletariate” is that their race, now freed from the bonds of slavery, will “one day soon” rise up from under the surface of the earth to challenge the other oppressive races of the world (paralleling the populist movement of Marxism that led to the downfall of the czar and the creation of the Soviet Union).
Are we about to see the dredge finally taking those steps towards their declared goal?
I could be totally wrong, but right now, I smell a molerat.
This is either brilliant satire, or the most hilarious complaint I’ve ever read.
No Fractals and no WvW. HUGE improvement just with that alone.
no fractals or wvw kills. It’s a new day in Tyria.
Aaaaaaand I started singing “Brand New Day” as soon as I saw your post. Thanks. Thanks a lot. :|
So lets say it would take an average player 1year to get all the dyes. Based on this the rapid inflation and deflation would happen in a span of 1 year which we all know wouldnt have made the game very old. Right now it would take it 5years assuming everyone kept their characters and didnt delete them or buy more slots. 5 years is far better than 1year which makes soulbound > accountbound.
But that’s just it: you’re assuming that either model would produce an economic collapse. I rather doubt that would happen at all, at any point in time, to either model. I’m simply pointing out that if it did, it happens to both models, so it’s hardly a real gain either way in the long run.
And the benefits of lower drop rates + account bound dyes would make ANet more likely to make money off of the Gem Store dye packs than they do right now. As you say, it’s economics: in general (though there are always exceptions), people will choose whichever model provides greater convenience….even if that model means paying for it. Would you pay for dyes if the existing dye model allows you to buy the dyes for next-to-nothing in in-game currency? Probably not, since they drop pretty reliably and are cheap besides. But if you cut drop rates signficantly and account-bound the system, suddenly dyes are much more rare, and thus much more expensive, which means they’re no longer dirt cheap. And now that Gem Store shortcut is looking awfully attractive by comparison.
A lot of games use this model to make their money, and I think ANet could stand to benefit from it themselves. Right now, I look at that dye pack option in the Gem Store and laugh at it, because there’s no reason to bother.
Plus since we know people are more then likely to add and delete characters its more likely 7-10years before dye prices fall below reasonable. Which by then GW3 or another game would have become much more popular so no one would give a kitten
That sounds like an assumption. An unlikely one at that, since I rather doubt players are just casually deleting Lvl 80 max-gear characters out of boredom. Dunno about you but I don’t like wasting that much time and effort.
(edited by critickitten.1498)
Dude your reading comprehension is dreadful at best. i never asserted that the economy would collapse based on accountbound dyes. I said the economy for dyes (a very specific part of the economy) would collapse.
Which is still an assumption based on zero tangible data or evidence.
Plus you fail to realize that the prices of the dyes would plummet and not go up as supplies would be high and demand low as everyone would have the dyes. (Supply and Demand). Even if they were to lower the drop rates eventually everyone would have them and not everyone wants a bitfrost therefor the prices would plummet due to over supply. Economics dude.
Oh, so let’s get this straight then:
In an account-bound system, players will eventually have all of the dyes, leading to economic collapse in the dye market.
But in a soulbound system, players will….eventually have all of the dyes also (though it will take longer as they are loading out five characters), leading to an economic collapse in the dye market.
Hrm, how does one produce this fabled “economic collapse” but not the other? Are you relying on the fact that once a player makes five characters, they’re naturally be inclined to make a sixth, then a seventh, and to keep making characters forever? That’s an extremely unlikely presumption.
Account bound drawbacks:
- would require massive drop reduction to the point they were rarer than exotics
- even if that rare eventually everyone would have the dyes which would reduce demand
- once demand is lower the supply starts to build up which lowers prices even more
- recipes for dyes that exist in game already would also already lower the demand as people would just make the dye of their choosing
I’m okay with the first. I have no problem with dyes being rare, they should be something special and eventful rather than something bland and boring as they are now.
The second and third point are also true of the soulbound model (it just takes five times as long to get there) and so doesn’t really help your case.
The fourth point doesn’t make much sense, as I was referring to the fact that players use Unidentified Dye in recipes, including one that crafts The Bifrost.
Character bound drawback:
- Accessible only by one character
- having to gather multiple of the same dye for each character
You didn’t try very hard here. Let me help you by taking all of those things you placed under account-bound and adding them here too, where they belong:
There really isnt many cons to character bound but i just gave you many actual plausible reasons why accountbound is a bad idea.
And I maintain that these reasons are also true of the soulbound model.
There is only one true draw to the soulbound model over the account-bound one: that players will always need dye. But that relies heavily on the hope that players will continue to make characters after they fill their five alloted character slots….which is not necessarily going to be the case.
I honestly doubt that ANet has made any significant amount of money off of dyes as they are. I think they’d make far more money by lowering the rates significantly and making the dyes account-bound, then continuing to add more recipes that use dyes to craft unique skins and tonics. But that’s just my thoughts on the matter.
Hehehe. I’m not arguing anything. I just find your actions highly amusing. I should’ve kept my amusement to myself in the dark corner of the room, I apologize.
Oh, but you are. You’re asserting that I clearly care about how dye is implemented in this game and that I’m lying about not caring for no actual reason whatsoever.
I find your posts far more amusing than my own. They tell me quite a lot about the sort of person you are.
(edited by critickitten.1498)
Of course. But you’re under no obligation to state your motivations truthfully. Hehehehe.
So your core argument is that I’m lying.
Okay, then answer me this: Why? What possible reason would I lie, and what exactly do I gain from lying about my motivations to a bunch of people I have never met and whose opinions I don’t care about?
Just something to think about.
Lol. I’d say from the actions in this thread you do care. Texts don’t write themselves without some sort of motivation behind them!
I’d say, given that my main already has all of the dyes and I’m actively working on clearing out the rest of my characters, that I don’t care.
But that’s because I know my motivations better than you do.
How is it better then both? Sure it gives all characters the ability to use all dyes quick but at the cost of dyes being worthless after awhile and just trash that you wouldnt even pick up any more.
That’s not even remotely true. If dyes were account-bound, chances are very good that the devs would have made the drops rates much much lower. Thus they’d be far more expensive to purchase in the TP, and it would mean that picking up Unidentified Dyes is more important than ever (as they’d sell for more money).
As it is, dyes are so common and cheap that a player can potentially buy the entire stock of dyes without much effort since most of them are a few silver per unit, which means ANet doesn’t get a single dime from dye pack sales. Frankly I think the current dye system doesn’t really inspire people to buy their dyes from the Gem Store at all.
Also, you need 250 of them to craft The Bifrost, so there would always be a demand for Unidentified Dyes.
There is draw backs to each but accountbound has more then soulbound.
Really? Out of curiosity, I’d love to see your list of drawbacks for each model.
Oh, and this time, make sure you’re not asserting that the economy would collapse if dyes were account bound, please. That’s an assumption, not a statistically measurable fact.
Ive been away from GW2 for a while. I take it from this post that the Flame/Frost event didnt bring in the new way to obtain precusor?
Of course not.
I’m not sure why people actually thought that the new patches would have anything to do with precursors when Colin was already backpedaling on his statements so soon after making them.
First he said this on Jan 11th:
Just a quick update on where the whole scavenger hunt system stands since I know that’s a topic many of you have brought up recently. We’re not currently actively working on building any sort of legendary precursor scavenger hunt, this is something we want to do in the future and we’re in the midst of designing how this would function, but no one is actively building this feature and you should not expect in the Jan/Feb/March releases at this point.
We are however working on expanding reward systems to make them more re-rewarding across all parts of the game, making the open world more rewarding, and adding new ways you can earn precursors as rewards via new reward systems taking advantage of our open persistent world.
People mistakenly interpreted this to mean “precursors would somehow be available through the new system”. I pointed out that Colin’s posts really doesn’t offer any details about how the new system would affect precursors, and that I rather doubted the new system would be related to precursors at all. And I was berated and chided for “doubting the staff” and “not reading what Colin said”.
Then he said this only five days later:
I just want to quickly clarify to set expectations, nothing in the blog post, nor nothing we’ve said anywhere has said you will be able to buy precursor items directly for crowns, this is not the case. We’ve simply said we’ll try and find some other places to add a chance to get them to the game until we’ve implemented the eventual precursor scavenger hunt.
And come release day, surprise! Absolutely nothing changed about precursors or the way they were obtained. And lo did my realism prove to be the smarter choice over other people’s blind optimism.
Oh hey, and since I want to make sure it’s known who called this and who was wrong, I think I’ll quote some of the people who helped make this victory possible.
I personally can’t see how you’d see:
- New reward system
- Rewarding across all parts of the game (read in my eyes as PvE, WvW, SPvP)
- New ways to earn precursors
As more RNG, when the only way to create precursors at the moment is through RNG.
A reward system, in my eyes, is a definite. You do something, you get rewarded for it.
You said you don’t see how the new system will " fix the problem of precursors depending heavily on terrible loot tables." I think it’s safe to say that when a dev says they are working on a new reward system that will grant precursors, they mean that there will be a new way to obtain them that does not rely on you killing monsters until it drops. That is what “new reward system” tends to imply, that it will be different from the current method of obtaining them. But if you want to keep assuming it’s not going to change anything at all and when they say “new reward system” they actually mean “we’re just going to buff a few loot tables and call it a day” then I guess that works too.
Thank you both so much for your contributions!
(edited by critickitten.1498)
Your real problem here isn’t that ANet isn’t addressing player’s concerns, your problem is that you didn’t like their answer to this particular issue. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but personally I see no problem with rare dyes remaining rare and being used to distinguish particularly advanced characters.
Let’s read the line right above the portion that you quoted:
My point was never about whether dyes should be changed or not, as I’ve established that I don’t actually care.
Yeah, clearly, it’s all about dyes: something I’ve said at least three times in this thread that I don’t actually care how they choose to implement it.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to read what I’ve said, but I’ll say it yet again: the problem is not with dyes specifically, it’s with the fact that the devs made announcements in the past, then chose not to go that direction and didn’t feel it was important to rationalize it to the players. This attitude is what sparked much of the conflict that boiled over in November, and it’s why all of a sudden “communication is being worked on” now that the player count and sales figures have declined significantly because of it. If they had just been on the ball from the start, they might have avoided this problem entirely. No one’s saying they can’t make amends, but now they’re having to fight an uphill battle and it’s their own faults for it.
If you had experienced the account bound dye system (as those of us did during BWE1), you wouldn’t be asking for account bound dyes.
That system was not an account-bound system, it was also a soulbound dye system.
And I agree, it was absolutely worse than the existing model in every way. I don’t necessarily think we’re bound and gagged to either one or the other, however, and I think it’s being a tad dishonest to imply that it’s a choice between Bad Model A and Bad Model B when there’s a perfectly valid third option they presented 2 years ago that’s better than both. :p
Umm dude how many times must i put that link. That link is the last record of them talking about it on their official forums during the beta. They did tell us why they changed it your just not reading it.
No, I read it. Did you read my edit or just pretend to read it?
My point was never about whether dyes should be changed or not, as I’ve established that I don’t actually care.
My point, the one you still have not refuted, is this: why did they not immediately tell the players directly what had changed about their policy? Instead of using their blog system or their forums to let us know “hey, we’re changing X because Y”, the “answer” (which, again, I’ll note isn’t actually much of an answer at all, and is rather easily refuted by pointing to other design choices in their game) shows up on a separate gaming website in a special interview that not everyone knows about. And those who do know about it see a) that instead of the original staff who told them about dye, there’s this Nexon employee telling them about it; b) that the system was changed because of “progression”, which doesn’t actually explain any mechanical reason for the change at all.
And hang on, I thought that if they “waste time explaining every detail they change”, they’d not have time to make the game. So how is it that they had time to do a formal interview for a gaming website, but not a minute-long blurb on their own forums? How did they manage to get any content done back then if they were doing interviews all the time, and by your own words, doing things like that to inform their players would make it impossible to get work done?
I love how you’re acting like you’ve somehow “won” this discussion simply because you found a link to a separate website where a Nexon employee explains why she changed the dye system. Problem is, you still haven’t refuted valid complaints about all the other garbage you’ve said. You still haven’t explained why they didn’t post that information in their own forums like Colin has now been doing for months. You haven’t explained how they found time to do interviews with major media, but didn’t have time to talk to their players. And I can see that you’re avoiding those questions on purpose, because we both know you don’t have a response to them and that if the discussion focuses on these aspects, then your “victory” is quite fleeting indeed.
And I can tell you why things have changed. It’s because their communication at the time of this ‘incident’ was absolutely terrible and they didn’t feel as though they had to answer to their players or their players’ complaints about the state of the game. They were sure, with all their awards and accolades, that GW2 would roll into stores and stomp the competition flat and blow WoW’s sales away. Well, the release day came and went, WoW outsold them yet again. And then November came and went. And now that they’ve had their little reality check, communication is suddenly a big issue that has to be addressed.
You may believe in coincidences, but I do not.
(edited by critickitten.1498)
Again, though, it’s irrelevant, because I don’t honestly care if they change it back or not. All I’ve been trying to establish (and what continues to elude you) is that the devs were very clear in stating how dye was going to work. And then they changed their minds. And that’s perfectly okay, but they should try to explain why they changed their minds. That helps build trust with your community when you confide your reasons with them. When you refuse to answer the question or even acknowledge that it was asked, that makes players angry and fosters distrust and suspicion. It’s what helped to fuel all these “Nexon” posts, and it’s helped lead to the disaster of a forum community they have now.
And to their credit, they’re making strides to fix this, but they’re not there yet.
EDIT: Ah, so that’s why people are pointing fingers at Ms Cox and Nexon….how delightful.
I don’t agree with her reasoning at all, because dye clearly is a collection tool, otherwise you would not put it in the Gem Store and try to sell convenience to us….but again, I really don’t care.
My problem remains that they made a change and didn’t immediately tell people why. Instead, they answer the question in private on another website in a special interview. How is that talking directly to your players? Furthermore, how do they find time to “develop the game” (as you say they wouldn’t be able to do if they spent time on their forums) when they’re doing so many interviews?
(edited by critickitten.1498)
I did read what you said but apparently your having troubles rereading what you said. For instance you said that i said the economy was going to fail without soulbound dyes. When in the matter of fact I did not say that.
Orly.
Like everyone else said before me if they were account bound and not soulbound the economy for dyes would be dead and worthless after a small period of time.
Strange, it looks to me like that statement very clearly reads that you think account bound dyes will kill the economy.
Your trying to get an answer for something said 2 years ago which has extremely minor impact on the game itself. Everything Colin has been giving answers to are posts that actually effect gameplay. Your posts for an explanation on why dyes are soulbound and not Accountbound is pointless.
No I’m not. I’m pointing out that this argument of “it’s not against what they said” is false, because it clearly is against their original design. I think they should tell us why it changed, but I’m not demanding an answer. I don’t particularly care what system is used any more to be honest, I’m just tired of people lying about what ANet said when we know for a fact exactly what was said.
One dev said it 2 years ago give it a rest considering it has no effect on the game itself and obviously makes more sense the way they did it now.
The dev who said it was in charge of the dye system at that time, and received clearance from the game’s head developer to make that statement. That makes it officially sanctioned. Please stop trying to suggest otherwise, it’s getting old.
Soulbound allows there to be money to be made using dyes by the players. Accountbound would make the prices fall drastically and make selling dyes worthless. Dyes right now are worth a lot and sell often.
See, you’re saying it again right here! You’re claiming that account bound dyes would destroy the economy, and then trying to say “well I didn’t say that”. Yes, you did. It’s right here in plain sight for everyone to see. Stop lying.
Also to help with your words Promise: noun: A declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that guarantees that a particular thing will happen. verb: Assure someone that one will definitely do, give, or arrange something; undertake or declare that something will happen.
Based on the statement she did not promise that this was going to be in there. She gave an idea of what might be there. For there is not words in her statement that say for sure, it will happen, Its going to be, ect. The words used were ambious about their certainty.
Actually, that definition supports my conclusion, not yours. You don’t seem to have a firm grasp of English so allow me to explain to you what that definition means, since you don’t understand it.
A promise is not always started with the words “I promise” or “we promise”, you know. It is given with affirmative statements of fact, using strong language (such as “will” instead of “may”) to affirm that something will be done in the manner expressed. When a developer makes a statement that is not intended to be a developmental promise, they tend to append this to their statement. I would lead my statements off with “What follows is my opinion” or something akin to that, to ensure that no one was confusing my statements of speculation or opinion for 100% certified fact. ANet’s development blogs, however, have always served as official statements from the devs that would reflect the design practice that shows up in the game itself. They didn’t make these posts simply to say “hey, I think X would be really cool”, they made these posts to say “hey, we’re going to do this in our game”. Knowing this, let’s look at the original statement I quoted, bolding where the reading comprehension is most critical.
Once you unlock the color, it will be available across your entire account, not just the individual character.
Note that the developer uses the verb “will”, instead of “may” (which would suggest that this is merely her own ideas for how to implement dye rather than how the dye system was intended to work). You do not say that you “will” do something if in fact you’re only thinking about doing it, you say it when you intend to do it. This signifies rather directly that this is not intended to be speculative, this is their current operating policy for dye and this is how they intend to implement it.
Their updates are the best I’ve seen in the MMO world. What other game gives free monthly updates?
Er….every F2P MMO ever made updates on a regular basis in order to keep its players active. It’s not like it’s a newfangled concept.
Granted, they don’t all update monthly, but I’ve played MMOs before whose patches are usually just as large as (or are even larger than) GW2’s, and a hell of a lot less buggy to boot.
The main reason I’m here instead of there is because at some point I discovered GW1 and fell in love with it, and I want GW2 to become the new filler of that time slot for years to come. But it has some improvements yet to make before I’d say that it merits truly abundant and heaping piles of praise. And I think the devs know this, which is why these upcoming patches are so focused on “strengthening the core game”.
But coming from that background, I don’t actually see how people can argue that free monthly updates are such a huge deal. Heck, I’ve played some indie online games that update darn-near weekly, always for free. Maybe I’m just spoiled and so I don’t really look at the frequency of the content as meaning much. Instead I look at the quality of the content offered, and I have to say that with every patch, the game has improved….but it’s also taken steps backwards as well.
The intention is probably just to make it less desirable than Fractals, so that you’ll stop whining about Fractals and just grind that instead. :P
(I’m kidding, white knights, chill out)
They didn’t promise you anything.
Yes, they did. There is no questioning that fact shy of outright denial, and I’m not obligated to humor denial.
They didn’t say it was going to be for certain and dude i been playing GW1 and GW2 from long time ago which is why i got 30 points in my HoM.
Then why do you know nothing about the game you’ve supposedly been following since the beginning? You claimed that the game “wasn’t even in alpha” in 2010 which is outright false, and anyone who has been following GW2 since the days of GW1 would know that’s not true. You state that the devs never made promises about anything, yet anyone following GW2 would remember the countless blog posts made by active developers and cleared by ArenaNet’s head of development that established countless details about the game’s lore and functionality. And I assure you, dyes are not the only thing they’ve changed their minds on.
The devs do not need to give an answer unless it was explicitly stated that it was going to be that way which it wasn’t.
But it was. We have the quote. Honestly, you’re being ridiculous now. We have a quote direct from a developer of the game, approved by ArenaNet for public posting, that says the opposite of what was released. That’s a contradiction.
I don’t hear you crying out when a Politician says one thing then does another thing.
You obviously know nothing about me, either. That’s two things, then.
Its 2 years ago “one dev” said that and coming to 1 year ago that it showed that it was something completely different. Which means my statement was still correct from before considering I said that it went from Account bound to Soulbound which the seed article also shows considering that it says soulbound right in it lol.
Do you read posts when you reply to them? Like, really read them?
Because if you had, you’d note that I said there is nothing wrong with developers changing their minds. They just owe their players an explanation when they change a design construct to move away something from what they’ve already said. It’s a matter of honesty. Not explaining it to your players breeds mistrust, which is where all these “Nexon has taken over OMG” posts came from.
Like everyone else said before me if they were account bound and not soulbound the economy for dyes would be dead and worthless after a small period of time. This would be completely different from GW1 where Black/White dyes were even used as currency cause of their worth. It is not inferior system if it helps the economy stay afloat. They are not forcing people to buy the Dye packs from the store cause dyes drop often from monsters.
The economy in GW2 does not run on dyes, and certainly would not “collapse” as a result of dyes being account bound. Your argument is completely invalid.
As they have said everything can be gained outside of the gem store that is not cosmetic in nature.
Er, dyes are cosmetic items. And this is rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand, that being that the devs promised account bound and delivered soulbound instead.
edit: Also the one dev who said it is unknown at this point if they still work for Anet or not and it was not the lead Dev. It was also posted in a blog for Anet but anyone could have posted it with/without permission from the lead dev. Which does not make it an official Anet statement.
You actually think that a developer for ArenaNet would be allowed to come out and make blog posts stating how the game will function without having to clear everything they say with the game lead?
I have nothing more to say to you if you actually believe that. You have got to be trolling. I’ve worked in game design before….forget blogs, nearly every public statement I made had to be cleared through my superiors to ensure that players weren’t being promised anything that they couldn’t deliver. That’s how a well-run game is operated.
(edited by critickitten.1498)
Your forgetting the date on when that was said in the blog. It says 2010 so 2yrs before the games release. Hell it wasnt even in Alpha testing then let alone beta testing. Things change in 2yrs and miracously the only thing that changed was Account bound to Soulbound. Usually in those 2 years something massive changes. They wanted it to be more like GW1 but even better still. Just be happy they didnt make it exactly like GW1 dyes considering how costly they would be if they did.
You obviously weren’t around before August, so allow me to explain a few things to you.
1) The game was originally announced in 2007. There were several playable demos of the game available by 2010 shown off at several major conventions, a policy which continued all through 2011.
So the narrative that the game “wasn’t even in alpha” is completely false. It was actively playable in a limited form by the general public as early as 2010, and they had several closed/press betas in 2011 prior to the open betas of 2012.
2) The original dye system shown in the first open beta weekend was nothing like the one in the game right now.
During the first beta weekend event, players were required to obtain Colorful Dye Seeds that required cultivation back in the “Home” area. Cultivation took either 24 real world hours, or the purchase of an item from the Gem shop. Once cultivated it would drop a soulbound, unidentified dye; that dye would unlock a new color. This system has since been replaced.
Notice that I’m not complaining about the fact that the dye system is no longer like that (probably because the old system was inferior to the current one), but I am complaining about the fact that it has gone from account-bound to soulbound (probably because they changed a good thing into something that is inferior).
Developers are totally allowed to change their minds. It is their game. But the paying public has every right to ask for a reason, and the devs do owe them an honest answer, especially if they promised it would be handled differently. The lack of response to this and many other perceived “negatives” about the game is part of what fueled all of this mistrust between devs and players to begin with.
Coming clean would be a good step towards real communication.
Are you saying they have to purposely make design choices that would bankrupt them just because they said something early in development?
No, I’m saying don’t make a promise if you’re just going to break it the moment you smell an opportunity for a cash grab.
It’s called integrity and honesty. You don’t promise a customer one thing, then deliver something else, no matter how “minor” of an aspect you feel that it is. They owe their customers an explanation when they change the product those customers bought into something that doesn’t match the original promise.
But I have to say that I love how your post leaps to a conclusion that doesn’t match the contents of my post. Ooo, let me try it on for size!
Why do they need an official answer on this policy. It’s obvious they need to make money off a game that has no subscription fee. People seem to think that ANet runs on water.
Are you saying that without the fees from dye packs, the game would definitely go under? That even though they have all sorts of other crazy cosmetics and account upgrades in that store, not being able to sell dye packs as regularly would just bankrupt them completely?
Now you know what it’s like to see your valid points twisted to such an extreme that it no longer resembles what you actually said. Maybe next time you’ll avoid doing it, lest the same be done unto you.
I’m actually rather tempted to link a video from the Jimquisition (the one revolving around Naughty Dog’s declaration that “at some point, ya know, games have to make money”) in response to this post, I truly am. But I’ll refrain for now, unless of course this discussion continues down this “ANet’s gotta do it to make money” line of thinking. Yeah, it’s about ad-supported games, but the point he makes is perfectly applicable for business arguments like this.
(edited by critickitten.1498)
Yeah, it’s an easy requirement though so I don’t feel too offended by it.
I think the idea is “teach players how to spend their laurels”, but it does sorta feel like “no, you can’t have a pony, but you’re welcome to stare longingly at this one I’ve placed in my store window”.
Teases. :P
People are much too focused on this manifesto bit. It’s not about whether or not it violates the manifesto.
The true issue at hand here is that current state of dyes is directly contradicted by a developer’s statement on how the dye system would work.
http://www.arena.net/blog/live-and-let-dye-kristen-perry-on-the-gw2-dye-system
Storage was always a factor when it came to dye colors in Guild Wars. The new system would cripple most inventories if we required characters to lug all the dyes around. Fear not! The dye hues themselves will be unlockable through various means, both in-game and out. Once you unlock the color, it will be available across your entire account, not just the individual character.
There is absolutely no way for anyone in this thread to argue that the developers haven’t gone back on their word with regards to the functionality of dye. Because we have a direct, unambiguous quote from a developer about how dye would function. And they have never given an official answer as to why they changed this policy.
And my guess as to why that is? It’s awful hard to spin “we’ll sell way more dye packs this way” as positive PR.
Speaking as a brony myself, I actually hate the bow’s new projectiles and thought it was better when it was just rainbows. At least then it could be argued as a “brony bow” but was ambiguous enough that people could use it without feeling offended. Now it’s just shameless pandering, and I honestly don’t find it all that funny that someone else’s fun is being ruined just so that I can have a bow that I honestly don’t want anyways.
It would make a hilarious regular skin, but as a “legendary” skin, it drags the entire category of items through the mud. They no longer feel like items of great power and untold history any more, things that were always meant to be rare and hard to get. They feel like ordinary-but-expensive weapon skins whose sole purpose is to keep people running a grinding treadmill to get them.
The devs need to either remove this, and/or introduce more “legendary” weapons in the near future so that players can choose between more than just the one solitary “legendary” skin and no others.
The game specifically states that “dodging” an attack is sufficient,
Yeah dodging an attack, not just dodging. I don’t know… made sense to me.
So when a monster has a 2 second windup on an attack, and I immediately dodge-roll to avoid the attack that I know is coming, that’s not considered “dodging an attack”? :P
That’s what I mean when I say that the game isn’t making it clear that what they really want you to do is evade (any sort of dodge that produces “Evaded!” text). Because there’s a difference between dodging an attack (which simply means “dodge at any point in time and thus avoid taking damage”) and evading it (which only counts dodges triggered at the last second).
In other words, you cannot provide any support to your arguments.
So in other words, you refuse to address my perfectly valid points in the interests of fixating on something that has nothing to do with this discussion. Good to know now, so that I can focus on discussing this topic with people who actually care about the topic at hand.
I do admit that the daily dodger one is a tough one for me. Not because I don’t know how to, but because since I play alone for the most part (dang my play times) I am not fighting tough enemies where dodging should be done. Dodging normal mobs is actually hard because most of their attacks are just quick normal attacks and it is really really annoying and no fun to try and time a dodge for a normal attack.
What bothers me about it isn’t the requirement itself, it’s the wording.
The game specifically states that “dodging” an attack is sufficient, but it’s only counting Evasions (anything that displays the text “Evaded!” when the attack would otherwise have landed) as legitimate dodges. So if your reflexes are good and you’re dodging way ahead of the attack, you’re not getting credit and are likely wondering what the heck’s going on. Once I knew what it meant, I was able to do it much more easily, but for a while I was thinking that it flat out didn’t work because the text wasn’t describing the correct action.
If the devs meant the latter, they should say as much and use the proper terminology. Call it “Daily Evader” and state that you need to “evade” attacks to get credit.
By the way, does the daily still award a Karma jug?
Yep, still does.
(edited by critickitten.1498)
“But Ascended gear is optional, too!”, I expect you’re now claiming, to which I shall place the palm of my hand onto my face
Always find it interesting when there’s twice as many negative threads as positive ones, and easily that same ratio or more in posters, but people continue to say that it’s the “vocal minority”.
I think the best reply to both those comments is:
See, these are what we call “assumptions”, and it’s well known what people say about assumptions
I find the best response to this is the following statement:
Address my arguments, rather than creating straw-men.
Have you ever actually bothered to count how many “negative” and “positive” posters there are on average in all topics in all sections of this forum?
Well?
Oh, so I need to go count them all up, now, just to “prove” to you that this is the case? Sorry to inform you, but I don’t actually feel obligated to “prove” much of anything to someone who isn’t addressing my actual points and is creating fictitious and exaggerated ones to attack instead.
1) It is realistically impossible to implement a daily system that allows players to pick only the dailies they wish to complete under the parameters Anet have set as precedent.
….er, not true. They’ve actually promised that functionality in a future patch: being able to select 4 from a list of 6 dailies (as an example). So it’s clearly possible.
The player base as a whole both enjoys and dislikes every aspect of the game, which each individual player liking and disliking certain things. There will inevitably come a time where no matter how many toggle able dailies you have, you’ll be ‘forced’ (extreme air quotes hair because this exceeds first world problems) to do a daily you don’t like.
You’re not comprehending properly, so I’ll illustrate what I mean with your example:
I didn’t like Daily Kill Variety. I still don’t like Daily Kill Variety. Does that mean the system as a whole is flawed? No.
Ah, but did Daily Kill Variety force you to play the game differently? I’m willing to wager that’s a no.
Now let’s try a new daily at random….Dodger for example. I’ve gotten rather good at dodging and picking up telegraphed attacks to the point where I can get out of the way of an attack well before it would hit me. But the game only recognizes a “proper” dodge as one in which I stand in the way of the incoming attack and then dart away at the very last moment. So my quick reflexes are actually punished in this regard, as I had to slow down and take way more hits than I normally do in combat just to re-learn dodging with last-second timing like the game wanted, even though it’s obviously better to avoid an incoming attack immediately instead of at the last second.
In other words, I’m having to adjust the way I play the game to complete this achievement.
“Play the way you want to”, indeed, eh?
2)
a)PTR servers don’t fix bugs. The time required to both read player feedback and fix bugs remains the same regardless of their presence but still come with a slew of additional variables that require tending to. In terms of money/time, a PTR for something this minuscule would be an incredible waste of funds.
b)Sure, you can have these issues addressed before launch, but you’ll also have the patch delayed for several days and an immense amount of kitten about an update that isn’t live festering in the forum for weeks.
So? Let them complain.
What is more important: a working release that gets complaints for running late, or a forum full of people complaining about all the bugs? I know which one I’d pick.
3)Only the combo Daily has been confirmed broken and removed to my knowledge.
The veteran slayer achievement is rumored broken (as many players have reported a failure to get “veteran kills” when they killed a veteran-level mob) but it has not yet confirmed.
And if they had tested these things prior to release, the odds would be much greater that they’d have released zero buggy achievements, rather than having an unknown number of them not working quite right. Again, “when it’s ready” doesn’t mean “release it when it’s not fully operational”.
As usual the vocal minority hilariously blows things vastly out of proportion and stands as eternal testament as to why the ’don’t fix what isn’t broken’ mentality is utter tripe.
Always find it interesting when there’s twice as many negative threads as positive ones, and easily that same ratio or more in posters, but people continue to say that it’s the “vocal minority”. This was especially hilarious to observe during the Lost Shores weekend, where it was clearly just the “vocal minority” filling multiple forums and making massively-sized threads full of complaints about bugs, culling, and general frustration.
I myself don’t tend to say that one side or the other is necessarily larger, as there’s no way to prove which is truly bigger. Nor does it really matter. What should matter is the manner in which their complaints/defenses are expressed, and right now, you’re not being very civil about it by just shoving the complaints off to the side as an ignorable minority.
Well, you’re right about one thing. Eventually, so many of these discontent players will have left the game that they will indeed be a “vocal minority”. Of course by then, even if it is realized that maybe some of them had some valid points once in a while, it’ll be far too late to fix it. So it may be best to stop ignoring opinions you disagree with, and start actually trying to have a dialogue with those people instead. Try to understand their points of view rather than ignoring them. The devs can’t make everyone happy, but they ought to think twice before ignoring any opinion, and I would highly recommend you do the same.
I think you missed the poster’s point. The choices are
1. Doing content they don’t enjoy, and getting rewarded
2. Doing content they do enjoy, and not getting rewarded.Just because you’re not rewarded, it’s not stopping you from playing the way you like.
And you feel that this is a good system for designing a game around, and that it encourages people to “play the way they want”?
Because, maybe it’s just me, but I kinda….don’t. I think it makes them feel obligated to do the things they don’t want because otherwise they will not be rewarded for it. This is a dangling carrot design, not true freedom. The original dailies were much better for achieving true freedom in how and where you played, whereas many of these shuffle you towards something you may not want to do.
And I don’t think it’s okay for the devs to say “hey, you can play however you like, so long as it’s on this list of things we specifically think are ‘fun’….otherwise, you’re outta luck!”.
By the way I feel people really blow this “I DON”T ENJOY THIS." thing waaaay out of proportion. Sure you don’t enjoy it. But it’s not HARD at all. If you really desire those rewards, I’m sure a majority of people will be able handle doing something they don’t enjoy for 5-10 minutes to receive those rewards.
I don’t disagree that it’s blown out of proportion in many cases. I’m even willing to defend a few of them, like the “Daily Healer” on, due to the fact that it’s stupidly easy to do them.
But that doesn’t mean that I don’t think there’s serious room for improvement.
Interesting how I was considered crazy a week or so ago for declaring that the game had too many open avenues for griefing still available….but all of a sudden, other people are starting to notice that it’s actually true and the game does have serious issues with griefers right now.
So now that we’re finally all caught up, can we have a serious discussion about this problem and how to solve all of these griefing and scamming options? I do hope so. It’s one aspect of the game that simply can’t be ignored much longer.
If gaining a Laurel outweighs your dismay for the task being asked, then you will most likely choose to complete the daily. If your disgust for the daily task outweighs your want of a Laurel, then you will most likely choose not complete the daily. Your choice. Evenmore, as someone mentioned, you will eventually be able to choose which tasks to do from a longer list of dailies. Even more choice.
Since I’ve already addressed ad nauseam the idea that “optional” = “doesn’t need changing ever”, I’m going to address the much more serious problem with your post….
Do you actually think it’s a good thing for a player to log into the game on any given day and have the “choice” of either doing content they don’t enjoy, or just logging back off?
Because if you do, then we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes “good game design”. A game that actively encourages you not to play its content is a game that will have serious problems in the long run. See: FF14 and its widely panned “fatigue system”.
The QQers and the slanderers of QQers are both being addressed by the OP. It’s simply a matter of using better words when expressing your opinion. For example:
A: This game sucks! I feel totally ripped off by Anet!! I spent hours in FotM just to watch them make these lame changes to dailies and offer lazy players the same rewards!
Or
B: I’m disappointed in Anet’s decision to make Fotm rewards available by other less difficult means while not compensating me for my time & effort spent.
Not the best example but I hope you get it.
I understood the post perfectly.
I’m simply pointing out that right now, anyone who expresses any complaint about the game is declared a QQing crybaby who should go back to WoW.
That’s not good for the longevity of the game. A healthy degree of negativity will keep the devs honest and will allow for a much better dialogue. But right now we see a lot of players who would rather blindly defend the game as the pinnacle of perfection than have a real discussion about some of the game’s drawbacks and how they might be improved.
You obviously haven’t read where they said the new daily system is step 1 of a larger plan still coming? One where they said more daily achieves would be implemented but you would only need to do a certain number of those to complete the daily? So that you play the way you want to without going out of your way to do stuff you normally wouldn’t? Your entire beef wouldn’t be entirely based on a misinformed view point and a narrow field of view would it?
It’s clear you didn’t actually read my post, because you’re fabricating an elaborate argument based around something that wasn’t the focus on my post (which, if I’m not mistaken, is what they call “straw-man” arguing).
So first I’ll address your fake argument, then I’ll re-explain my post to you so that perhaps this time you’ll comprehend it properly.
Yes, I know precisely what they’ve promised recently. And I was happy to hear it but expressed disapproval with changing the dailies, and stressed that I was concerned they were going to release yet another untested and broken product. Fast forward to now, and there’s all these threads complaining about the dailies, with devs scrambling to remove some of the ones that clearly weren’t tested well because they’re not even working as they’re supposed to.
Oh, and the best part? Let’s look back at what Colin promised with regards to daily achievements being changed.
In going back to that whole “let people play the way they want to play” concept:
We’re going to hold off on adding most of the daily achievements that send you to specific parts of the game until we’ve added the ability to select from a list (like 4/6.) The initial version you’ll see with rotating daily achievements won’t feature too many new achievement options, since we don’t want to do more specific type achievements without giving you the choice to pick from a list of stuff you’re more excited about.
Apparently, crafting requirements (which many people hate), underwater combat (which many people hate), combo field requirements (which many people hate, and didn’t even work properly so it had to be removed) still qualify as “letting people play the way they want to play”. Apparently he and I do not have the same understanding of that term, as I find that the new system is far more restrictive and forces players directly into areas of the game they don’t want to be involved in, which he specifically promised would not happen until after it was possible to choose your own daily reqs.
And you know what would have avoided all of this hassle and kept a buggy product from releasing before it was ready? I’ll give you a hint, it’s something that players like myself have been suggesting for months: a PTR server.
Sorry, but the dev team that promised us “when it’s ready” doesn’t get very much leniency with regards to releasing broken, buggy, or unfinished content. And they put that burden on themselves.
Frankly, the brown-nosing is even more obnoxious than the complaining.
Agreed.
I’ve seen a lot of valid complaints getting shoved aside by people in this forum because “lawl it’s optional” or “the ANet team is perfect and cannot make mistakes” or “the devs don’t have to communicate with their players” or even “the devs said one thing years ago and another thing entirely now, but that doesn’t mean they’re contradicting themselves”. I’m not even kidding, these are actual things that have been said at one point or another in this forum.
Respect should be given, absolutely. I agree. But the people who need to be given more respect right now are those “QQers” that all of you keep ignoring or attacking with personal slander and insults, calling them “crybabies” and telling them to “go back to WoW”.
The defenders of ANet are far, far worse than the detractors.
People are as likely to enjoy crafting as to enjoy gathering. People are as likely to enjoy hunting through maps looking for the variety kills as they are to seek underwater kills. Everyone kills enemies when playing the game, but everyone (who actually tries to play well) dodges enemies too.
See, these are what we call “assumptions”, and it’s well known what people say about assumptions. And these assumptions fall apart under even the most delicate scrutiny.
Kill count does not place any emphasis on what you kill, and kill variety is completable on ever non-Orrian map.
Let’s compare to the known current dailies:
You cannot possibly hope to argue that the new model is less restrictive than the old one. That is analytically and objectively false.
You are not “forced” to finish your daily achievements. If there’s a daily achievement that goes against the playstyle you enjoy, you should not do it, not play through content you don’t think is fun. By doing the former, you are losing what – a few laurels – while telling ArenaNet that you don’t like a specific kind of achievement, and hopefully ArenaNet can use this information to improve the game. By doing the latter, you are just grinding.
I need to start a running tally of how often I’ve heard this argument.
“It’s totally optional, therefore it’s perfectly acceptable for this aspect of game play to be released in a format that is unacceptable to other players who are offering perfectly valid complaints and bringing up reasonable restrictions to this content as it exists now.”, aka, “It’s optional therefore it’s okay for it to be subpar.”
I do hope I won’t actually have to explain why this is a gross logical fallacy every time it’s brought up, but it’s worth pointing out that it’s not actually as optional as we’re trying to pretend it is.
Except that it’s not really optional, is it? Since it’s the only way to get Ascended amulets and all. I seem to remember the devs saying back in November that they would introduce more ways of getting Ascended gear….apparently their answer to this is to release yet another Ascended item that can only be obtained one way, by grinding laurels for an entire month? Doesn’t sound like a lesson was learned here.
“But Ascended gear is optional, too!”, I expect you’re now claiming, to which I shall place the palm of my hand onto my face. You can’t claim that everything is optional while still arguing that there’s plenty of things to do once you reach the level cap. At what point do we stop using this “optional” excuse to forgive bad game design?
(edited by critickitten.1498)
That’s how the daily achievements still work. The difference being that people complaining right now are those whose gameplay followed the old dailies, while people who are not complaining are those who enjoy the new dailies more.
Erm, you’re going to have to explain that one to me.
Because the original dailies (kill variety, kill count, gathering, and events) were completable by any player with virtually any playstyle, unless all you did was run Orr (and even in that case, you could still get 75% of the requirements without any effort).
The current dailies require that players go to specific locations (underwater kills), perform specific tasks they may not have originally enjoyed doing (crafting), or demand that you set up very specific and controlled scenarios (dodger) in order to complete their dailies.
How is that not “forcing” people to change their playstyles in order to continue finishing their daily achievements?
Pretty much my take on the new dailies. The old ones were in the background and you tended to complete them simply playing the game your way. Maybe a little clean-up around kill variety at the end of the session, but never an issue.
Precisely. The dailies were downright perfect, really.
I had hoped they would be changing the monthies to look more like their original daily system, to be honest, to open up more options for monthly completion. Instead, they made dailies even more restrictive and it’s likely that the monthlies will be no better.
I don’t understand this obsession with breaking things that already worked instead of fixing things that have been broken too long.
I don’t have a lot of time to write my full thoughts on this, but this seems like a bad idea to me.
I have 6 characters, but only one of them is level 80. Can I do the daily six times or once? If 6 times, can I potentially earn unlimited laurels by starting new characters? If only once, what is the threshold my characters have to be at to be able to earn laurels?
It’s not as simple as it appears on the face of it, and there could be potential for abuse…
To answer your first point: You could run it six times.
To your second: No, you cannot earn “unlimited laurels” by deleting a character and making a new one. This is easily prevented by simply counting the number of occupied slots a player has at a given time and comparing it to the number of times they’ve finished their daily. You could, however, make more characters by buying more character slots, but this is potentially earning ANet more money so I’m not sure that’s actually a bad thing.
To your third: No threshold. A Lvl 1 player counts as an occupied character slot.
I’m curious how you believe that such a model can be abused and would like to hear your evidence on this.
A player who is very good at movement and dodging, in at level (non difficult) encounters has to dumb down their movement in order for the mobs to get close enough to dodge. This is a perverse incentive to play poorly.
A player who plays a pet class (I’m thinking mesmer here) has to put their squishy toon in harm’s way in order to be able to dodge out of it.
Players are incented to drag aggro through Orr (typically dumping it onto other nearby players) to get credit for the dodge mechanic. This is an example of the anti social behavior I was talking about.
Er, no, you don’t have to do that.
You’re confusing “have to” with “have the option to”.
Players are incented to let comrades go down so they can res them for credit
Blatantly false. Downed also counts towards the healer daily. NPCs count as well. Why would you bother letting your players die and risk dying yourself when there are better, easier ways?
I realize there are some players, with some playstyles, in some classes for whom the credit will come naturally. For them this is normal and the complaints will be confusing. For some of us, the incentives are just perverse.
No, you’re not getting it. The only people who will complete the daily in this way are people who were already playing this way to begin with.
The players who are actually good will find it much easier to just play the game the right way, since they’re still getting the achievement that way.
Well in about 30 minutes of doing the Combo Killer daily several seemingly obvious issues came to mind. Those issues didn’t even have anything to do with that achievement’s buggy nature. Would have been nice if the designer had spent at least that much time thinking about it.
Didn’t take me even that long. I logged in, saw the requirement, read its description, and thought “wow, that’s a terrible idea, and I’ll bet it doesn’t even work properly”.
Then I checked the forums and, lo and behold, it’s bugged up the wazoo.
Anyone who put a solid degree of thought behind this could have told the devs that it was a bad idea. All they had to do was start a thread in this forum saying “hey, we’re thinking about these dailies, what do you think?” and bam, you’ve just created dialogue and completely avoided this headache.
They may have improved communication (in that they actually visit the forums now) but we’re still a loooong way from a legitimate dialogue between devs and players, it seems. And GW2 doesn’t have much longer left to build that dialogue.
You can also get the dodge achievement quickly by running through orr and dodging attacks. Ohh noes, they weren’t fighting foes when they were dodging!
I found it much easier to just stand next to an ettin in Queensdale and repeatedly dodge his blows without killing him. His swing is absurdly slow, it’s pretty easy to dodge with practice.
Which, I know, is precisely your point. And mine. :P
Ummm…people…Goldenwing’s point was that the new daily structure has created perverse incentives for people to play badly, act anti socially, and/or exploit rather than encouraging people to participate in more of the game as intended.
No, it hasn’t.
There are much easier ways to complete the tasks that don’t involve being kitten to your fellow players. The only people who will choose to be kitten simply for the sake of completing these dailies are….(gasp) people who were already bad players in the first place.
(edited by critickitten.1498)
That’s a horrible idea. Now I’m seriously leaving this thread lol… just lol
So you admit that you have no valid objection to my suggestion whatsoever?
I’m glad we’ve got that straightened out. I assure you that those of us who are willing to have a polite discussion won’t miss you. Bye now!
(edited by critickitten.1498)
Let’s try this again, since certain individuals are incapable of reading.
My suggestion is for a player to have the option of running the daily up to X times per day, where X is the number of characters they have.
This is not a character restriction. You may use as many characters as you like to complete the daily achievement, just as you do now. The only change would be that players who own more than one character would have the option of running the daily again if they so chose, to a maximum of X times.
So for example, I have 6 characters. That means I can run the daily once, using all six of my characters in the process if I wish. Then once I have finished it, I have the option of running it again up to 5 more times. This means that I could obtain a maximum of six laurels for my ranger per day, if I wanted, or I could spread them across all six of my characters however I wanted….in exchange for having to complete the daily achievements six times.
So those of you who want to run dailies once and be done with it can still do so. All we’re asking is the ability to redo them enough times that we could potentially equip all of our characters instead of just focusing on one. Our request in no way affects the way you play.
So why would you block it? We’re willing to put in the extra work to obtain those laurels, we’re not “asking for free stuff”. If you’re seriously going to argue that you are somehow affected by other people having the option of running dailies repeatedly, then I’m sorry, but you are not being reasonable at all.
(edited by critickitten.1498)
Since most posters here have missed my point, I will not bother responding to any further posts.
Hopefully ANet will take more care in the future.
No, everyone gets your “point”.
It’s just a bad argument, is all.
Because there are way easier methods of completing this portion of the daily. Your “hack” is actually less efficient than normal “playing the game” methods. So why would anyone bother doing it?
SWTOR was already dying when it was only about 4 months old. That’s when EA started firing people in the SWTOR studio as part of their cost-cutting measures to keep the game from sinking, and it eventually led to the F2P model you see now.
You get a few months to make your game stand out from the crowd, or else fall into that crowd and fight amongst your competitors for WoW’s scraps. At the half-year mark, time’s up.
GW2 will be made or broken by these three months of patches, and it will decide how this game will develop from there and where this game will end up. So naturally, people are going to be more than a bit vocal.
(edited by critickitten.1498)
Yeah, I don’t see the point of this.
Rezzing NPCs is much faster, or just follow in the aftermath of a WvW zerg, or….ya know, play the game a little….your method requires significantly more effort by comparison.
You seem to be missing the point. They never had to add any of this. The patch has been live now for around 7 hours give or take. They said they will add more ways to earn more laurels in the future.
I’m not confusing anything, thanks. As someone who did the daily and monthly every day / month anyway, anything extra as a bonus is.. extra. Un-needed, but appreciated.
And really with the X player thing? No thanks, I have 12 characters. I like being able to just play the game and get my dailies done through the course of the day and not have to worry about it again until tomorrow. On top of that I like being able to just do parts on 1 character, hop on another and be able to contribute to the rest.
Yes, and that’s an unknown number of months down the line from now. That’s quite a few laurels lost in the meantime because of the poor implementation of the system.
Allowing a player to run dailies more than once is something they could do now that would completely negate this very valid complaint, and wouldn’t affect you personally in the slightest.
You could just run it once, using as many characters as you like to finish, and be done after that. Precisely as you already do now. Whereas the players who WANT to run it 12 times could do so, also using whichever characters they please, and would earn the reward each time.
How does allowing other players to run the daily X times based on their character count in any way affect you?
Short answer: It doesn’t. So you’ll need a better reason for why this is a bad idea.
I’m pretty sure that saving a player while downed also adds to the tally.
I got my Daily Healer achievement finished after I helped up a downed player I was running Fractals with. Unless I hallucinated that entire run, pretty sure downed counts too.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.