Guild Wars 2

I would like to point out the parralel in PVE acended gear. people were asking for more progression, areanet added more progression, people vcomplained about it.

Just because you want something, doesn’t mean it’s best for the game

in divinities reach, there is a shooting gallery and a tavern that has been set up for bar brawl.

in rata sum there is a asura portal to a polymock arena.

Avatar.1923:

you guys are being elitist.

shame on GW2 for provoking that….

dont know what the solution could be. but hey, it is sad, sad that people like the OP cannot “live” without doing the fastest run possible…

so long for the roleplaying part i guess.
this will become Diablo 3….

SAD

this is exactly why people were against gear grind. and if you read the OP, he doesn’t like it, but he feels he has no choice

well OK, how would you show “investigating wreckage”?

there are some thing that have to be explain that can’t be shown in a visual manner. that’s why we have a spoken and written language.

Slimshot.3251:

kitanas.3596

I have to ask, was there ever a reason not to turtle? if the answer is “no” then turtleing was overpowered, not because there are no counters, but because turtling is he dominate strategy.

There will always be a dominant strat. Always. But people max out gear and spend a lot of time learning the game and maxing there character, then have to restart. Now that would be fine if there was no way to beat the strat but there is. And that is just kitten kitten.

id there a dominate strat in starcraft 2 right now? not really. if you have a balanced game, then there are no dominate strategies.

and technique that was allowing turtling-heals having unlimited targeting- was something of an exploit. they had already stated that they planned to cap AOE abylities at 5 targets. this was simply a matter of closing a loophole.

I have to ask, was there ever a reason not to turtle? if the answer is “no” then turtleing was overpowered, not because there are no counters, but because turtling is he dominate strategy.

ebrown.8193:

Kerithlan.1659:

http://www.arena.net/blog/mike-obrien-on-microtransactions-in-guild-wars-2#more-7677

This, I love how people complain first, ask questions later. It’s like Jeb Bush’s Florida all up in hurr.

Interesting article:

If a player buys gold from another player, he gets the gold he wants, the selling player gets gems she can use for microtransactions, and ArenaNet generates revenue from the sale of gems that we can use to keep supporting and updating the game. Everyone wins.

I wonder why they decided to get rid of that option. Maybe they figured they’d make less revenue from gems?

that’s what we do already, I think.

Colonel Kernel.7506:

kitanas.3596:

/sigh

we already control the gem->gold rate.

/thread

No, we don’t.

ANet’s secret algorithm sets the Gem prices. Read the thread for other irregularities.

uh, the conclusion of that thread was that, yes indeed, the players control the rate.

try again

EDIT:

Colonel Kernel.7506:

John Smith.4610:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Who-sets-Gem-prices/page/7#post705345

And that is one of the irregularities I mentioned.

There is a stockpile of Gems and Gold, so supply and demand is definitely NOT set by the players.

how it works doesn’t matter. what matters is who controls the imputs. in this case, it is the players. so the players set the rate.

@OP

unless you disable rams everywhere except in front of doors, they can still build useless rams.
in more general terms, there will always be a way to greif.

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

Astraea.6075:

alcopaul.2156:

the direct beneficiary is a.net anyway and they could implement gold sinks in game to reduce the amount of gold in the economy. or the richest players could close their eyes and spend 200g on 4000 gems if there are cool/rare/novelty items in bltc. this is easy to solve.

This solves nothing. You are basically saying that there should be more gold sinks in the game so that you can get an arbitrary amount of gold for x dollars. So players who don’t buy gold get hit with these gold sinks so that players who do buy gold get to pump money into the economy at will.

it’s worse then nothing, because then the economy woud be structured around buying gold at that level.

would you like to pay 4000 gems worth of money every week just to be able to effectively play the game?

assuming that everybody will be required to buy gold from bltc.

If you structured the sinks around a large influx of gold from the BLTC, then you would effectively force people to continue to buy from the BLTC. So I ask again, do you want to be forced to pay 400 gems a week to effectively play the game?

this is like forcing everyone to get a legendary to effectively play the game.

no one will be putting their money every week in the bltc coz we got stuffs like food, clothes to buy and rent to pay in real life.

tell that to the son of a sultan or multibillionaire that plays gw2. im just a middle class and i got bills to pay.

So that would be a no then? do you see the folly in trying to adjust it to suit what you personally want without concern for what the costs are, to you as well as everyone else?

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

Astraea.6075:

alcopaul.2156:

the direct beneficiary is a.net anyway and they could implement gold sinks in game to reduce the amount of gold in the economy. or the richest players could close their eyes and spend 200g on 4000 gems if there are cool/rare/novelty items in bltc. this is easy to solve.

This solves nothing. You are basically saying that there should be more gold sinks in the game so that you can get an arbitrary amount of gold for x dollars. So players who don’t buy gold get hit with these gold sinks so that players who do buy gold get to pump money into the economy at will.

it’s worse then nothing, because then the economy woud be structured around buying gold at that level.

would you like to pay 4000 gems worth of money every week just to be able to effectively play the game?

assuming that everybody will be required to buy gold from bltc.

If you structured the sinks around a large influx of gold from the BLTC, then you would effectively force people to continue to buy from the BLTC. So I ask again, do you want to be forced to pay 400 gems a week to effectively play the game?

“I’m canceling my sub”

Astraea.6075:

alcopaul.2156:

the direct beneficiary is a.net anyway and they could implement gold sinks in game to reduce the amount of gold in the economy. or the richest players could close their eyes and spend 200g on 4000 gems if there are cool/rare/novelty items in bltc. this is easy to solve.

This solves nothing. You are basically saying that there should be more gold sinks in the game so that you can get an arbitrary amount of gold for x dollars. So players who don’t buy gold get hit with these gold sinks so that players who do buy gold get to pump money into the economy at will.

it’s worse then nothing, because then the economy woud be structured around buying gold at that level.

would you like to pay 4000 gems worth of money every week just to be able to effectively play the game?

alcopaul.2156:

if i can get 100g+5% extra with 4000 gems, then i will buy gems from a.net. and if this is the rate, probably 4000 gems will cost a player 200g. so very less people will buy gems with gold.

in other words, my real money was valued right and gems are now valuable commodities since it will require a player humungous amount of gold to get 4000 gems.

this arrangement took care of inflation and has the correct valuation of gold, gems and my cash.

and then no one would buy gems with gold. and then, to prevent massive amounts of gold being pumped into the economy, the price must fall. think beyond yourself for once?

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

If they changed the price, it would just change back. It IS at market price.

no, if they change the price to a reasonable get off point and let the market roll again from there (we need this since it is not self adjusting), more people will be enticed to buy gems from bltc coz the gem->gold ratio is reasonable. it won’t change back. you need the initial jolt to get the gem to gold market going.

of course more people would buy gold with gems. that is exactly what would drive the prices down. the flip-side of your idea is that no one would be buying gems with gold becomes much more expensive. therefore, no one would do it. that means that there would be a lot more people buying gold with gems then the other way around. that would cause the price to drop. it will keep dropping until people start buying gems with gold again-around the current price point.

EDIT:

Luigio.3265:

correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the exchange ratio get lower the more people do it ?

what about gold seller gold? with gold buyers getting so much gold from botters world wide (lets face it, they wouldnt have had to ban 4k bots if it wasnt profitable in some manner to…well…bot) isnt a big part of that gold being used to buy gems and further altering the price? how does that work out?

maybe im not understanding what factors the exchange fluctuates upon

I don’t have the exact formula, but I believe that it based on he rate of gold→gems in proportion to gems→gold. an example would be [gold→gems/gems→gold * current price] so if more people are buying gems→gold then the other way round, then the price drops and vice versa.

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

alcopaul.2156:

if we control the movement, it’s not self adjusting. it adjusts according to how we move it. it’s self adjusting if takes note of golds actual value and purchasing power(doing some crazy market statistical analysis) and inflation (doing some crazy statistical analysis, again.)

Ok, but where would we move it to. where the consensus is the value. which is the definition of market value, right? what the consensus is that something is worth?

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

About the gold sellers having a better grasp on the price of gold, why do you think that? It’s analogous to saying the a chop shop has a better idea on the value of car parts. since they get their gold though illegal means, they can sell it cheaper then market value and still make a profit.

Gold acquisition is gold acquisition. And there are no classifications of gold. Gold is gold. it is one kind. so there is no difference in quality of gold. and all of virtually who plays the game, even those who bot it, gets gold. the one who knows the best optimized way/botting knows the maximum gold output per day of the game. so they know how hard/easy gold can be acquired and also real life monetary value of gold. if gold sellers want to compete with anet and earn a buck, they could make it closer to what bltc price. but no.

you still haven’t explained how these no the real money value of gold. you just say they do. And if they have more gold then the majority of people, (artificially so, in the case of bots/hacked accounts) then would they value gold less then the average person?

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

/sigh

we already control the gem->gold rate.

/thread

again, we control its movement. but a.net set its initial value. it’s not self adjusting and what i mean by self adjusting is to adjust considering inflation and the value of gold.

If we control it’s movement, then it is self adjusting, as market forces will shift it to the true value of gems<->gold. Areanet set the initial value at the begging of head-start, three months ago when everyone’s purchasing power was 0. Why do you think that the price now has any relation to the initial price three months ago.

the price now has a relation to the initial price 3 months ago. it is evident in the current value of gem->gold. it is still low. if the initial price is higher and the rates are self adjusting, then bltc would have a reasonable gem-> gold conversion rates.

their system can handle rapid changes in prices. we saw this with halloween. so I would argue that if the price had started Higher, It would have immediately crashed, and come out, in the end, looking exactly like it is now.

they could go with the gold sellers price. or if i were a.net, i would secretly bot my game just to know if it tallies with the gold sellers offer (and destroy the gold earned afterwards) or if it tallies with the richest hard core players gold acquistion or to know how easy or hard gold acquisition is so that they could have hard data. why am i suggesting this? coz anybody can bot or find the most optimized way to amass gold but nobody can make gold programatically.

these gold sellers set the price of the gold based on how they acquire it and based on its main competitors price. you set the value of gold based on the lowest market price because there is no such thing as “Tyrian gold carats aka quality of gold – less quality of gold, lower price, high quality of gold, higher price”.

the spike won’t ever crash the market basing on a fact that a precursor costs 400g to acquire.

If they changed the price, it would just change back. It IS at market price. what factor could possibly beholding it below market price? the initial point doesn’t make sense, as the market is to volatile for it to have any impact anymore. so what else is left?

alcopaul.2156:

if we control the movement, it’s not self adjusting. it adjusts according to how we move it. it’s self adjusting if takes note of golds actual value and purchasing power(doing some crazy market statistical analysis) and inflation (doing some crazy statistical analysis, again.)

Ok, but where would we move it to. where the consensus is the value. which is the definition of market value, right? what the consensus is that something is worth?

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

About the gold sellers having a better grasp on the price of gold, why do you think that? It’s analogous to saying the a chop shop has a better idea on the value of car parts. since they get their gold though illegal means, they can sell it cheaper then market value and still make a profit.

Gold acquisition is gold acquisition. And there are no classifications of gold. Gold is gold. it is one kind. so there is no difference in quality of gold. and all of virtually who plays the game, even those who bot it, gets gold. the one who knows the best optimized way/botting knows the maximum gold output per day of the game. so they know how hard/easy gold can be acquired and also real life monetary value of gold. if gold sellers want to compete with anet and earn a buck, they could make it closer to what bltc price. but no.

you still haven’t explained how these no the real money value of gold. you just say they do. And if they have more gold then the majority of people, (artificially so, in the case of bots/hacked accounts) then would they value gold less then the average person?

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

/sigh

we already control the gem->gold rate.

/thread

again, we control its movement. but a.net set its initial value. it’s not self adjusting and what i mean by self adjusting is to adjust considering inflation and the value of gold.

If we control it’s movement, then it is self adjusting, as market forces will shift it to the true value of gems<->gold. Areanet set the initial value at the begging of head-start, three months ago when everyone’s purchasing power was 0. Why do you think that the price now has any relation to the initial price three months ago.

the price now has a relation to the initial price 3 months ago. it is evident in the current value of gem->gold. it is still low. if the initial price is higher and the rates are self adjusting, then bltc would have a reasonable gem-> gold conversion rates.

their system can handle rapid changes in prices. we saw this with halloween. so I would argue that if the price had started Higher, It would have immediately crashed, and come out, in the end, looking exactly like it is now.

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

/sigh

we already control the gem->gold rate.

/thread

again, we control its movement. but a.net set its initial value. it’s not self adjusting and what i mean by self adjusting is to adjust considering inflation and the value of gold.

If we control it’s movement, then it is self adjusting, as market forces will shift it to the true value of gems<->gold. Areanet set the initial value at the begging of head-start, three months ago when everyone’s purchasing power was 0. Why do you think that the price now has any relation to the initial price three months ago.

Narkosys, you evidence for that is. because if you look at the price of gems on GW2spidey, you would see that it fluctuates like any other commodity on the TP, which we know we control. therefore, we control the gem→gold price as well.

About the gold sellers having a better grasp on the price of gold, why do you think that? It’s analogous to saying the a chop shop has a better idea on the value of car parts. since they get their gold though illegal means, they can sell it cheaper then market value and still make a profit.

the charr legion’s don’t reject magic entirely. just it’s primacy. what part of the flame legion doctrine would assist the other legions?

EDIT
what Rhubarb said

/sigh

we already control the gem→gold rate.

/thread

it’s been there since beta
as have the complaints

Tallis.5607:

Do I understand it correct and do you calculate 6 scores :
1. A’s score from A vrs B
2. A’s score from A vrs C
3. B’s score from A vrs B
4. B’s score from B vrs C
5. C’s score from A vrs C
6. C’s score from B vrs C

This is rather odd, because from theory (I didn’t do the numbers) this would mean that A doesn’t care what B & C do: tie or not.

If A has 50% of the points, B 45% and C 5%, A will get the same ranking as when A has 50% of the points, B 25% and C 25%.

In other words: a server gets the same ranking boost for taking out the camps of the weakest enemy than they get from taking out a camp from the stronger enemy.

This would mean that the winning server shouldn’t be fightin the number 2, they should be fighting the number 3: the are weaker and taking a camp from them adds the same to their ranking.

I can not imagine that this is right, so please tell me where I am wrong

And, yes, like the previous poster said, I would certainly do ‘something’ with the population too. But that’s another discussion.

attacking the third place person would make sense… if objectives were just pure score. as it is, keeps, towers, and especially supply camps also represent control and war-fighting abylity. if you fight the second place opponent, then you are not just limiting his score. you are also limiting their ability to fight back, which is inherently greater (and hence a greater threat) the the third place server.

Regrets of Sini.6083:

Question – you are assuming that matches are independent, while they are not.
Example:

AvBvC

A gets 200000
B gets 2000
C gets 1000

We can clearly see that A is the winner, but BvC is down to margin of error. Both got dominated and there is no sure way to tell who would have won hypothetical BvC fight if A wasn’t present.

not really.
since B got twice the points of C, then B would probably won a BvC match up.

Slic.2406:

arabeth.2361:

Slic: Legit gold buying will never be able to compete with black market prices. If they drop their prices in half, the black market will as well. Black market gold has no cost.

Black market gold does have a cost. Gold farmers/botters/etc have to spend time and effort to get in-game gold. They have to risk going to jail for stolen credit cards, etc. They get paid like regular employees of any business. A lot of the ppl that actually sit at a computer and gold farm are college kids, etc. trying to make a quick buck to help w/their tuition fees.

Again, there is a cost and a risk to producing black market gold, and if anet finds a more reasonable price range for gems then said black markets will be hard pressed to compete, even if they do undercut the official rate. Because black market is a risk to player accounts. The reason most players are currently attracted to the black market is that risk doesn’t outweigh the large difference between cost effectiveness.

sigh. Areanet doesn’t set the prices for gem→gold. that is governed by players converting gems→gold, and vice versa.

On to the OP, I would say that people are less inclined to buy gold from illegitiment sources, due to the legal option being available.

you kinda deafeated your own argument.

you said that DPS meters are OK in PVP because raw damage doesn’t matter. so how would ading a DPS meter show balance? you said that what it shows is not relevent.

Plague.5329:

Remember when playing a game was about playing the game? And not about having spreadsheets to track market trends? Shouldn’t the richest people in a MMO be the people who have achieved the most spectacular feats, not people who sit in front of a NPC manipulating imaginary items for a few minutes a day?

believe it or not, some people like to do this for fun.

and as for heros/traders wealth, traders will always have more money, because there is more gold available on the TP then in the field.

my advice would be to wait. if it goes down again, it was a spike caused by someone buying up all the mats. if not, then that’s the new price

well I was looking though the achievements, and I came across a new? achievement in the fashion tab. It’s call emperor’s new groove. cantha has an emperor, and the tengu do too?

if you AFK in a dangerous area, you can die. and there are also those who think it is funny to rezz someone over and over again. that’s what happened I would imagine.

azurrei.5691:

for those people who notice an increase in dye drops – are you farming on a level 80 in 70+ zones? or is this low level stuff – because to be honest, it feels as though the second you hit 80 the dye drops go down by 75% – both myself and my GF noticed this severe drop on both of our multiple 80’s

I’ve been leveling alts for a while, and I have noticed an increase in dye drops. maybe that’s areanet’s way of suggesting that we go back to lower level zones?

mrauls.6519:

“1. Preview option in the trading post. I mean, honestly, how much work can it -possibly- be to add this?”

I agree

have you actually tried programing? this isn’t an attack, just a question.

I’m not saying I’m an expert programer, but I have had to program before, and writing/bug-fixing a 30-peice of code could take us up to a couple hours.

you might be surprised at how long it takes to implement changes.

the only crafting mats I got from halloween were large bones. don’t know what you’re talking about.

permanence. nothing ever really changes. sure you have events, but they just loop and repeat themselves. It would be great if things could…. say, where’s the lion?

alcopaul.2156:

kitanas.3596:

alcopaul.2156:

a.net wants to value their in game currency highly by setting a very low gem to gold conversion rate while they are playing oblivious to the fact that a precursor costs almost 900$ to acquire.

why do you keep saying this? Anet doesn’t set the gem->gold rate. the rate is set by players, though the mechanisms of buying gems with gold and gold with gems.

they didn’t factor it right. they set it initially low without taking consideration of inflation/purchasing power of gold. it’s not yet even self adjusting.

players make gold in game out of thin air and bltc valuing the gold at low with an almost fixed rate is an insult to the value of cash.

they set it AT THE START OF THE GAME. what do you think the purchasing power of, well, anyone at 24hours into the game? and remember that there is only one rate, which just has about a 30% difference between the values. it is self-adjusting, because you can see the price shifts.

there’s also cooking mats.

I generally managed on just 2 bank tabs, until I took up cooking. suddenly my bank and bag are full

manwiththemachinegun.6873:

The alliance against the Dragons is a temporary thing from the perspective of the Legions. Charr like General Almorra are the exception.

When the Legions don’t have an enemy to unite them anymore, they WILL declare war on other races eventually. They have no interest in coexistence, only expansion of their sphere of influence, violently. You can hear this from dozens of NPCs, teaching their cubs that they are the ‘superior’ race, destined to rule, some even talk about attacking the Quaggans.

that’s assuming that they don’t turn upon each other, instead.

market manipulations are just people trying to make money. why is that a bad thing? all market manipulations are ultimately temporary anyway, s they can cause no lasting harm

Jeheil.2516:

Good work on taking the bold step to get rid of orbs till a solution is found/hacking issues fixed. Assuming hacking issues fixed then :

Longer term, simply swap orb and outmanned buff.

1 orb = 15% karma, magic find, experience buff
Outmanned 3:2= 1 current orb buff, 2:1 = 2 orbs, 5:2 or more = 3 orbs.

Voila. Two dead birds one orb (or stone).

in that case, why fight for the orb?

orbs tactical and strategic significance comes from the fact that they can boost your teams ability to fight, take that away, and orbs become irrelevant.

alcopaul.2156:

a.net wants to value their in game currency highly by setting a very low gem to gold conversion rate while they are playing oblivious to the fact that a precursor costs almost 900$ to acquire.

why do you keep saying this? Anet doesn’t set the gem→gold rate. the rate is set by players, though the mechanisms of buying gems with gold and gold with gems.

you glitched

that says you did not complete your october monthly. assuming that you in fact did complete the monthly, your thing is glitched.

1. if you use the TP at all, you are affected by bots, as they affect the economy

2. bots affect you if they take up slots in WVW that might be use by legit players (they do bot in WVW)

3. 90% of botters are hackers, and I would estimate the 70% of hacks are aimed at facilitating bots, so they are going after hackers as well botters, as they are one and the same.

I thought one of the puposes (IMO the main pupose) to commander icons is to orginize the zergs. and why does being in a large guild suddenly make you fit to do that? I was the leader of a small friends guild until it fell apart. now It’s a one man guild. does this make me somehow less fit to lead in WVW then some PVE commander whos taken it into his head to pop into WVW?

welcome!

word of advice, avoid the forums. the in-game community is much nicer

Lyuben.2613:

Lande.5782:

Alright, so you want to ignore the majority of the lore surrounding the Charr and say they want to blinding worship any powerful being.

In that case you have a very boring enemy.

Dude, the point of wanting them to be the main enemy obviously means that you have to ignore the lore that affects them now… it should have been fairly obvious to you.

You can’t have a parallel universe where Charr are the main enemy, and somehow you want the lore from now to affect them. Different time, different lore.

And I don’t think they would be boring. Undead are boring. Charr would be much better.

I get that undead are boring, but what makes Charr interesting? what differentiates them from,say, Warcraft Orcs?

(personal side note. are you the same lyuben from the guru forums?)

ZeroLC.7893:

kitanas.3596:

ZeroLC.7893:

There are titles based on every PvE action, and most of the titles in WvW are PvE related. The only title purely based on kills is the first one and it caps out after 5,000 kills and it’s one title.

I’m not sticking around for years killing dolyak’s just to earn a ‘Yakslapper’ title, and neither will most people who have come here for RvR. They’re cutesy titles that are based on trivial PvE actions. Why would it be bad to want a ranking/tracking system for WvW?

I’m sorry, assaulting stonemist is a ‘trivial PvE action’? and if all you care about is th kills, I’m not sure if I want you an your RvR fans. killing people is incidental to what WVW is about. WVW is about taking and holding objectives.

How many times have you assaulted Stonemist ? With already long queues for Eternal (mostly for the jumping puzzle), how often do you really get to assault Stonemist or let alone have a chance to defend it as most of the times when it switches hands, it’s during odd hours when normal people who have jobs and lives have to sleep? Why must I be relegated to WvW a specific way to earn titles that you can only select one at a time and really isn’t visible to anyone else, as opposed to some type of point system that can allow me to take Stonemist and earn some type of point system that goes towards my ranking and displayed title above my name that every opposing enemy can see? Why do you have an issue with players requesting a title/tracking system that only goes to serve to create additional competition between servers and players for a long period of time? Isn’t that what this game was designed around, and at it’s essence is what it’s supposed to be about?

more than you might think, considering I am a college student and thus can play at those “odd hours”

I am not inherently against title tracking system so long as it is done right. that means that it encourages you to play the objective and do whats best for the server to win. ad that’s the rub, because that is such a nebulous concept, what it entails is so complex and dynamic, that a simple stat could never encompass it. you are complaining about people going to EB for the jumping puzzle. I would have the same issue with people who were on to farm RR.

ZeroLC.7893:

There are titles based on every PvE action, and most of the titles in WvW are PvE related. The only title purely based on kills is the first one and it caps out after 5,000 kills and it’s one title.

I’m not sticking around for years killing dolyak’s just to earn a ‘Yakslapper’ title, and neither will most people who have come here for RvR. They’re cutesy titles that are based on trivial PvE actions. Why would it be bad to want a ranking/tracking system for WvW?

I’m sorry, assaulting stonemist is a ‘trivial PvE action’? and if all you care about is th kills, I’m not sure if I want you an your RvR fans. killing people is incidental to what WVW is about. WVW is about taking and holding objectives.

if your not to attached to your mesmer, re-roll warrior+greatsword. 100b=win

ZeroLC.7893:

kitanas.3596:

ZeroLC.7893:

kitanas.3596:

ZeroLC.7893:

That’s the point, you make the ceiling very high for progression, so that by the time people reach it, you’re already months down the road and they can raise the ceiling again. eg; daoc went to rr (realm rank)10, which took people years to achieve, and after it got to be more of a commonplace, they expanded to rr12, I believe, and currently (although I haven’t played in years) the cap is now rr13. Hence, the carrot on a stick.

http://camelotvault.ign.com/wiki/index.php/Realm_Ranks_and_Titles

but if the progression curve is infinite, then eventually power creep will make it mandatory. and mandatory grind is something areanet was specifically against.

But it’s simply a title progression curve, nothing more, nothing less. It’s not mandatory by any means, it just gives people who want to WvW more incentive to work towards something. If GW2 is the equivalent of an FPS mentality type of mmo, even the most successful FPS games have ranking systems and unlocks. BF3, CoD, MoH…they all have it. The gun unlocks make games slightly unbalanced until you’ve put enough time in, but the ranks themselves don’t affect the gameplay or make you better outside of the weapon unlocks. Skill still prevails.

but doesn’t every acheivment track in WVW already have titles? why aren’t you working for those?

They have a single achievement title, which happens after 5,000 WvW kills, and shows up only if you select it as a title, as you get titles for most everything. Combat healer for healing a certain amount of people. Been there, done that for people who did 100% map completion. There are actually titles designated for PvP (ie; Gladiator, Mercenary, Avenger, Ransacker, etc), but not for WvW, we only get Realm Avenger. But again, it only shows up if you click on the person, and look at the title underneath their character bar. Titles should show up as names of the invaders. So instead of just ‘invader from xyz server’, it’d be nice to get something like the PvP titles/ranks to appear above your head so it says something like ‘Mercenary from xyz server’ or whatever title GW2 decides to designate for each rank.

At least that way, you have an idea of who and what you’re going up against.

uh actually there are multiple titles. If you look at the WVW acheivment page, the place where there is a number there is a crown, which signifies a title. there are titles for attacking/defending specific types of objective, using supply, and hunting/protecting dolyaks.

as for how visible they should be, I don’t actually have an opinion on that.

ZeroLC.7893:

kitanas.3596:

ZeroLC.7893:

That’s the point, you make the ceiling very high for progression, so that by the time people reach it, you’re already months down the road and they can raise the ceiling again. eg; daoc went to rr (realm rank)10, which took people years to achieve, and after it got to be more of a commonplace, they expanded to rr12, I believe, and currently (although I haven’t played in years) the cap is now rr13. Hence, the carrot on a stick.

http://camelotvault.ign.com/wiki/index.php/Realm_Ranks_and_Titles

but if the progression curve is infinite, then eventually power creep will make it mandatory. and mandatory grind is something areanet was specifically against.

But it’s simply a title progression curve, nothing more, nothing less. It’s not mandatory by any means, it just gives people who want to WvW more incentive to work towards something. If GW2 is the equivalent of an FPS mentality type of mmo, even the most successful FPS games have ranking systems and unlocks. BF3, CoD, MoH…they all have it. The gun unlocks make games slightly unbalanced until you’ve put enough time in, but the ranks themselves don’t affect the gameplay or make you better outside of the weapon unlocks. Skill still prevails.

but doesn’t every acheivment track in WVW already have titles? why aren’t you working for those?

well the orbs can make matches more fun in an even match. and if a server is so much better then both of it’s opponents, then the orb buff is not going to make that much of a difference