Guild Wars 2

Danikat.8537:

What you’ve described is vertical progression.

Especially in the Legend of Zelda games where you literally cannot go to the next dungeon and therefore cannot progress the story until you’ve got the special item from the one preceeding it.

Er no, it’s not. Not in the slightest. I’m actually questioning whether you understand what vertical progression is, so I’m going to provide the definition for you.

Vertical progression is a model of game design whereby the designers continually obligate the player to obtain new gear that significantly improves their power levels so that they can contend with newer, stronger foes. This leads to a disparity in power level whereby you are generally MUCH stronger at the “top level” than you are at the bottom.

In general, LoZ games do not force you to obtain stronger gear for the sake of killing tougher enemies, in fact (in general) you can run many Zelda games using few-to-none of these items against the toughest monsters. Most of these games revolve around the Master Sword being the “best” sword and once you have it, you generally don’t replace it because the next dungeon of enemies demands a bigger and better sword. Most LoZ games are completable using the Master Sword as your only combat weapon, and the sword generally takes the same number of swings to kill a guy at the start of the game versus the end of the game (with a few noted exceptions). Instead, the items are required because the puzzle nature of the game demands it, not because you’re obligated to attain a particular power level before progressing. Link’s ability to stab monsters to death with his sword is not improved by him obtaining a scale that allows him to dive deeper in water, or by finding a Hookshot.

What the poster is describing is the concept of “intangibles”, items that provide a player with new abilities and powers that they didn’t have before. Not necessarily things that make them stronger, but things that allow them to go more places and do more than they could originally. An analogy in GW2 would be a mesmer’s portals….they don’t make it “stronger” in terms of stats, but they grant it a whole new type of play style that gives them a fun and unique experience.

GW2 needs more of these, and less of this “seek out the new best tier of gear”.

Asumita.2174:

well, what else can you add so people will keep playing? More skins? sooner or later anet will have to raise the level cap as they add new expansions, and along with that will come higher tiers. Mark my words.

Huh, really? They HAVE to? Well, that’s strange.

Maybe my memory’s a bit fuzzy, but I seem to remember this old game released back in 2005 that had a model built around horizontal progression, who constantly introduced new skins, new intangibles (as described above), and new modes of play to make the game more fun to play, allowed greater diversity in characters and builds, and allowed it to be played in more ways. And they had not only several free patches but also multiple paid expansions, and achieved lasting financial success.

Perhaps you’ve heard of it. It was called Guild Wars 1.

The assertion that GW2 could not survive without vertical progression is absolute fiction.

Nappychappy.7046:

I went from playing every day to only logging in every other day and now maybe twice a week for 3-5 minutes, maybe – MAYBE to do a daily.. This game is casual one day and hardcore the next, depending on the argument. I also like how its “B2P” because subscriptions are an “old and tired model”; however 15 a month in this game is a drop in the bucket if you are trying to do anything more than run in circles killing mobs for no reason.

Everything that keeps players playing was removed (or never added), and everything players enjoy about a fantasy game was shifted to the gem store. The new content page is plagued with new an fun grind… I don’t understand the direction of this game at all and everything they said, that got me to buy in early was a flat out lie.

Okay, I’m not pleased with the game I got either.

But this….this is blatantly false.

There are plenty of things to do, I’m still leveling most of my characters with over 800 hours logged because I find plenty to keep me busy.

The Gem Store’s items are entirely cosmetic with the sole exception being the boosters, which don’t actually significantly adjust your overall performance levels in combat (only increase the speed at which you gain rewards, which makes it no worse or better than other MMOs).

If you’re actually trying to claim that this game is a “buy-to-win” model then I’m going to be blunt in asking this: You’ve never played any other MMOs before, have you? I refuse to believe that anyone with extensive experience in the genre would claim that this game is “buy-to-win” considering how very little of your overall experience boils down to how much gold you have. Oh noes, some people can buy their Legendaries! Yeah, that’s a problem but it hardly makes the game B2W.

plasmacutter.2709:

Then why are “rock” “scissors” and “paper” all saying engineer over and over again?

Khallis.5708:

yep its all subjective thats why MOST are saying Ranger or Engineer mostly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

A belief widely held by a “majority” (read: by the same 20-30 players on the forums) is not necessarily true just because a lot of people happen to be saying it.

This is why balance suggestions by the community are rarely acknowledged, much less followed to the letter. Because everyone’s riding the bandwagons and offering their own subjective opinions in lieu of actual data and numbers. There’s no discussion value in subjectivity.

If you can provide a concrete, numerical proof of something being underpowered by comparison to another class, then you have a real case. “Engineer sux because I tried it and I don’t do much damage” isn’t a strong case because that could boil down to bad stats, bad gear, you being terrible at the class, and many other things.

Mind, I’m not saying anything regarding how strong the classes are or aren’t, so please spare me the “lol you think the game is fine, you fanboi you”. I don’t think the game is fine, not even a little bit. I’m simply pointing out that if any of you actually want changes to be made to your class of choice, you might want to provide some actual statistics to verify your case.

Allow me to demonstrate with an example of one imbalance I’ve noticed in the game: I believe that the Warrior’s longbow is, in many ways, superior to a Ranger’s. To prove this, a comparison of the skill sets.

Warrior’s default attack has a significantly faster firing rate but only loses 17 damage per shot at comparable range, which means the Warrior deals 282.67 DPS to the Ranger’s 183.2 DPS. The Ranger’s one advantage in this case is range, where they deal 317 per hit rather than 229, but their slower firing rate drags that back down to only 253.6 DPS….still lower than the Warrior’s damage. A ranger should not only have the advantage in distance but also in damage, especially on a bow which is one of the ranger’s specialties.

In addition, while the Ranger’s longbow continues to shoot further than the Warrior’s, the skills are all inferior in one way or another.

For example, the Ranger’s Rapid Fire skill has a longer cooldown and cast speed than Fan of Fire, yet at close range, is far inferior in terms of raw damage (FoF deals more damage in burning alone than Rapid Fire’s entire 10-arrow clip of damage, 1968 vs 1320).

Furthermore, the Warrior’s bow has better AoE and more of it, leaving the Ranger’s longbow rather woefully inadequate by comparison. Considering that the Ranger’s typical trademark weapon is their bow, this seems grossly inappropriate.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the devs assume that a player will be compensating for the lost damage with their pet, but that is generally not the case as the pet suffers from poor AI and an inability to dodge and evade as players would. My suggestion would be to lower the damage of the pet to less than the 40% mark originally estimated, and significantly raise the damage of the player’s own skills to compensate.

See? It’s really not that hard, and it gives the devs some solid figures to look at and say “hm, that does look sort of off-target”. If you just say “class sux, buff pl0x”, they don’t know what to fix and why you want it fixed, so how can you expect them to fix it?

Gallrvaghn.4921:

Regarding the TV analogy, I for one would be more ecstatic in winning the TV compared to finally buying one with my earnings. I believe that was the point the OP was trying to say.

So would I.

Which is my point: are we looking at which system is “more exciting”, or are we actually trying to look at which one provides the most reliable results and does the best job at rewarding your efforts? Because those are two different things.

However, I do agree that these two systems, when implemented correctly, definitely work just fine in tandem with each other. But as of now, I see most unique looking stuff come out from the Mystic Toilet. That’s RNG. But that’s not what I meant regarding epic loot drops.

That’s because loot drops are trash right now, it’s one of many things I think the game needs to get fixed.

I just don’t think that saying “boo tokens, stop adding tokens and just make bosses drop the cool loot” is at all necessary. In fact it’s clearly detrimental to the game, if anything. There’s no reason we can’t have better loot drops and still run token systems. I see no reason the game can’t have both. In fact, having both would make its loot system by far the most rewarding and healthy experience of any MMO out there.

Your logic falls apart around one simple facet: you presume that making it so that an item has a 1 in 200 chance of dropping is about the same as making a player collect 1 token 200 times. But they are not even remotely the same thing, and the reason is because one relies heavily on luck and the other is a system of rewards you build up over time.

Think of it this way: suppose you want a $2000 TV. Is it more efficient to get a job and earn that money, or is it more efficient to enter into every single contest that offers that TV as a prize and hope you win? Pretty sure most people would agree that it’s lovely to win free stuff in a contest, no question, but if you’re being realistic then you’re probably filling out applications for a job.

RNG systems are horrible in this regard because earning the best loot doesn’t boil down to hard work, it boils down to luck. Yes, it’s entirely possible that you’ll get that 1-in-200 drop rate item to drop multiple times in 200 runs. And if you do, hooray, good for you, you beat the odds. But it’s also possible for you to run that mission 1000 times and never see it once, in which case all your hard work has gone completely unanswered.

These two systems work just fine in tandem with each other. But if we’re talking about getting rid of one, I’m not sure why anyone would want to get rid of the more reliable option instead of the other, far more luck-based one.

And I especially don’t know why any GW1 player would want to cut down on token systems considering they were used VERY often in GW1, and to great effect at that.

Atherakhia.4086:

-quoting your vast experience as a ranger-

Don’t really care how many rangers you’ve played.

-meaningless comparison between skill levels-

Nor did I claim to be the best Ranger ever. In fact I’m pretty amateur. I simply pointed out that if I’m doing perfectly fine and you’re not, then the problem may not be with the class but with you.

-asserting a “majority” opinion as if it’s fact-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I never said that I thought ranger was the best class ever, and I’m amused that you have to resort to twisting my words to make a point. I simply stated that the Ranger class is not a bad class, that it’s certainly not “useless”, and that most people who tend to find it underwhelming are not playing it correctly.

If I were to pick out one big issue with it, it’d be that the pet AI is as lousy as NPC/monster AI and that pets need to be able to dodge or evade attacks if ANet expects players to dedicate large portions of their damage to them….but that still doesn’t make for too many problems, all told.

I’m not asking for people’s opinions because they’re meaningless and not based on anything resembling facts or figures. I’m telling you that your claim that the Ranger is “useless” is factually incorrect. Statistically, they work just fine. You may not like the class, you may find that it underperforms in your opinion, and that’s fine. But this assertion that they are useless, broken, and can’t do anything….leads me to believe that you’re playing it wrong, not that the fault lies with the class.

Malediktus.9250:

There is no grinding in gw2.

I’m going to assume you’re being ironic, as the alternative is rather silly. :p

Unless I’m mistaken, an Orichalcum-level Harvesting Sickle can harvest any plants without fail.

Yet just a moment ago, I attempted to harvest a Passiflora in Southsun Cove, and received a Ruined Plant Fiber. It only happened with one of the nodes specifically (but not the others) so I know I wasn’t using the wrong type of sickle accidentally. And this has never happened to me from that node before now, either. So it seems there may be some bug in how the gathering “loot” is given out that might merit looking into.

Atherakhia.4086:

There’s a difference between you having fun and you being relevant.

And yes, there’s about 1 whole spec for Rangers and Necromancers in sPvP. In WvW you could go with a 0/0/0/0/0 build and still think you’re making a difference. And burst on a ranger is laughable. You mean with zephyr, fury, rapid shot, and vuln right after your bird crits?

What’s laughable is this notion that because you don’t know how to play a class properly, that it’s “useless” in WvW. Yes, clearly playing a high-damage/crit Ranger all boils down to just spamming Rapid Fire and doing nothing else, right? No wonder you find it so hard to run a Ranger if you really think that’s all it takes to master your class.

Ever seen what a warrior can do with the press of a single button? Or a thief can do from stealth? Because if you have, you’d know that what you consider burst and what most people consider burst are wildly different.

I’m perfectly aware of what warriors and thieves can do, I’m also aware of the fact that I’ve killed both of them in combat many times before….which, by your logic, should be impossible as their burst is just so much higher.

The problem with your logic, of course, is that they have to actually get close to me to use their burst damage….and as I said, I’m running a longbow, so one would think that you’d be trying to prevent direct confrontation for as long as possible. But oh no, not you. You clearly duel your warriors and thieves in broad daylight at point-blank range, like a man! ….which may be part of the reason why you think that a Ranger can’t take them on.

Ergo why I’m inclined to continue my existing belief that maybe you think Rangers are “useless” because you don’t actually know how to play one properly. You can’t wander into a field, try to fight a warrior or thief at close range on your longbow ranger, and then when you die, you start to whine and complain that the class is obviously too weak. The problem element there is you and your inability to understand how your class works. Rangers can be direct combatants if you build them that way, but if they’re running a build designed for range (like a longbow) then they shouldn’t be trying to play at close range.

And don’t think I’m trying to weasel out of a nerf here.

I don’t really care what your motivations are, to be honest. I’m just tired of hearing unskilled players complain about “useless” classes. The one and only TRULY “useless” class is the Engineer, and even a skilled Engineer can be effective at his/her craft. Both Rangers and Necromancers are perfectly effective classes….you call them useless but in actuality they’re probably the closest to a form of decent balance, or at worst they’re a little underpowered. Warriors have great damage output but it’s mostly at close range. Of the bunch of classes you’ve described, the only one with any real problems is the thief, and a good chunk of that problem is culling rather than the class itself. Sans culling, and with a bit of a backstab nerf, thieves would be just as vulnerable as anything else out there.

ColinJohanson.2394:

Ascended rings will also be available for laurels as well. Back slot items will be made more widely available in the future and will likely tie into a different reward system.

ColinJohanson.2394:

This is not a live storyline that requires you to purchase an expansion to discover the ending, no. This month is a small pre-cursor / lead-in to kick off a storyline that will play out over the coming months.

Thank you so much for responding to these concerns! I was really worried, but those posts have put my mind much more at ease, and I can really look forward to these releases wholeheartedly now.

And I’m also glad to hear that WvW players won’t be left out, either, though curious about the notion that it may involve another reward system entirely. Hopefully not less rewarding than Badges of Honor are right now, please? They drop so sparingly that I fear for anyone trying to obtain even rarer drops in WvW.

As far as AR goes, any possibility that we’ll be able to upgrade laurel-based gear to include Agony Resistance? That way we’re not stuck running Fractals just to get gear so we can run Fractals some more (creating a rather undesirable treadmill effect)?

maddoctor.2738:

The Ascended amulets will be obtainable with Laurels, the new currency, you get 1 from daily and 10 from monthly achievements.

Which is not my concern at all, if you read my post again.

My concern is that the existing Ascended rings and back items will not be made available through that same system (or that the new amulets will be obtainable ONLY via laurels), when it was promised that they’d introduce multiple ways to obtain Ascended items. You may note that the release teaser says nothing about either of these details.

Already stated that they will eventually give us a choice of 6 dailies/monthlies that we will pick the 4 we want to do.

I actually saw the original statement you’re talking about, and it specifically mentions dailies, not monthlies.

ColinJohanson.2394:

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.

Which is why I’m asking whether or not the method will be implemented in monthly achievements as well.

I don’t think we will kill any of the other Elder Dragons outside of an expansion.

Which, again, isn’t my concern. Please read the post you’re quoting before quoting it.

My concern is that they’re going to use this multi-month event as a promo for the expansion, and that it won’t end up being a self-contained story.

Mildly interested, but I admit I’m not wholeheartedly thrilled either.

Ascended amulets, okay, fair enough as I knew they were coming. But no discussion of adding existing Ascended gear to other parts of the game, I notice….don’t think we’ve forgotten that promise. If you just add them all to Fractals, expect a fresh new wave of backlash over it.

Still, looking forward to laurels and guesting, and changes to the daily achievements that will hopefully be productive. I’d like to see the monthly system changed to work similarly, so that players can choose which achievements to run every month to finish monthlies.

Emtiarbi.3281:

A big war between Jormag(Frost) and Primordius(Flame)!! :o

That would be awesome, actually, and does kind of fit the name….but I kinda doubt that’s actually what’s happening. Still, I’m looking forward to this multi-month event as it sounds awesome….yet, I have one big concern.

And that concern is this: I’m worried that this entire multi-month event is just setting the stage for the first expansion, and that we’ll have to buy the expansion to get the full story. GW1 managed to introduce entire post-campaign storylines of a fairly significant size and did it entirely for free, so I sure hope GW2 isn’t drumming up this multi-month event for additional drama when they announce the first expansion. That’d be awfully disappointing.

Colin, mind putting my fears to rest, please?

Leablo.2651:

Yeah, why would you name the game after a central gameplay feature when you could name it after an obscure backstory element that is mentioned maybe twice in the entire game. A logical person might see the cause and effect as being the other way around.

“Central gameplay feature”?

In that case, I’d like to argue the notion that World vs World is a “central gameplay feature” of GW2, seeing as how they both serve the purpose of allowing large groups of people to battle each other, and they’re both equally as optional.

This may shock you, but you can actually play GW1 without ever actually being involved in a “guild war”. I played for years and never once got into a GvG battle. Never interested me or my guildmates. GvG was not a “central gameplay feature” of GW1, it was a wholly optional PvP setting that encouraged a larger PvP community.

I don’t disagree that it needs to be introduced to GW2. I just think it’s silly to argue that it was the core of GW1 when it wasn’t even in the original game until a post-release patch.

Leablo.2651:

What’s getting old is people who are so naive about business that they think developers won’t fit a trivial part of the game’s lore to a marketable name. The GvG game mode was not present in the original Guild Wars, but Tombs was, and it was informally a guild mode (as intended) since PUGs would not stand a chance. You guys are arguing a technicality, and a very silly one at that.

You don’t even understand what you’re arguing about.

No one has said “we don’t want GvG”. We have simply stated that GvG is not the reason why the Guild Wars franchise has its name. It’s named for the lore, as are many other games, because story and lore makes for a more marketable name. So it’s ridiculous to try and argue that GvG is the reason for the Guild Wars name, because a) it wasn’t in the original game, and b) the devs have actually stated that the game was named such because of its lore.

Tom Gore.4035:

Morrigan.2809:

You realize that the name is from the lore right?
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Lore

It has nothing to do with guild wars in the game

Sure I realize that. Doesn’t make it any less stupid to name your game “Guild Wars”, then put in Guilds and Wars, but not Guild Wars.

No, it makes it perfectly sensible. The game is named for the lore, not for GvG. In fact if I’m not mistaken, GvG is a function that didn’t even exist in the original Guild Wars game until after release, along with Guild Halls and many other things that people complain aren’t in this game.

You are not the first person to make this comment nor the last, and yes, people do want GvG in this game, and many other things too. But it’s getting a little old that people refuse to acknowledge that the actual title of the game is not named for GvG but rather the lore of the universe. And it’s not a “new” nomenclature, a lot of games use names or parts of names that don’t match their game play.

Rikimeru Tokesbudz.3816:

Voxdeus.1034:

Rikimeru Tokesbudz.3816:

i dont care what they do with aoe as long as they do something. the constant aoe spam in wvw is stupid and takes a lot of fun out of pvp .

Then stop zerging, and look for small groups to travel with. Or look for ways to flank and create a concave, instead of massing up on an easily AoE’d choke point.

To a large degree, it’s a L2P issue. The fact that people STILL think that zerging a choke is a viable play style kind of tells me that AoE isn’t strong enough.

i wasnt aware that attacking a castle gate is zerging a choke point. if you dont drop the gate how else are you going to get into the castle to cap it. the fact that there can be nonstop aoe’s blocking a castle gate from only a few people inside the castle is pretty ridiculous and has nothing to do with learning to play.

You weren’t aware that having everyone stack up in a tightly confined ball, all attacking a single point on the enemy’s tower or keep was considered “zerging a choke point”?

….doors are, by their very nature, a choke point (people can’t all rush through the same door at once). A gate is just a large door. Ergo it is a choke point and is (by its nature) a decent place to set up traps and siege to barricade a fortress.

If you can’t find more efficient ways to get into a keep than to all stack up against the door and try to stab it to death, then yes, I do believe that it’s a “L2P” issue and not an issue with AoE at all. There are flame rams, catapults, and trebuchets in this game for a reason. Really, I don’t know how this is hard.

Again: The point is to keep guilds from server hopping on a whim to try and get better WvW conditions, as many guilds have done.

And I can’t say I disagree with it, knowing that. I don’t like it and it was a surprising decision to me when I first found out, but I can’t blame them for trying to limit people’s ability to build up influence freely in one server, then hop onto another server and significantly alter their WvW prospects.

ophidic.1279:

Yeah ok, great. Read the thread. I did a bunch of looking around, but it obviously wasn’t adequate. Yeah it’s my mistake, but at the time I was certain there was something stupid going on.

That’s why you look it up or ask before you buy. I always do.

Secondly, a lot of people are jerks for no real particular reason. Any problem anyone has ever is met with resistance, and usually everyone is parroting the exact same things about entitlement and how you should have asked the forums.

That’s because this forum is filled with people who have convinced themselves that the game is without flaw, and that everyone who doesn’t think this way is obviously just trying to ruin the game.

Don’t be rude to everyone because of a few people in this forum who aren’t very helpful.

When playing, I consult a number of sites, including wiki, and it shouldn’t be necessary to contact the forums about every mundane aspect of the game. There’s a few examples where the game jerks you around… transferring servers and losing all your guild rep, the bank and everything in it being a good example. YEAH SURE, you could have asked around on the forums, but any normal person would assume that stuff would come with you. Yes, it’s still on THAT server waiting for you, but what good is that?

Pretty sure the devs said that would be the case before the game even came out, actually….and it’s listed on the wiki, as well.

Even so, the decision to design guilds this was still surprised me as well. I think the aim was to make it less ideal to bandwagon to another server for a better WvW tier though.

Plus where did I say I was going to quit the game? Can you quote me on that? I think I said something about not buying gems anymore for frivolous items, but what woud I play if I quit GW2? Diablo 3? HA. No thank you.

Generally the only people who make statements like that are people who weren’t shelling out a lot of cash anyways, or are getting ready to quit and are using this rather hollow threat as a form of extortion to try and get the devs to talk them down from the ledge. In either case, you’re not the audience to whom the Cash Shop is intended anyways and they wouldn’t be hurting too badly if they lost your business, so your next natural course of action after not getting what you want would be the only thing left to you: quitting.

Bottom line: don’t make meaningless threats. The devs very likely do not care if you swear never to buy gems, because they’re making enough money on their target audience to fund the game already. All it does is weaken your position and make people even less inclined to sympathize with you.

Voxdeus.1034:

Then stop zerging, and look for small groups to travel with. Or look for ways to flank and create a concave, instead of massing up on an easily AoE’d choke point.

To a large degree, it’s a L2P issue. The fact that people STILL think that zerging a choke is a viable play style kind of tells me that AoE isn’t strong enough.

Precisely my thinking. Anyone who is willing to jump into an obvious meat grinder doesn’t get to complain about being ground into mince meat.

AoE is one of the few viable tactics for controlling and hurting zergs. If AoE is reduced across the board (which was the original statement that the devs made), zerging in WvW will only get worse while abusive single-target combos will continue, and there will be no fun in it any more.

Frankly? The fact that AoE often isn’t enough to handle many of these incredibly unskilled zergs of players tells me that it’s not strong enough. I don’t expect to hold off 30 guys on my own, no, but I expect skilled players to be able to pick off weak players who rely on the zerg for protection. AoE is one of the better ways to do so.

ophidic.1279:

What’s a tad ludicrous is selling plain old armor for dungeon tokens, and sticking that armor at the top of the list and calling it the same thing as proper dungeon armor

That’s like selling lodestones in gw1 claiming they’re destroyer cores.

I maintain that I am owed a refund, or at least the fine transmutation stone, since I spent actual money on it.

Dungeon armor has unique icons and unique appearances. Shy of just not paying attention, it’s rather hard to miss the difference, especially with the preview option available.

You yourself admit to previewing the item and buying it anyways, thinking it was a bug. You could have asked around in the forums about it, but you decided to buy it anyways. I’m sorry, it’s unfortunate that you were fooled, but that is an error you made. I don’t blame others for my own errors.

And frankly, being nasty with everyone who doesn’t think you’re “entitled” to a refund isn’t going to make many people inclined to feel sorry for you, either. Especially when you’re in this thread complaining about how you’re about ready to quit the game over such a simple mistake.

No, you’re not “entitled” to a refund, and I don’t think ANet’s devs could give you one anyways. Nor do I really think they should. It’s an unfortunate mistake but it is your mistake. I don’t disagree that the armor should probably be renamed or just given the correct art and icons (rather than generic armor designs, which honestly baffles me), but this “refund or else I quit the game” business is nonsense.

Erm, the icons are entirely different than the actual dungeon armor set, and you admit to previewing it before buying, so….no, you don’t merit a refund.

They do need to fix the labeling, certainly, but you bought precisely what you previewed assuming it was a bug and are now raging because the thing you thought was a bug was not actually a bug. That’s a tad ludicrous.

Atherakhia.4086:

Currently we have absolutely horrible classes like Necromancers and Rangers who are only barely staying relevant in PvP due to their bunker builds. If they didn’t have these, they’d be second class citizens.

….

But be warned, once bunker is gone, Rangers and Necromancers will likely be pushed back down to useless status.

How is it that my longbow ranger who is almost entirely dedicated to burst damage is able to stay relevant in WvW against virtually everything it fights, save for culling-abusing thieves and defense-focused guardians?

inb4 “WvW isn’t PvP”, even though it clearly is. It’s not as fancy as sPvP perhaps but it’s clearly a form of PvP.

To be blunt, you’re grossly oversimplifying a complex issue with broad generalizations that are misleading at best. I don’t want them nerfing AoE either, but let’s not pretend that “bunker builds” are the only viable course in PvP for a ranger, because seriously, they’re not. Maybe the problem lies with you, here, not the class.

I’ve read the article before. It’s somewhat accurate, though some bits are exaggerated for drama’s sake as is usual with Cracked articles.

I only posted to comment on this notion that GW2 is going to compete with WoW when all statistical evidence runs contrary to that notion. Such as this post below:

Mirta.5029:

They’re selling 25K units without counting digital. Digital is estimated to make up 70% of all sales. They probably do have enough growth to reach WoW’s milestones.

I asked you in my previous post to post the data proving your case, and you did not. So I’ll ask again: I challenge you to post the data that confirms your claims, otherwise I’m to assume you’re simply making them up.

As I pointed out, the data you’re referring to is from back in October and November, when they were selling 25k physical copies of the game (that’s not counting digital sales) per week. There are no records of physical copies sold on that list since early November, and it’s worth noting that this data ends before the release of Lost Shores.

There is no data to confirm either the notion that 70% of their current sales are digital (which would suggest that their sales should be approaching 5 million by now if it were still accurate, instead of only 3 million), nor the notion that they are currently selling 30k copies of the game per week.

You are making assumptions based on data that is now three months old, it is entirely unreliable. If you can post alternative data that proves your case, then fine, but otherwise you need to stop making assertions of fact without evidence to prove it.

Mirta.5029:

Actually it was released during the golden age of MMOs. Everquest, Everquest 2, Guild Wars 1, Neverwinter Nights, Ultima Online… 2005 had lots of good MMOs either starting up or up and running and there were plenty of players for all of them!

I’m not arguing that GW2 is more popular than WoW, I’m arguing that give it 8 years and it might just be.

Er, what are you talking about? You don’t remember your history very well.

Ultima Online was released in 1997, was passed by the release of Everquest in 1999, and then passed again by Dark Age of Camelot in 2001. It was not a major competitor by 2005, as several other titles had already passed it by. That’s why Ultima Online 2 was supposed to come out and help replace it (but due to the critical failure of Ultima IX, that didn’t happen).

And of the three remaining titles on your list, only one is actually an MMO (Everquest 2), who was intended as a direct competitor to WoW, but its numbers were rather quickly surpassed by Blizzard’s own title. While it’s still running today (as is GW1), it never achieved a similar level of growth.

WoW was in the perfect place at the perfect time. Competition in 2005 was indeed present but it was not nearly at the magnitude of today, where there is literally a new MMO every few weeks (F2P or otherwise). GW2 is releasing in an age where the subscription model isn’t quite dead but it’s getting awfully close, and where micro-transaction-based F2P titles are starting to gobble up a lot more market share than they used to, simply because of how many there are. It’s not even remotely the same playing field that it was in 2005.

GW2 doesn’t have the “perfect storm” that WoW had, nor does it have the steady growth of WoW, either. WoW became a juggernaut quickly. After about a year and a half of sales, it had roughly 6 million active subscribers. Assuming GW2 is at exactly 3 million as of now, they would need to sell over 57k units per week to hit the 6 million mark in roughly that same span of time (they currently are selling less than half that many), and that wouldn’t necessarily mean that they had 6 million active players, either.

GW2 isn’t WoW, and it’s never going to be as big as WoW. And frankly I’m perfectly okay with that. I don’t understand why people obsess with seeing their favorite MMO beat out WoW, it’s not like they have to surpass WoW to make a statement in the market. Look at TESO. Elements of its combat and the entire PvP structure is ripped wholesale from this game….the fact that upcoming competitors are ripping off GW2 is already cause for celebration.

Mirta.5029:

WoW reached their 4 million mark 2 years after release. Give GW2 time, especially having in mind that GW2 growth stabilized at 30 000 hard copies a week, making it stable, fast and good growth for an MMO.

WoW also released in 2005, when there were fewer competitors and a LOT fewer buyers.

I’d love to see your evidence that GW2 is still selling 30k copies per week right now. Because my guess is that you’re misquoting this data from VGChartz, without realizing that the sales data there is only for the first ten weeks (running from August to early November). Ergo, GW2 dropped to around 25k physical sales per week within about 7 weeks of the game’s release, and there is no hard data whatsoever to support the notion that it’s still growing at that rate now.

The Pandaria expansion, which is widely considered a failure, sold 2.7 million copies within a week of release. The previous expansion, by comparison, sold 3.3 million units in 24 hours, which is why MoP is considered a “failure”. However, given that GW2 has only just recently passed 3 million copies after nearly five months of sales, they’re in absolutely no position to balk at those kinds of numbers.

Furthermore, WoW’s subscriber count following the release of Pandaria shot up to over 10 million players again, a climb of over 1 million from its previous low following the release of Cataclysm. GW2 refuses to release data about how many active players it has so it’s pure speculation how many there are, but suffice it to say that it’s probably not 10 million. It’s probably not 3 million, either, as many of the “locusts” that tend to try a game and then leave after a few months have already moved on, and they also lost an unknown number of people to the patch in November as well.

What baffles me more, however, is that I’m actually having to argue with someone over whether or not WoW is more popular. There is no question whatsoever, the facts are right there. As of right now, it’s not even competing with WoW, it’s fighting with TERA and SWTOR and Rift instead. Might that change in the long term? Maybe, but I’m not anticipating it. Not unless WoW just keels over and dies, and Blizzard’s “Titan” project is cancelled.

Karizee.8076:

Keiran.1896:

Karizee.8076:

GW2 is more popular that WoW (in the West, they haven’t launched in China yet)

World of Warcraft: around 10M monthly subscribers.
Guild Wars 2: 3M box sold.
See what you compare…

And no, WoW’s population is not 70% from China. :P

Sure it is, that’s why they only sold 2.7mil copies of the Panda pac.

Erm, no….

They sold 2.7 million copies of the “Panda pac” in the first week of the expansion’s release. They’ve long since passed that figure.

GW2 on the other hand only JUST passed 3 million, a full four (almost five) months after release.

WoW is far, far more popular and I can’t even believe anyone would try to argue otherwise.

I’ve been playing for a while now without mentioning this much, but….in a game which prided itself on removing much of the griefing and trolling that occurs in other MMOs, and with the goal of fostering a positive community of good-natured players….why have you left SO MANY options available for players to grief and troll each other?

Don’t get me wrong, you did a great job. Loot tables are individualized so no fighting over loot, everyone gets XP for kills, no resource node griefing, etc. But there are some areas of this game which leave even larger gaps available in terms of griefing options, and it blows my mind that they weren’t noticed before the game even came out. In fact, some of them I remember seeing players complaining about back then, too.

I’m just going to cover the three that bug me most, I leave it to others to provide their own pet peeves in this area:

1) You chose not to add player-to-player direct trade because of the possibility of scamming, and claim that the Trading Post and mail system perfectly supplement them…but they don’t. Sometimes I want to trade with a very specific stranger and don’t trust him to pay me after I give him the shiny. The Trading Post only allows broad-spectrum trades, and the Mail system requires putting a LOT of trust in whoever you’re sending your stuff to. It makes me think that the REAL reason you refuse to add P2P direct trade is because your professional economist decided that the world needed that extra gold sink of Trading Post fees. Well, I hate to break it to your professional economist, but in the real world, sometimes even complete strangers trade their products for money with each other and it’s not done through a store, but rather a direct face-to-face trade. And the tax man doesn’t come riding in on a horse to stop the transaction, nor does he assess taxes on those trades. I’ve purchased used games in this manner before. Yes, it’s possible that someone will be scammed as a result of P2P trade. But it’s no more likely than through the mail system you’re trying to push on us, in fact it’s far easier to scam someone through the mail. And reporting would still be an option, provided you program the trading system to keep a log of transactions (which I know you can do). Your game doesn’t offer a basic feature in numerous other MMOs and RPGs, including GW1.

2) You introduce jumping puzzles in World vs World and then make that one of the absolute best ways of getting Badges of Honor….and yet you don’t include any sort of invunerability buff in that area to prevent players from attacking each other or camping the puzzle, preventing other factions from completion. I’m sorry but the very last place I want to fight is a jumping puzzle. Often as a matter of courtesy since the puzzle is the “true enemy”, I let enemy players continue through the puzzle. In fact, not a few minutes before posting this, I allowed a Kaineng thief through the Mistwrought Vault in EB’s map, and I have no problem with that….the problem is the other three Kaineng players who thought they’d get their giggles from trying to kill us (I killed at least two such people). Not everyone is so courteous. This also happens a lot in the borderlands spawn points, where a team will camp the borderlands gate and kill anyone who tries to pass through….a legit strategy, but still mean-spirited. This is so easily fixed that it’s surprising you haven’t already fixed it in the four months of time since the game came out.

3) One common way to grief an AFK player is to aggro mobs and then run past the AFKer. The mobs will eventually leave your aggro and target the AFKer, resulting in his death. Now yes, it was stupid of him to AFK anywhere except a city. But I’ve seen a lot of newer players get fooled in this manner and it’s sort of sad you don’t have an “AFK” mechanic in place to prevent it. Especially since GW1 could identify when you had been idle for an extended period and mark you as AFK. GW2, on the other hand, insists on waiting until you’ve been AFK for (it seems like) much longer, and then kicks you from the game. But by then it’s often too late. You need to make it possible for players to AFK at will.

I have deep respect for the players out there who keep to some code of ethics and help their fellow players. You have a good community in the game, ANet, for the most part. But it really bugs me that there are still holes in the fabric, ways available for that minority of people who get their jollies out of spoiling other people’s fun to keep causing trouble for the rest of us. Please try to remove these things from the game so that the game will be completely centered around all of the good-natured people in Tyria, rather than a haven for spoil-sports!

Dante.1508:

I have a similar question why are there three Legendary Great Swords and only one of everything else, kinda bias and makes no sense in a legendary way?

I can venture a guess, actually: because they originally planned to make multiple Legendaries for each weapon type.

They probably developed Sunrise and Twilight first (ergo why their effects are finished and many others are not), then decided to scale back on making so many legendary items because they couldn’t finish them all before the game’s planned release.

If true, it would be yet another reason why they should have stuck to their original philosophy of “when it’s ready” instead of rushing the title out in time for the Chinese Year of the Dragon.

The charr have by far the most interesting story and personality of any of the five races, and by FAR the best voice acting and design. People who don’t like rolling charr are missing out. I’m actually planning to make another one when I get my seven character started.

Get rid of humans, if anything, they’re the most bland race of the five by far. Which is sort of crazy when you consider that they have one of the more exciting backgrounds, what with being nearly pushed to the brink of extinction. But their voices are bland, their zones are bland, their stories are bland….they arguably manage to out-bland Trehearne.

RoRo.8270:

Because players would obtain the items faster meaning there would be less for them to do in the long run

You mean like how Legendaries are bought and sold right now?

The devs clearly don’t care about that, so that’s not much of an excuse.

GoZero.9708:

While I don’t agree with Legendaries being available on the TP, your point is moot because Legendaries aren’t power. You can buy the exact same power as the Juggernaut for 2 or 3 gold. Aside from being convertible to a higher tier when they become available, you don’t gain power by owning a Legendary. You gain a sign of respect for your hard work/wealth but not for your power.

Your point has already been proven false before, so rather than re-posting that same argument (again) I’m going to post the simplified version:

An item that infinitely scales up every time the level cap and best tiers of items come out? That is a power. It’s an intangible one, certainly, but in the long term (which is what people should be looking at, instead of saying “oh, but X is so far out that it’s not worth worrying about”) it’s the best possible power in the game.

This is so easily solved by just making them buy/sellable on the Trading Post.

“But we don’t want power being bought and sold”, you say? I would point out the devs have already confirmed that Legendaries are supposed to be sellable on the Trading Post, so it’s pretty clear they don’t care if power is bought and sold in this game. So why not just allow Ascended gear to be bought and sold, too?

Kacigarka.5176:

Oh .. 60% of actual player base? I didnt see 1-2 milion posts complaining about it, did you?

lol!

So you think the game has between 2.5 and 3.33 million active players right now, when they only just admitted to finally hitting 3 million sales and it’s well known that they experienced a large downturn in player count after November?

Are you serious? That’s honestly hilarious!

You’re right about one thing though: it’s their game and they can do what they want with it. Who cares what the players think, after all? So if they want to do things their way, you’re right, it’s their game….and everyone else can just go away. And then when there’s only a handful of players left and NCSoft brings the hammer down, at least the game stuck to its principles, right?

People are not complaining just for the sake of complaining. They’re complaining because they love this game and don’t want ANet to ruin it. They don’t want to be scared away from this game, they want to play it for years to come. If you are bothered by people complaining on the forums, trying to get things fixed and improve the game, then don’t come to the forums.

If they want to claim that this nerf is to help balance WvW, I can think of at least five FAR more imbalanced issues that they need to address before AoE.

1) Spike damage from thieves, capable of killing foes in a single hit.
2) Numerous glitches that allow enemies to get into a keep or garrison through the walls.
3) Portal bombing from mesmers, allowing players to drop 30+ enemies anywhere they want.
4) Players using various abilities or invulnerability effects while “finishing” opponents, preventing any chance of retaliation or recovery (things like Stealth, Elixir S, Mist Forn, Obsidian Flesh, etc).
5) The invulnerability buff that protects spawn points extends too far out from the actual spawn point. Because of this, players can abuse this glitch to kill players who are just wandering by, which isn’t fair.

And that’s without even having culling on the list (only because they’ve already said they intend to address culling). Heck, fix those five things, and add an option in the “Report Player” menu for “abusing exploits”, and most of WvW’s biggest problems are instantly gone.

I don’t wanna hear how AoE is ruining the game when there’s so many other areas for them to fix first that actually DO ruin the game.

No.

Having more options for expensive content like the Obsidian Shards is a good thing, not a bad thing.

What you’ve expressed (a desire to see other things in the shop) can still be accomplished while leaving the Obsidian Shards in this shop. So I really don’t see your reasoning for removing it.

Kaineng’s been crushing most every effort by those of us in EB to breakout and claim some points, but at least we’re keeping ahead of DR.

I do feel a bit disappointed though. I have noticed that while there are some talented players out there, there’s also quite a number of your zerglings who are very true to their Starcraft name: they’re only good when in hordes, but when in small bunches, they’re murdered rather easily due to lack of skill and communication. I’m a bit surprised how many I’ve picked off once the fight broke down into small frays or solo combat. I’ve made almost a hundred kills in this matchup thus far, which honestly blows my mind considering I’ve only gotten around 600 kills across all other previous matchups combined.

If you guys are going to contend with more coordinated high-tier servers, it might be worthwhile to run some coordination exercises and to get more organized. And you definitely want to work with your players on keeping together and not running off, as that’s how I’ve picked up most of my kills.

Just a thought! Good luck to you next time, when you’re hopefully fighting opponents that are more fitting.

killcannon.2576:

So, essentially, you are saying you want classes brought to a middle ground? Should ele’s then have clones? Should Warriors have stealth? Should engies then have portals? Mesmers can do things that other classes can not do. It’s the nature of having distinct professions that certain classes should excel in certain areas that other do not, and vice versa.

Mesmers can keep their portals. But let’s not pretend that they aren’t incredibly broken.

The fact that a single person can singlehandedly drop 30+ enemies right into the middle of your WvW keep with NO effort on your team’s part….that’s an indication that the idea, while cool, is more than a tad broken right now.

And that’s part of the point really: there are so many other much more broken things out there that this focus on an across-the-board AoE “tweaking” seems like a total waste of time.

Shear Force.9154:

-snip-

Erasculio.2914:

-snip-

I’m amazed. I had thought the absolutely dripping sarcasm in my post was obvious, but apparently not. I’ll just go ahead and tag the post as sarcastic now so I stop getting people replying who can’t identify sarcasm when they see it. >.<

Kacigarka.5176:

Why should they design exclusive prestigue weapons that were ment from the begging to be crafted ONLY by small portion of players to MAJORITY ?

Hello?

Legendary weapons are only for most dedicated, rich, most playing, hc players. Not for majority

In the last post, you were complaining that those who hate Legendaries as they are right now were just a minority and thus not worth listening to. Now you’re saying the devs should ignore the majority because you’re not among the majority.

So basically you’re saying “everyone else’s opinions are meaningless except my own”. Which is precisely why no one in this thread, least of all the devs, should acknowledge your opinion at all.

If you want to add second system, why not. Just give anet all those resources, men power needed for balancing and developing. Because of few players that are not okey with current one …
I dont like lot of things in life, games, etc. But that doesnt mean I have to change them so they fit my taste.

Requirements for Legendaries are set up. From release. So either you do like them (like us) or you dont and you wont have one. Easy and simple. Stop creating treaths like this where you guy cry about it and you want change or another system just because you dont like it. Get over this, there are more imporant things to do than complaining all the freakin time about legendaries, ascended. etc.

I’m sorry, but you must realize you’re repeating the same tired, overused arguments that everyone has already proven wrong. Let’s review.

Lie #1: You claim people want Legendaries to be easier to obtain.
The True Story: We want to make Legendaries harder to obtain, because they’re too common as is. Adding skill-check elements would do that without further upping the grind.

Lie #2: You claim that a new system would require an extreme amount of work.
The True Story: The existing system could easily be molded into a quest-based system with just a handful of NPCs scattered around Tyria. The fact that not even that much effort was put into Legendaries indicates that the system was not given nearly enough thought, and is not as strong as it should be.

Lie #3: You claim the devs don’t want to change the way that Legendaries are obtained.
The True Story: The devs have admitted they’re not satisfied with the existing system, which is why they’re going to be working on the scavenger hunt.

Lie #4: You claim that people who don’t like the game as it is are just complaining for the sake of whining.
The True Story: While some will always complain just to complain, most of the people complaining about Legendaries are, in fact, being extremely considerate and productive in trying to offer solutions, whereas the ones who don’t think they need changing are generally the ones being rude.

I don’t mind if people disagree with changing the system, but you have to do so in a productive manner, i.e. not claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is whining and not worth listening to. Other people have been able to disagree without being rude and dismissive. If you can’t do that, you don’t belong here.

Calsifer.6079:

Sure, AOE might not be as effective in a pure combat encounter but it IS more useful. It gets you more kill credits and more participation and there’s nothing you can do about that. Also, have you ever been in a WvW fight where push comes to shove and engagement is necessary? Good luck using single target attacks in the SMC lords room. We also have to remember that PvE is a HUGE part of GW2 and the AI does little to nothing to avoid AOE. Your example of where AOE is not as useful might work in a PvP situation but in PvE it doesn’t work because monsters don’t dodge out of AOE, they just stand there and even in single target encounters, and Ele can just grab agro, stand next to the mob, and stack AOE after AOE.

I’m assuming you haven’t done much WvW, because more often than not, the people banging up the Lords the most are the single-target players, not the guys spamming AoE at range. Yes, I’ve rushed a keep that was heavily defended on multiple occasions, and I died several times….and not one of those deaths came from an AoE blast. It was always a couple of single-target players surrounding me and ripping into me, never a bunch of AoE people dropping AoE on me (because I kept moving out of their circles).

This claim that AOE is some sort of dominant force in WvW is honestly laughable, because it’s really not. There’s a grand total of one area where it’s really great in WvW (the final chokepoint inside the keep where you’re forced to run down a narrow hallway), and everywhere else, it’s lots of open space where your most common enemy is that thief sneaking up behind you and stabbing you before you can react.

AOE is more useful in an overall sense.

- It gets you more kill credits. (More loot.)
- It wipes groups of mobs faster than single target attacks. (This is good because this means AOE is acting like AOE)
- It gets you more participation in group content. (Defend point DEs, large ongoing damage on Bosses.)

And it has a HUGE number of drawbacks that you’re ignoring:

• It has to be placed, meaning it is easier to dodge and most of its damage can be mitigated simply by leaving that target area (meaning you actually deal less than single-target skills).
• It generally has larger cooldowns.
• In some cases, it can’t be used without sacrificing your own mobility, which can be a death blow.
• It won’t pop any priority targets nearly as fast as single-target damage.

I don’t disagree that it makes tagging easier. But the claim that it’s “more useful” is a subjective, opinionated statement. It is not fact.

Again, I’m not saying that AOE is OP, I’m just saying that current AOE skills are more applicable in a wide range of situations because getting credit is just a matter of doing enough damage to each target rather than actually killing the target.

Correct. On the other hand, you don’t get credit if the target doesn’t die, which is rather often in WvW because few people are stupid enough to stand there and die. And you lose the tagging if they manage to flee combat.

So tagging them does little good if you can’t actually kill them. And generally (with a few exceptions that should be looked at), if you’re running AoE against a single-target spec character, you’re dead.

And the issue is solved in PvE by improving monster/NPC AI so they stop standing in the AoE like morons. Not by nerfing player AoE. GW1’s monsters were able to recognize AoE and avoid it to some degree so I’m not sure why GW2’s monsters are so laughably stupid as to just stand there and take it. But how about fixing THAT problem before we talk nerfs, hrm?

You can’t just approach the situation from a PvP standpoint as you have been doing because PvP is only half the game.

It’s the half that will be more dramatically affected by a nerf to AoE. Therefore, it is the half we will be looking at more often.

I don’t deny that AoE in PvE can be a problem area, but that’s not the AoE’s fault either….that’s stupid AI. Monsters will just sit there while being hit with AoE and will not leave the region….is that the player’s fault for “abusing AoE”? No, it’s the developers’ fault for giving the monster a kittenty AI. I don’t approve of blaming players for something that is clearly not a problem caused by overpowered combos, but rather inferior AI on the part of NPCs and monsters.

They keep saying they have data to prove how badly AoE is breaking things, but I notice we’ve not seen or heard any of that data. And given my own experience with AoE and my nature as a mathematical person, I’m forced to be rather skeptical of their assertions without seeing this “data” they have.

This match-up doesn’t seem like it was well picked. Kaineng is on a completely different level in terms of player count, this matchup is already inevitable.

Calsifer.6079:

critickitten.1498:

Snip – Just replying.

You’ve missed my point entirely. I’m not trying to argue which is OP and which isn’t.

In fact I think neither is OP, but AOE, as it stands, is certainly more useful than single target skills.

My example was to illustrate what I believe is the philosophy behind the rebalancing (NOT NERFING OR BUFFING) of AOE attacks. I’m not sure if you actually took the time to read my post fully, it seems like you just skim and scanned it and decide to reply to me based on what YOU though I was trying to say.

I interpreted nothing incorrectly. I’m replying to the notion you put forward that AoE is “more useful”.

You’re giving your own opinion on the subject (“AoE is more useful”) and trying to apply it as a broad fact. It is not. There are plenty of cases where AoE is not the best choice, and is indeed LESS useful than a single-target skill of similar intentions.

I already gave one. How many examples will it take before you’re convinced that saying “AoE is more useful” is NOT a factual statement, but rather your own opinion?

Calsifer.6079:

Think of it this way. You are facing 5 enemies with 5 hp and you have a skill that targets one enemy but does 5 damage and a skill that targets all of them but only does 3 damage. The single target skill can kill one of them in one hit whilst the AOE skill would require 2 castings.

You could kill them by using the single target skill 5 times, or by using the AOE skill twice. In this case, killing 5 enemies would be achieved faster by using the AOE skill twice instead of using the single target skill 5 times (once for each enemy) because the cast time would be faster.

Except that in your made-up scenario, the AoE attack often has a much longer cooldown in general than the single target attack, which you didn’t take into account.

You also ignored the fact that AoE must be placed (and thus, you can escape all of its damage simply by dodging out of the region) whereas a single-target attack usually cannot be dodged quite so easily, especially if it’s a projectile.

For example, Barrage on a ranger deals 1692 damage on a max of 5 targets for a total of 8460, and Rapid Fire deals 1320 to one target. Barrage clearly deals far more (541% more damage per cast), so based on the devs’ screwy math, Barrage seems far superior.

However, Rapid Fire (10s CD) can be used three times in the same span of time as one Barrage (30s CD), so their overall DPS figures are (1320/10) = 132 DPS and (8460/30) = 282 DPS. Not nearly as superior as it was made to seem, is it? And this is just accounting for damage, let’s look at other factors.

On top of the above info regarding damage, it’s worth noting that an enemy can dodge out of Barrage’s AoE region and escape most of the DPS (in WvW, I’ve rarely seen a player get hit more than four times by Barrage, out of the 12 hits it’s supposed to deal). Rapid Fire, by comparison, shoots ten arrows over an extended time and it can’t always be kited or dodged out of (I’ve witnessed people try to dodge out of my Rapid Fire, and my character just turns and keeps hitting them).

Barrage also kills my own mobility, whereas Rapid Fire can be fired on the go.

When I’m trying to pop targets in combat, be it a large zerg or 1v1, what do you think I use more often? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not Barrage. Rapid Fire is far more efficient for single-target killing or even for killing in groups because the AoE of Barrage has more drawbacks. I only use Barrage when I’m further back in the zerg ranks and can afford a few moments of no mobility….otherwise that skill goes mostly unused on my ranger’s bar, because its drawbacks FAR outweigh the extra damage. Its only use in combat for me is to tag enemies in larger mobs. That’s really it.

Just because the AoE deals more overall damage than a single target skill does not mean it’s imbalanced. I don’t understand why people just look at the two damage figures, and blindly say “this one’s stronger and AoE so it’s obviously broken” when there are far more variables involved than just the damage.

Zeldain.5710:

Kacigarka.5176:

They told us that we dont need to grind to be equal. They didnt tell there is NO grind in this game .) grind is just optional

Then tell me what content I can do in it’s stead to progress my character.

Grind is NOT optional if you want to play the game.

Nonsense! Grind is, like, totally optional! You don’t have to do anything!

If you don’t like Ascended items, just don’t get them.
If you don’t like Legendary items, just don’t get them.
If you don’t like achievements, just don’t do them.
If you don’t like dungeons, just don’t do them.
If you don’t like Orr, just don’t play there.
If you don’t like Southsun Cove, just don’t play there.
If you don’t like WvW, just don’t do it.
If you don’t like sPvP, just don’t do it.

Of course, that doesn’t leave much of a game left to play after you hit Lvl 80, since you’ve basically shrugged off every problem area in the entire game as “optional content”, but seriously, the game is just fine as it is! There’s clearly nothing wrong, no content that needs fixing, no need to look at the man behind the curtain! And no changes! I don’t like change!

(sarcasm intended, clearly)

Interview confirmed a few things of note:

• Crowns were renamed “laurels” due to “crown” translating badly in some languages.
• Possible culling update as early as this January.

Kacigarka.5176:

Ye as someone who crafted Legendary and HATE story quests, quests in mmorpgs. I dont like this idea. I would like to see some lore, interesting backround to the Legendaries but only on top of actual requirements.

So yea … NOT everyone enjoy story quests or whatever. Many and Many Legendary owned or players who are half way there are satisfied with current way of crafting it. Dont see any reason to change it. Everyone know the requirements and either you accep them or dont

So yea, these topics are really useless, there WONT be any change to this system but small tweaks. Too many players did spent A LOT of hours crafting their Legendaries and Areanet wont just screw them over because few players dont like it.

Given that devs cannot cater to everyone, the majority should be the group catered to. Judging from this forum alone, your position is most certainly not the majority. It’s usually you and the same other five people. Whereas there are new users posting new threads about Legendaries almost daily.

But frankly, you still haven’t proven why we can’t just implement both systems. All you’ve said is “I like the current model ergo they shouldn’t change it”, which doesn’t actually mean that we’re not allowed to implement a second system on top of the existing (terrible) one for people who want an actual development behind their legendaries.

Heck, it’s not even hard to just keep the existing system and just add story, actually. Just keep the existing grind but have the players turn in the items to a certain NPC who explains some of the backstory behind the “Gift” items, and rewards you with those items once you finish their grind. Those who grind will see absolutely no hampering of their ability to do so, yet it also adds depth that the game is totally devoid of right now. What’s wrong with that?

Katsaurs.6013:

Personally I feel the way to get a legendary should’ve been similar to the way you acquired Biggoron’s Sword in Ocarina of Time – a long quest chain which has you first get an item as a drop, maybe a boss drop or something to at least have some challenge still there, which then kick starts the ‘trade game’.

That way it could take you to all the corners of Tyria finding specific items for your needed Legendary to ‘trade’ to an NPC, of course throwing in some boss battles or something here and there to break it up a bit for you. That way it could have a share of guaranteed drops (e.g give item to NPC only to get another in it’s place which you then take to another NPC/a certain place to spawn a monster etc) and it’s fair share of RNG in there too (e.g boss drops or something).

This post has it nailed. There should be a story behind this “legendary” item, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone will get one, either. If anything, placing Legendaries behind an intensive and long quest that is significantly challenging would guarantee that even less people owned one than there are now, as I guarantee some of the folks who own a Legendary right now would never get it if it required skill to obtain….and perhaps the best example of this would be me. Yes, I am suggesting moving to a system which may well make it impossible for me to ever get a Legendary….which either means I’m not doing this for selfish reasons and honestly want to improve the game, or I’m extremely masochistic. :P

But I just want to highlight something that this user has pointed out. Namely, that there were games as far back as 1998 that provided a better, more convincing structure behind their “legendary” items than GW2 does. Hell, honestly even WoW does the idea better. The devs should not settle for their current structure, and frankly, neither should the players. It’s perfectly reasonable and even smart for players to demand better, as that will make the game better, too.

Ursan.7846:

Alphaone.6345:

Actually, they’ve already failed in their promises in this regard:

“It’s extremely important that we stay true to our philosophy that you should be able to play Guild Wars 2 the way you want to play the game in order to reach the most powerful rewards.” -Jan 15 Months ahead front page post.

If I don’t want to item grind, I cannot obtain a legendary. If I’m focused on WvW entirely without any PvE, I cannot obtain a legendary. The way I want to play the game does not reflect their design philosophy. Either way you slice it, you cannot argue this fact.

From Anet’s president, Mike O’Brien

Here’s what we believe: If someone wants to play for a thousand hours to get an item that is so rare that other players can’t realistically acquire it, that rare item should be differentiated by its visual appearance and rarity alone, not by being more powerful than everything else in the game.

I think they’re pretty consistent with their promise. Remember, Legendaries aren’t more powerful than Exotics.

EDIT: source: http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/21/guild-wars-2-interview-monetization/

Ah, but they’re really not exactly as powerful as Exotics because of one special feature….the devs have promised they will always be equal to the Best-In-Slot item.

Which means that legendaries have a somewhat more intangible function, but one that makes them more powerful than anything else in the game: an infinitely scaling power level that will be increased whenever the devs add more vertical progression to the game.

For example, when Ascended weapons come out, they’ll get buffed to match. Then when the level cap raises, we can reasonably expect another buff to match whatever the top stats are. And this will continue on forever. Legendaries are anti-grind protection: do a massive grind once, and never have to grind for gear again. That’s a power that players have incredibly underestimated because they aren’t looking at the long term.

The easiest way to illustrate this sort of intangible effect in the long term is to use WoW’s longevity as an example. If they had created a “legendary” system similar to GW2 that always got stronger based on the top stats and level cap at the time, players in 2005 would’ve gotten a really strong Lvl 60 weapon….then presuming they still owned it today, it would now be Lvl 90 in power. All without the player lifting a finger. They could have completely skipped the gear grind for 30 levels of game play. That’s not a small advantage, that’s a huge one. One that I think even GW2’s devs have underestimated.

So, if legendaries are going to be the strongest items in the game (and with free infinite power scaling, they definitely are), then they do violate that promise. Sad as it is, GW1’s “Voltaic Spear” was by far a lot more fitting with that promise….and the hunt for one of those was entirely RNG!

nerva.7940:

trap rangers …. wipe the floor with entire groups of people on point.

Funniest thing I’ve read in this entire thread.

Speaking from the perspective of a ranger who has dabbled in sPvP and WvW….if your group is getting wiped by a trap ranger, then you are really, really bad at this game. The damage is bunk and the conditions not nearly effective enough as most anyone with a wit of sense will be carrying something to remove conditions. Being a trap ranger was FAR more viable in GW1, and even there it wasn’t very desirable.

Recycle.5493:

Esrever.8613:

Anet wants to balance for 5v5 so they don’t want AOE to hit every player on the other team if they all stood on 1 point.

But… why would any good players want to stand all on the same point?

Furthermore, why would they continue to stand there once the giant red circles warned them of impeding AoE?

Seriously, this isn’t hard to comprehend, people. Single-target damage comes with no on-screen warning, very little time to react, and is more often than not the reason for most character deaths in WvW. AoE comes with a giant red glowing circle warning everyone “hey, don’t stand here”, which offers lots of reaction time for anyone with decent reflexes, leading to very few people actually dying from a player’s AoE attacks.

AoE’s disadvantages are blatantly clear. You can’t surprise someone with Barrage (an AoE effect), you can’t hit any one target as hard, and they can roll out of the affected region which instantly kills ALL of your damage and conditions for that attack. By comparison, I could instead choose to pop one target with Rapid Fire (a single-target effect) and they’ll have a harder time dodging before I’ve knocked off a lot of their health, and my arrows would follow them as they flee so they don’t necessarily escape my damage just by rolling once. I select the tool that makes sense given the situation at hand, I am not just “spamming AoE all the time”. In fact even in zergs I often rely on Rapid Fire as often as I do Barrage, because the ability to reliably pop priority targets is a must-have.

How often do you hear people complaining about a Barrage ranger or Mark Necromancer in WvW, really? I’m pretty sure most of the complaints have centered about the absurd single-target damage of the Thief.

I will never understand how ANet’s devs could sit there and casually chuckle about the notion of nerfing every AoE skill in the entire game and the resulting player response. It’s not only unprofessional, it’s extremely worrying that they think it’s even remotely funny to make their players this angry.

Animando.7956:

AoE = area of effet. Cone = area. Geometrical logic?

Technically a cone is a volume….just sayin’. :P

Arsenic Touch.7960:

I didn’t even think about it it but this is going to kill badges of honor drops as well as other www drops.

Yep, and they’re bad enough as it is. I truly do not understand why they don’t just award 1 BoH per kill, seriously, this RNG nonsense is ridiculous. My ranger, over the course of a handful of WvW outings, has racked up 600 kills in WvW….and only 100 BoHs to show for it. That’s truly, completely terrible. It makes me feel like my time in WvW is a complete waste because I’m basically getting nothing to show for it. Only Porous Bones, junk items, a handful of BoHs, and occasionally a blue or green. I get more from the open world PvE, and that’s a sad statement.

But that’s off-topic. Point is, for some classes, this could potentially ruin WvW for them, as they’ll be forced to either run single-target specs or else just give up on WvW (or worse, the game itself). I don’t see any reason whatsoever for this broad paintbrushing of “AoE is all bad”. It’s got limitations built into it already, don’t cripple it!

Arsenic Touch.7960:

What’s funny, this is going to ruin mob tagging (something anet claims doesn’t exist in gw2 yet anyone who has played in any of the orr maps knows that is so far from the truth it’s not even funny anymore) prepare to have even worse drops in group events.

I’m actually rather convinced that’s the idea, actually. There’s really no other reason to hammer AoE in general as a bad thing unless you’re trying to make it harder for AoE-heavy players to tag targets.

I use this to great effect in WvW, for example. It’s one of the few things my ranger can do for the zerg: help soften up the incoming enemies and cripple them with a solid Barrage so that the harder hitting players can bring them down before they can recover and flee, and because I dealt damage and such, I receive credit for contributing in the kill. It’s one of the few ways that I can legitimately tag enemies in large groups before the zerg just cleans their clocks….and if they significantly reduce my damage output, that method of tagging is completely gone, and many rangers will just be out of luck when it comes to getting kills in the WvW system, unless they stick to smaller brawls between a handful of players. And rangers are hardly the only class in the game relying on AoE tactics to help them tag enemies, necromancers tend to use staff AoE a lot as well.

I’m worried that their plans to reduce AoE will end up making it effectively worthless and incapable of having any real punch behind it.