Guild Wars 2

I thought HS got a nerf in the april patch? Or am I trippin’?

Reigne Irkalla.4768:

Probably because people would QQ about not being on the top server…

Because they don’t stop to think that if they join a lower tier server, that they could be the change that boosts it to the top.

Quite frankly, people don’t care about being competitive when it comes to PPT. They seem to only care about the “easy wins” – that is, the server that pulls ahead by 50k points on the weekends.

But hey, with how people are being raised today – ie, getting a medal for just participating in RL – I can’t say I’m surprised. It’s created a generation of entitled feeling bums who hitch rides on the coattails of others.

I agree. I suppose it’s also a point of pride, or bragging rights. “I’m on the top #1 server in GW2! I must be awesome!!” It doesn’t really serve any purpose, but makes them feel better about themselves.

All in all though, it doesn’t matter which tier server you are on, as long as you enjoy playing. And if being on the top tier servers means its fun, and anything less isn’t fun….well you might want to rethink somethings….

Traits are unlocked on a per character basis, meaning with each new character, you will have to unlock their traits. Unless you are power leveling, you can get most of them just playing the game and exploring. Also you can buy them for gold and skill points via your professions trainers.

I recently power leveled my ele, and then went back to unlock the traits. Most of them are fairly easy to get, and don’t take much time. Although there are a few that you have to wait for a meta event, but if you are lucky, it shouldn’t be a problem.

Wait, if the game is bleeding players, and WvW is as good as dead, why would they need to raise server caps? Also is there any proof, or patch notes, or anything points to server caps being raised? And if they are indeed being raised, how is this a bad thing? New players coming on, want to play with their friends, who happen to be in the “top 4-5 servers”. Denying those players the opportunity to play with their friends, because it makes WvW “unbalanced” is a good thing because?

People in those servers either chose them at random when starting the game 2+ years ago, joined their friends on those servers, or transfered with their guild for WvW. Other left those servers for the same reasons. But there is no reason to believe that the server caps are being raised, or that there is a huge population imbalance.

Just as a side point, concerning the phrase “when the day breaks”. Orr, being a kingdom of faith, and a highly religious people, that phrase, and the use on gravestones, would seem to point more to the belief in an afterlife. The usage would appear to be more of a benediction or blessing to those who have departed. Similar to the Christian prayers/blessings/benedictions at funerals that refer to the resurrection, and waking at the end of time to recieve eternal life.

There is a New Krytan translator app for andrioid. Going to check it out and see what it says!!!

Valentin.2073:

pdavis.8031:

Wait….Eles are OP!?
I’ve been playing my ele in tpvp and seemed to get reckt more often then not! I had no idea they were OP! ZOMG!!!!!!!!11

Seriously though, I generally play staff ele, and hadn’t noticed it was OP. I’ve faced D/D eles with my warrior/necro/ranger and taken down quite a few, but also got killed myself more times then I care to admit. Does this mean they are OP? Nope. I got killed by a mesmer the other day too, that must mean mesmers are OP and needs to be nerfed.

I am not the greatest PvP player ever, but if I can survive a D/D ele and kill them, using any class, then they certainly are not OP.

Dude, we are not just talking about 1v1. Are all eles’ defensive statements like these? O.o

Who said anything about 1v1? I try to avoid 1v1 if I can, I’m just not that good. I’d say 80% of the 1v1s I get into, I die. This should tell you about how much of a NOT good player I am. That being said, If I can survive, and kill a D/D ele in a 2v1, or better, then that doesn’t speak to the OPness of the class. I have killed a few D/D eles in 1v1s (not often, but a few times) then it’s not OP. OP would mean that in 3v1, 2v1, or even 1v1 the Ele would come out on top at least 90% of the time. But that is simply not true.

There are 3 professions I worry about when playing tpvp. Mesmer, thief, and ranger. Pretty much ignore eles, warriors, guards, and necros. (Although engis can be trouble IF they are going full turrets, otherwise they aren’t too terrible) I can get that celestial runes + might stacking can give the ele a HUGE edge in a match, but without that they seem to be on the “meh” level.

Wait….Eles are OP!?
I’ve been playing my ele in tpvp and seemed to get reckt more often then not! I had no idea they were OP! ZOMG!!!!!!!!11

Seriously though, I generally play staff ele, and hadn’t noticed it was OP. I’ve faced D/D eles with my warrior/necro/ranger and taken down quite a few, but also got killed myself more times then I care to admit. Does this mean they are OP? Nope. I got killed by a mesmer the other day too, that must mean mesmers are OP and needs to be nerfed.

I am not the greatest PvP player ever, but if I can survive a D/D ele and kill them, using any class, then they certainly are not OP.

But….But…That would make it pay to win!! Because this game is all about skins and appearances!!

Seriously now, I think that would be awesome! I change my looks on my toons often enough, but always worry about having extra charges to do it, especially for low level characters. I don’t like waiting until lvl 80 to be able to play with my looks. I would be all for something like this.

I didn’t find the rewards lacking. But for me, having everything opened, and being able to travel anywhere, at anytime, totally made it worthwhile. I have some alts without full map completion and I find it to be irritating that I still have to run to certain areas from time to time.

Harper.4173:

Sariel V.7024:

Blude.6812:

Aedelric.1287:

Astralporing.1957:

Bloodstealer.5978:

I would say this kind of thread warrants a CDI.. but that of course wont happen

There was a CDI about rewards already. Didn’t help any, of course.

Has the CDI ever accomplished anything?

I respect Chris and his attempt at communicating with the fans, but I have never seen anything substantial implemented in game as a direct result from the CDI.

Exactly! +1.

He promised a top 10 list of additions resulting from the CDI.

When it came time to deliver, he put it it off for a day.

A few days later, it was put on permanent hiatus until after the Guild CDI.

In other words, we’re never going to see it.

No guys – that negative thinking.
I’m sure it’s going to come right after the Fractal Leaderboards. Those of you who’ve been here long enough will know.

Was that before mounts, but after precursor crafting? Or was it with an expansion, but not before Cantha?

Well this presents a moral choice for the characters. As heroes, do we whip and beat the slaves to work harder? Or find an alternate method to complete the task? I like some “grey” areas in games where I have to make a choice. (I tend to see most of everything in terms of black and white) Events like this, I feel, do more to present a Living World, then the Living Story ever will. It shows that everything in the world isn’t all “hunky dory”, and that there are moral issues within the world, that the NPCs, as well as the PCs, are forced to deal with on a daily basis.

While I agree that “Bad” farmers can create a inhospitable environment, I do not agree that removing or nerfing champ bags would be a good way to combat this.

I like the idea of granting rewards only at the end of the chain, however, those that are just passing through and happen to come across an event in the middle of the chain, do the event and carry on their merry way, won’t be rewarded for completing that event.

I was thinking about a solution, of course this is just a random idea, and I don’t know how well it will be recieved, but what about scaling down events after a fail? So event A is completed, and can spawn several champs. Event B starts, but is intentionally failed to restart event A. When event A restarts, it no longer spawns champs, and spawns elites instead. Another failure of B respawns vets, and so on. Maybe also have events scale up as you progress the chain. Event A spawns 1 champ, event B spawns 2, Event C spawns 3, and so on. Add in a reduced cool down for the chain so farmers can be happy, those who want to do the chain can be happy, and everyone wins.

This way, champs can still be farmed, and there is far less incentive to fail events, and more incentive to actually complete the events.

I use the forge sometimes for linen and silk…converting karma for the win!!

SlateSloan.3654:

if you plan to run 2 gaming pcs at a time raises the question for me if it might be just cheaper regarding power usage and save time to buy gems and convert them to gold.

how long you plan to farm each week , bow much loot will you gain in that time and how much loot do you need at all? what does it cost to run the pcs during that time?

Well he doesn’t really need to run 2 PCs at the same time. He should just be able to use the alternate log in info on the same client, run the bosses, send a mail, log out, then in again with the other account. He will only be using one account at a time, not multiboxing (which would not be a good idea) or running a seperate machine to do so.

high to max level crafting is probably the most “profitable” in terms of gold (i.e. lvl 400-500), unless you are in a hurry and choose to buy all the mats needed off the TP. But ascended armor is also REALLY nice to have, but not required except for high level fractals. Ascended weapons are a great boost over exotic though.

I crafted my whole set of ascended armor and weapons, mainly as a long term goal, and something to do. I had fun and it was worth the time spent for me. Other may not feel the same way though, and consider it a complete waste of time and money.

Nice!! Yeah their customer service is awesome! (unless you are being a kitten about everything, but even then, they are still great!)

As already suggested, but having the party leader be unable to be kicked, must approve those you join, and is the final say on a kick regardless of majority, would be the best way to stop dungeon/party griefers.

FeralOne.1093:

TY for the quick response! I only PVE so I’m assuming the Snow Leopard is comparable to the Jaguar, but would a Wolf be able to fear enemies in PVE? Or is that ability reserved for PVP only?

The wolf has that skill in any game mode. However, for PvE it’s not as effective as in PvP where use a method to get an enemy of you is sometimes essential for survival.

I think it’s amusing that we are still discussing this after the dev response said that this was acceptable. Of course, the comment about the brother was after that statement, I still believe that the devs statement on the matter still holds true, as only one person is using said account, regardless if that person is the one who registered it. It doesn’t say anywhere that only the registered user can use the account. A similar situation would be a parent buying a copy for their kid. The kid doesn’t have an email, and thus cannot register the game. So the parent registers it for them, but only the kid plays on that account. Now according to some, this would be against the ToS, and thus illegal, and bannable.

It would appear that it is an issue on PayPals end more than anything. I would try communicating with them to see what is going on, and perhaps they can do something about it.

Yalora Istairiea.6287:

Unfortunately, as soon as you said “and my brother”, well… you just admitted to the illegitimate past use of that account.

Is that the distinct sound of Dhuum’s sharpening stone I hear?

Well not necessarily, if he bought the account, and had it registered under his name for his brother, then him, and not the brother is the legitimate owner of the account. Also, account sharing is not exactly illegal, it’s a really bad idea, because if the person you are sharing with decides to delete everything, there is nothing ANET can do about it when the other member objects. (See “evil little brother effect”).

While I can see it being frustrating having the same match ups, I don’t see anywhere where it was stated that you would never play another world more than once.
From the announcement page:
“Our next tournament will be an extremely intense, exciting four-week-long tournament battle. The shorter format will ensure that worlds will not be repeatedly matched against one another, which will more closely resemble a true Swiss-style tournament. Each matchup will be unique, and every win—or upset—will make a huge difference!”

I do see that the words “repeatedly” and “unique” were used. Maybe to me, but repeatedly means more then 3 times. Having the same match up once doesn’t mean that it’s “repeatedly”. And unique? Well yeah, of course it’s unique. You faced them once before, and should know a bit more of how they operate, and how to counter them. It’s not going to be the same fight as it was before (that is if you took notes, and tried to learn what worked, and what didn’t).

In short. I don’t feel Anet lied, or was trying to mislead, by that statement, and it’s just misinterpreted as an excuse to rant and rage about it.

Decrypter.1785:

Shockwave.1230:

How is PvP not viable for normal players?

4v5 , people had enough , no in game ladders , no progression , same game format , should i carry on ?

A lack of these things (and the inclusion of others) doesn’t mean that it isn’t viable for normal players. As a normal player, I am not too concerned with progression/ladders/ranks/etc. I play because I find it fun. Although I haven’t had much experience in a 4v5 situation as I generally play team pvp, not solo q.

As far as progression, I found it to have good progression, thats what the dungeon tracks are for. The more I play, the more rewards I get.

Basically it’s not so much as pvp isn’t for normal players, it’s that if you are concerned about such things, then I wouldn’t classify you as a normal player.

LightOfTheMoon.4261:

But what I was talking about was…

Lachanche.6859:

HOWEVER, i was talking about an even more specific situation, a situation where someone from your team stubbornly keeps going far, he doesn’t care whether your team already has 2 points or if his presence is needed elsewhere, he just wants to win that duel with the far holder and he loses everytime.

This is something you should never do regardless of whatever.

This is exactly the type of situation I’m talking about. If someone does this, he’s only hurting his own team.

Yeah, kinda like the bearbow rangers in pug dungeon groups who don’t know what they are doing :P
I can see it being bad, but if it’s a good 1v1 player, who can cap the point, and keep it, I don’t see anything wrong with it.

Lachanche.6859:

I see you have not experienced what i am talking about, let me break it down for you.
If you push far you take a gamble. Will our close holder go mid so that we can have 1v1 + 4v4 or will he stay close so that we have 1v1 + 3v4 ?
If you win your gamble then it’s a 50% 50% situation, if you lose your gamble the game is lost.
No way your team will regroup, everyone will keep rushing one by one and by going far you will have single handedly destroyed every chance your team had to win.

So it’s either a 50% 50% split where you could win far by leaving close undefended or a 100% certain defeat situation.

Why would you take such a risk ? It’s not something you can afford in solo queue.
Even if you are a thief you are much better attacking a priority target like a necro or a mesmer on mid, this way your team is more likely to win the teamfight and you avoid to bet the outcome of the entire match in the first minute of the game.

HOWEVER, i was talking about an even more specific situation, a situation where someone from your team stubbornly keeps going far, he doesn’t care whether your team already has 2 points or if his presence is needed elsewhere, he just wants to win that duel with the far holder and he loses everytime.

This is something you should never do regardless of whatever.

I occasionally push far in team pvp (don’t have much experience in solo q) and sometimes it works, others not so much. At the very least it does help draw pressure off of other points. I suppose solo q is much different though.

•24 hour coverage •How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?

•Snowballing •How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?

•Stagnation •How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead?
•How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind?

I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now. I haven’t read all the posts, so I may be duplicating some suggestions.

24/7 coverage: Aside from the suggestion that was brought up, about making points basically worth less during non peak hours, I am not sure how this could effectively be implemented. What are “peak” and “non peak” hours? Are the worlds that are able to provide “non peak” coverage playing on their worlds “peak times”? With the variance of time zones, and EU players on NA servers, and NA players on EU servers, this makes it very difficult to regulate. So while server A and C might be on traditional PST peak times, server Bs peak time happens to be non peak for A and C. So you would in essence be punishing server B for not being able to field enough players at the right time. This brings it into the set times for world bosses. Many players were effected by this, and as it is now, with my play times, I haven’t been able to do certain bosses. The same thing would happen here. As a possible solution I would suggest maybe matching up servers with similar peak times, as well as maybe initially matching players to servers that match their average play times as a reccomendation when selecting servers. Of course they still have the option to transfer, or select another server,but knowing that a different server means that their play times generally do not fall into that servers peak times.

Snowballing: Maybe put a cap on how many points you can get from stuff that you hold. Say, you only get points for 3 ticks on what you hold, then you stop getting points for those. In order to get more points, you need to take more stuff. However, to prevent constant flipping, add points for successful defense. You would need to change how the defense events work, so that it only triggers when walls/gates are tagged with seige, instead of a couple of players just tagging the gate with a ranged weapon. Of course reward more points for longer defenses. So a seige that lasts 20 min. give more points then a seige that lasts for 5.

Stagnation: The defense I feel will help with this. Instead of being so far ahead that you don’t care about defense, and just flip objectives back and forth, why not grant a bonus chest for successful defense as well? So players can still feel rewarded for actively doing something even if they are dominating.

These are just brain storming suggestions, and of course may not be the best options, but I’m just throwing them out there to consider. Thanks!

Lachanche.6859:

Players who stubbornly keep rushing far and dieing 1v1 leaving everyone else to fight an outnumbered fight: stop.
Just
stop.

Leaving which team in an outnumbered fight? Your team, or theirs?

If it’s theirs, then it’s a legitimate diversionary tactic.
If it’s yours, then learn to 1v1 better and you can gain an advantage.

The only reason I can think of anyone trying to cap far at the beginning, is to draw off rescourses from else where. I use this tactic from time to time myself. Yeah, I may get killed, but I can generally draw 1-2 off of mid to help my team take it. If it doesn’t draw any off of mid, then we get the cap, and a few extra points.

I had something similar happen. A guildie was gifting ectos to people, and he sent a mail to me, but I never got it. I wasn’t too concerned with it, but neither was he, and we didn’t think twice about it afterwards.

world bosses for ecto are a great way to go. Don’t forget about exotic dungeon armor as well for ecto and dark matter (which you’ll also need). As far as silk farming? I found flame legion near the Citadel of Flame dungeon to be an excellent source for that. They drop bags, which contain silk, and salvagable items which also produce silk. Don’t forget to salvage any light armor gear you find as well, and dungeons are fantastic for that.

Have your friend submit a ticket, and remove his name from your post. They can’t do anything until your friend does that.

I feel you there. We played a tpvp match, and the enemy team went AFK, except for 1 player, after taking and holding 1 point for a few ticks before wiping. Of course we won, 502 to 8. But I feel bad for the losing side. I don’t even want to call it a victory. :/

ameziz.4291:

pdavis.8031:

jakobomoto.1529:

does this work with windows 8 as well im not a very very good with computers and cant figure this thing out

if anyone can help thank you.

Try selecting an item in your inventory, and right clicking, and select sell at trading post. Apparently this will work as well.

it does, but i want the normal TP to work.. :/

Yeah, but as soon as they address this bug, and I am sure they are, its a temp fix until it gets taken care of.

jakobomoto.1529:

does this work with windows 8 as well im not a very very good with computers and cant figure this thing out

if anyone can help thank you.

Try selecting an item in your inventory, and right clicking, and select sell at trading post. Apparently this will work as well.

Wanze.8410:

pdavis.8031:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/Trading-Post-with-IIS7-screen-Fixed/first#post4464181

A fix was posted here. Hopefully it helps.

Alternatively, just rightclick an item in your inventory/collectible tab and select sell/buy more on trading post. That should open the tp ui.

nice! That might be a better solution for now, if you don’t feel comfortable deleting rand system files.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/Trading-Post-with-IIS7-screen-Fixed/first#post4464181

A fix was posted here. Hopefully it helps.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/Trading-Post-with-IIS7-screen-Fixed/first#post4464181

Also for those who don’t to watch videos….

Demara Morvick.4810:

Thank you pdavis. That link fixed it for me

Sweet!!! I am useful!! I suppose there is some good to lurking on the forums all day :P

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/Trading-Post-with-IIS7-screen-Fixed/first#post4464181

Some others were having the same issue, and apparently found a fix for it.

I got a key from PS story 40, and 2 ticket scraps in the same chest. I don’t know about you, but that is a major increase in the drop rate as far as I am concerned.

Wasn’t there a thread awhile back, before the merger of the WvW/PvP dailies with the PvE dailies, bascially saying that there were too many dailies, and because there were so many, over so many different game modes, that they had a hard time trying to do them, and felt compelled to do a certain mode that they didn’t necessarily enjoy, just to "stay relevent" on the AP leaderboards, or something?

In any event, unless you are chasing APs, the daily achievements don’t really mean much, and are generally gotten with normal play, without going out of your way too much, if it all. Adding more dailies, I think would only server to help those who are chasing them reach the daily limit cap just that much quicker, and cause others to feel that there are too many, and can’t get their daily 5 to get the laural through normal gameplay.

Silver Myst.2860:

pdavis.8031:

Silver Myst.2860:

I think its strongly against the spirit of the game if two teams are coordinating to fix the outcome of the game. This is a competition to see who the best players of the game and or tactical game moves. We have seen a fantastic level of evolution of strategies and game mechanics and yet people who are just in the game for the loot and not to enjoy the game as it is intended are ruining it by fixing the outcome.

I completely understand A + B beats C week 1, maybe even on week 2 too. But then A pulls ahead and suddenly B+C beats A (week 3) and then anything can happen. But if A+B beats C for weeks in a row, even after A has grown a massive lead is just ridiculous. What’s the point of playing on server C? What about the players who enjoy playing WvW on server C?

But making an alliance with an enemy to defeat another enemy is a legitimate, and historical, tactic. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” sound familiar? Russia and US toward the end of WWII? If server A feels threatened by, or unable to take server B, why shouldn’t they make a truce with server C? So instead of trying to fight on 2 fronts, they sided with one side to take on the one they feel is a greater threat. I am sure there is much negotiation that goes on for such alliances. What is in it for server C? Why should they side with server A, and not B? If they side with A, does A let them take first? or should they settle for second?

I don’t see it as “fixing the outcome”. More like “taking a safety net so they don’t get totally beaten out.”

I’m no history buff but I thought there was more than 3 countries in the 1940’s…

Of course there were more then 3 countries. My point though, was the historical significance of two countries “teaming up” to take on a third. And the major players that took out Germany at the end of the war, were the US and Russia. They agreed to work together to achieve that end, however after that, Russia claimed 1/2 of Berlin, and the US ceded the rest back to Germany. Thus the Berlin wall, and the beginning of the “Cold War”.

Silver Myst.2860:

I think its strongly against the spirit of the game if two teams are coordinating to fix the outcome of the game. This is a competition to see who the best players of the game and or tactical game moves. We have seen a fantastic level of evolution of strategies and game mechanics and yet people who are just in the game for the loot and not to enjoy the game as it is intended are ruining it by fixing the outcome.

I completely understand A + B beats C week 1, maybe even on week 2 too. But then A pulls ahead and suddenly B+C beats A (week 3) and then anything can happen. But if A+B beats C for weeks in a row, even after A has grown a massive lead is just ridiculous. What’s the point of playing on server C? What about the players who enjoy playing WvW on server C?

But making an alliance with an enemy to defeat another enemy is a legitimate, and historical, tactic. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” sound familiar? Russia and US toward the end of WWII? If server A feels threatened by, or unable to take server B, why shouldn’t they make a truce with server C? So instead of trying to fight on 2 fronts, they sided with one side to take on the one they feel is a greater threat. I am sure there is much negotiation that goes on for such alliances. What is in it for server C? Why should they side with server A, and not B? If they side with A, does A let them take first? or should they settle for second?

I don’t see it as “fixing the outcome”. More like “taking a safety net so they don’t get totally beaten out.”

Xillllix.3485:

pdavis.8031:

Maybe people just don’t like to WvW there…who knows.

To WvW where? The game supposedly has something called “Megaserver” technology for PvE.

Server populations should concern WvW only.

The should, but apparently they don’t. What I was saying though is say Stormbluff Isle (just for sake of illustration) is shown as a full server, but in terms of WvW population they are sevearly lacking, and have a difficult time fielding 50 players at any given time. This doesn’t stop the server from being full, as there are enough players who selected SBI as a home server. Thus their player information is stored on that server, which counts toward the server population. Megaserver only really effects where one plays in PvE.

But I don’t see how to determine which players play enough WvW to have it count toward server population. Sometimes PvEers jump into WvW, maybe to check it out, or for map completion, or easy travel/crafting/etc. Do you need to spend x amount of hours within WvW to be eligable to count toward population? Also if you are not counted toward server population, where is your characters information stored? From what I understand, server population is another way of saying server HDD space. So when a server is listed as “full” That means the server has run out, or close to running out, of HDD space reserved just for character information. But then again I could be wrong about all of this so…..

I wouldnt mind bigger and better legendary effects, but before that, we NEED to have the option to turn down/off particle effects on our side. Some of those boss events there are so many particle effects going on you can’t even see the boss, and the only way to tell if you are close enough is if you are seeing numbers. And with such lag because of those effects, it makes certain bosses almost unplayable.

Not bad. But it would still be a cap, and not so much of a quota. Even if you increase the cap it would still be gated. The only thing that would change is once a month there would be a huge influx of damask/deldrimor/spirit wood in the market, instead of a more steady influx of those components each day.

A quota imples the minimum required each day. While i agree that the time gate does make it more difficult to obtain, changing it i feel would cause more problems especially in the market than its worth.

Also the same naming conventions can be found in books, movies, TV shows, etc.

“Great expectations”: It’s not about a person that has some expectations of something. It’s about a boy who performed an act of kindness for someone and was rewarded.
“The big bang Theory”: You would expect a show about the origins of the universe. Nope, it’s about a group of nerdy guys.
“The Lord of the Rings”: A story about a hobbits journey to destroy The One Ring, and how a ranger reclaims his throne.

And so on and so forth….

Manasa Devi.7958:

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

Manasa Devi.7958:

Naming a game after a completely and utterly irrelevant bit of history that has no bearing on anything found in the game itself would be an act of idiocy of a magnitude so enormous, I can’t believe anyone writing a game would fall victim to it.

Mass Effect. Everquest. Dragon Age. The Elder Scrolls. Shall I continue?

Fell free to continue. I haven’t a clue what you’re trying to say though.

He’s saying that these titles have nothing to do with content within the game itself. So your post about naming a game based on nothing to do with anything within the game is “an act of idiocy of a magnitude so enormous, I can’t believe anyone writing a game would fall victim to it.” is simply not true.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

pdavis.8031:

Also tell us the reasoning behind Final Fantasy! As this name has no bearing on anything found in the game, or the series. Kthnxbye!!

Actually, there’s a very good reason that the original game was called Final Fantasy! The story is pretty much that the producer had tried making a bunch of games, they all flopped, and he was ready to give up hope. So he said, “Okay, one last try. If this fails, I’m done.” So, in recognition of that, he named the game his “Final” Fantasy, as in the last one he would ever make, because he assumed it would fail as well.

Lo and behold, it was a massive hit, and it was the thing that skyrocketed his career into legendary status. Of course, every game after that was named so just because of brand recognition.

I know And I think it’s rather clever, and yes it turned out to be a FANTASTIC game! But with some of the arguments, that having a game name not based on anything to do with content within said game is an idiotic move, and game writers who do such things are basically incompetent. I just wanted to point out that that isn’t true in the slightest