Guild Wars 2

Geotherma.2395:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Geotherma.2395:

Hule.8794:

Hey Reaper, you are playing this game wrong. You cannot enjoy it, it cannot be fun for you. You need to quit RL, play as work so even your small guild can afford to buy influence. Or just spend real money every month and so. 100G is really cheap.

100gold via gems = about $90 :P

Well, hmmm. 100 gold via gems is about $90, farm it out among nine members to make it $10 each . . .

Doable, but I wouldn’t advise it.

This may sound silly, but I’ve spent like 60+ gold maxing out my personal guild I use for banners, just for fun :P I have almost every upgrade my 400+ member guild does heh

My new purpose in this game is to open a personal guild and earn all missions, despite being completely incapable of actually taking part in them.

It will be called Hubris.

Cyndarth.8702:

Two characters with 100% map, hundreds hours of play, and this is my first post ever because it’s the first time I’ve been arbitrarily locked out of content because of my MMO play style.

There goes my intimate guild of real-life friends. Yes, I’ve read all the arguments about how you can buy influence and if everyone spends a full day farming for money, you can buy your way into some of the guild missions, but that assumes that everyone in the guild has a high level of game dedication. Though we’ve got about 20 people in the guild, we probably only have 3 who are on at least every-other-day and I’m probably the only one logged in daily. We can organize group play with enough advanced notice. But this totally screws those of us who are very committed to the game, but also committed to our close group of friends who we prefer to play with.

Yes, being in multiple guilds and swapping your “representing” flag and hoping the bigger guild doesn’t kick you out for it is viable, but we shouldn’t have to jump through those kinds of hoops just to participate in these kinds of activities.

I’m happy joining PUGs for dungeons, but my preference for having a guild that is all close friends effectively walls me off from this content.

The only viable solution I see is to grant rewards for participation regardless of whether you are part of the guild that spawned the event.

If you’re one of a close-knit group of friends, why are you feeling so threatened by new shinies?

Friendship transcends shinies!

Geotherma.2395:

RayKoke.1638:

If not, I predict many more 30% off sales – which considering the game has only been out six months is IMHO a very bad omen.

I think your view of omens may be off. If discounts in early businesses is a indication of a failing business, then I’m wondering why Walmart, Petco, Gamestop, and about 3 Billion other stores have done so well when they had sales for the first 6 months – 1 year. >.>

How do furniture stores even exist? They’re always doing sales!

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

What can other people do to help you out?

I love you for asking this.

I’ve played the majority of my time on GW2 solo, for a bunch of reasons. Like, hundreds of hours solo.

But … Ok? I hope you have fun on your new game?

Loosifah.4738:

Also….this is what Colin actually said in that interview

Colin: […] But maybe one of the things that will come out of that is, “well, our guild’s going to do a tier 3 bounty and it takes a lot more people to do, so let’s get three guilds together and our guild will kick one off and you help us do ours and then we’ll help you do yours,” so each of the three guilds all work together to accomplish it. I think that kind of emergent game-play will hopefully come out of that, for sure […]

Honestly, I really hope that this is what people are going to end up doing, because initial feedback suggests a much more mercenary attitude to this, ie; ‘Only a bigger guild can get me what I want/what other people want’. The prospect of having smaller guilds work towards getting access to these missions seems to be putting a lot of people off, and that opinion’s based on observing attitudes towards the investment required, not necessarily any upset with the ‘manifesto’ (I swear that word’s going to take on a whole new connotation for the rest of my life because of this game).

It seems that the immediate reaction to this from members of smaller guilds is that their guilds will struggle to achieve these or even fall apart rather than the missions representing an opportunity for community building and stronger links between them all based on contribution and group effort. But I feel that smaller, tighter guilds might actually benefit from this more as a system, as communication between members will be absolutely vital for many of the missions described – not only in ensuring that they’re completed, but even timed so that folks can actually take part. Larger guilds could struggle to meet everyone’s expectations and desires, and we may see them fracture based on friends finding it more efficient to go after these rewards by themselves (based on rewards being gained from participation, not necessarily just being a member of the guild). As such, we might see homogenisation of guilds towards a a more efficient medium number of members in similar circumstances when it comes to time investment, communication methods and overall desires.

I’m a member of a smaller guild, and I also happen to be in a different time zone to the majority of the guild. I’m also fairly open to the idea of missing out on a majority of missions based on that alone – it’s no-one’s fault, and it was never going to be an efficient choice of mine. But even then, I’m not swept up in the misery just yet – I’m curious to see how this system will shape guilds for the future.

Oldgrimm.8521:

Hule.8794:

50000 influence? Really?

oh sad, our guild is kinda new, so we only have 22k >.<

time to buy guild influence for 20 gold = 20 k influence

I don’t know how small your guild is, but sharing that cost across its members will probably be worthwhile. Naturally you’d need to do that a couple of times to get access to all the missions, but unlocking a mission every week/ two weeks or so and doing it as a guild could be a fun way to manage things rather than just getting access to everything at once.

It sounds like a lot of points, but it’s not unachievable. You just kinda need to want it. It’s also obviously based on progression beyond just the influence requirements. In addition, it will form a clear delineation between small guilds willing to work together and earn the influence/gold necessary to gain access to these missions and small guilds not willing to do this – and the former could use their efforts as a recruiting tool. I might be being idealistic, but this strikes me as much about teamwork for smaller guilds outside of the missions as much as within, and I like that.

I feel like for every one of these threads, I need to drag your cage out to a field, open the door and let you go free.

But the cage door stays open so that you can come back after realising that I give you free food, shelter and pettings.

As an Asura, I’m sure my character would quite like a Norn mount so he can ride around on their shoulders.

Also, I can run him around LA spamming ‘BEEP BEEP’ and ‘THIS THING’S GOT GREAT MILES PER GALLON’.

The chickens were the real enemy all along.

Increased sense of self-esteem.

I don’t know why, but I generally prefer jumping puzzles when the route’s fairly obvious but the setting is interesting – obscure routes can frustrate sometimes, particularly when I have to leap to tiny ledges-that-may-not-be-ledges. I’ve liked all the puzzles I’ve tried so far despite this though, so it’s by no means a ‘no-go’ clause for me.

With that in mind, my favourites so far have been Winter Wonderland (the setting was so abstracted compared to the fairly seamless nature of many other JPs, and it got me in a holiday mood), Tribulation Rift Scaffolding (having the constant battle below was neat, and finding the route upwards without realising I was doing a puzzle until I reached the top was fun), Spekk’s Laboratory (interesting setting, forgiving combination of timed jumps and checkpoints) and Morgan’s Leap (because plants).

I’m surprised how much I enjoy the jumping puzzles. I had the feeling that they probably wouldn’t work, because I’ve been spoiled by platforming with wall running/jumping, hanging and other acrobatics. But the way that the puzzles blend into their surroundings, meaning that I can transition from wandering around to entering a puzzle without realising it has helped my immersion and I appreciate the effort people have gone to while being restricted to fairly rudimentary mechanics.

Gaudrath.6725:

One Prarie Outpost.4860:

There is no problem with wanting mounts. I’m glad that you want mounts. I want things to but I don’t keep making thread after thread after thread. It’s annoying. There is a “M word” thread in the Suggestion part of the forum… post there.

You and other want mounts… me and others do not. You’re saying that your want is more important than our want just because YOU want it. So what kind of “extremism” are you exhibiting? Debate tactics like that don’t help either.

The difference is that he wants extra features in the game and you, for some reason, want less, even though the option simply not to use mounts is always there (we do have those speed skills for a reason).

Extra features > fewer features. Simple.

I doubt it’s about ‘wanting fewer features’, it’s about differentiating the game from its peers/competitors, preferring something novel over the expected route and perhaps mindful that developer/art team time may well be better spent elsewhere.

I DON’T CARE.

Typing in caps makes me feel like I’m shouting.

Raine.1394:

Let me ask you a question. If they kept adding gear with a higher power level than the power level of the current gear, would there come a point where you would feel it was mandatory to acquire the new gear?

No, though depending on the following being met to some degree (though not all need be met, depending on the severity that some are ignored);

1) If the curve was shallow enough to be unnoticeable during my current style of play (which the progression from White -> Exotic has largely been for me);
2) If this gear did not restrict my access to content I enjoy, nor fundamentally restrict others from enjoying theirs;
3) If the community’s drive towards efficiency does not become aggressive. I try and act in a way that I would like to be treated, and I accept that there will always be a drive towards efficiency that I will always find off-putting (which is why I tend not to do dungeons, but that’s another story). I tend to believe that while game mechanics can encourage certain behaviours, there is a point where people should be self-aware enough to mitigate and manage their actions, and this is very strongly influenced by the greater community being able to moderate themselves. It happens;
4) If skipping tiers was compatible with my playstyle and resources, therefore avoiding locking me into a route from 1 -> 2 -> 3 instead of 1 -> 3.

Anyway, I don’t want to this turn into ‘Raine vs. Proxy: Another Thread About Two People’s Opinions Over Vertical Progression’. I think I’ve said my bit, so I’ll shut up now and stop barfing words everywhere. I don’t even fundamentally disagree with you, Raine – the problem is that I just think we’re looking at this thing from different perspectives and not managing to make our feelings meet in the middle. And if true, then that’s a shame.

Raine.1394:

Ascended gear was never an issue for me, per se, and the stat increase from the initially released pieces don’t mandate that I get them to be able to play the game on a par with other players that have them. But, they are simply the initial pieces. Vertical progression doesn’t progress by stopping. It gives players a sense of progression by progressing. That’s why you choose to add it to a game. And it progresses by periodically raising the power level of the game. This is what causes it to seem grindy; you know you must grind to keep up with the increasing power level of the game.

Arguing from the stat inflation of the initial Ascended items doesn’t really engage with grind issue that comes with vertical progression. I do find the argument that they are insignificant amusing though. It’s the first time I’ve seen the defense of a new game element based on its insignificance.

If you enjoyed the content of the game before the announcement of vertical progression, and you admit that the current status of the game does not mean that you are required to gain the items you associate with vertical progression to play on par with other players, I don’t fully appreciate the loss of faith in the design team. If they constructed an enjoyable game, there’s a substantial chance that they will be able to implement vertical progression in a baseline enjoyable manner regardless of our current associations with the term. And if they add new gear without making it mandatory, then both of us can continue playing (provided that you still do?) without it effecting us severely, as can others who feel the same.

I’m fine with logical arguments against vertical progression. I’m less comfortable with it being treated as a fall guy for developer decisions that simply don’t support what people personally find to be interesting in a game, on a purely subjective level, or that is used to give weight to people’s fears of the unknown.

And I never said that the Ascended gear stat bonuses were insignificant, though it could be argued that I said they’re insignificant to me. That remains true. As I’ve said, I’m more than comfortable for people to have a different opinion provided that they respect the relative significance of my own.

Raine.1394:

You are correct in your assumption around the crux of my argument. You have bolded the correct statement. However, it has nothing to do with “my” definition of it, it’s simply the generally understood definition of it. Vertical progression is, after all, a common element in gaming and people have been discussing it under some label for years. And, it truly is simple. We are not dealing with a complex issue. We can simply consider it in the context of horizontal vs vertical progression. I ran across a good discussion of the issues a while back. Have a look:

http://taugrim.com/2012/04/19/why-games-should-scale-horizontally-instead-of-vertically/

I’ve seen that post before, and I appreciate where it’s coming from. However, if the definition you have stated is the accepted definition in the development community, then it is being inappropriately applied to GW2 in the current game. Any vertical progression introduced via the Ascended gear is not currently mandatory, and while you might have fears that this will develop over time into something unavoidable, it’s still inaccurate to say that this is the current status of the game. If any vertical progression is considered non-mandatory (thus undermining the definition) then people are free to do as they like – chase horizontal goals for aesthetics, or vertical for efficiency.

Taking quotes for issues related to vertical progression directly from the link:

Vertical Progression Criticism
1) It’s grindy
2) It creates brackets. You can’t do content with other players unless your character levels / gear scores are sufficiently close
3) It causes power creep. Content is initially too difficult, but once players obtain the gear to do the content, it becomes progressively less difficult until it’s trivial
4) It creates dead zones and content. This happens when the bulk of active characters are at level cap and whenever expansions are released with new content

1) It may be ‘grindy’, but we seem to agree that a grind has both positive and negative connotations, depending on who you ask, so this need not be a negative thing. Furthermore, there are plenty of instances of horizontal grind in the game (Dungeon armours and Cultural armours being two). A grind need not be unenjoyable, and much of that is down to personal preference;
2) I’ve previously said that I and others can enjoy all of the content in the current game without investing in Ascended gear provided that we acknowledge the statistical imbalance between those on the lower and higher ends of the gear spectrum. This is an issue with what we value in our games and how we define our enjoyment – there are no instances of simply being unable to take part in anything in the game based on not having Ascended gear. It may become easier with it, but that is not the same thing;
3) This is not currently something we see in-game. I do not define higher level Fractals as ‘content’, as they’re based on repetition of content that anyone can enjoy. This is a potential issue, but not a current one;
4) Dead Zones are the result of many design choices, leveling, basic content and the drive towards player time vs reward efficiency being key amongst them.

Raine.1394:

What I have noticed around grinding is that there are optional and non-optional grinds. And, they come from how you choose to implement a sense of progression in a game. With horizontal progression (pre-11/15) all grinds are optional. With vertical progression (post-11/15) the grind is non-optional. By definition, with vertical progression there will come a point where the choice is do the grind or stop playing the game. It’s the introduction of vertical progression to GW that people are complaining about. Many people have been riding treadmills for years and came to GW2 for promised relief. I was one of those. I did get almost 3 months of relief and I am thankful for those 3 months. I am disappointed with the decision to add a mandatory gear grind to the game.

We’ve discussed this elsewhere, and while I’m not convinced any of us have much to gain from further discussion, I’ve a few minutes to kill before I have to head out.

I’ve bolded a specific sentence in your quote that acts as a fairly significant statement against vertical progression. I’m not about to suggest that it’s wrong – I’m sure that it applies enough to you to make it worth stating. However, I’d suggest that by boiling down what can be a complex issue into such a simple statement, you’re losing or removing the value. This is important when considering that it forms a crux of your argument.

You acknowledge that implementation is important when it comes to progression – I’d argue this applies as much to horizontal progression as vertical alone, but the distinct statistical associations of vertical tend to give it more weight. It’s harder to justify alienating players when it comes to simply allowing them to enjoy the game on a basic level, as vertical progression threatens to do, than restricting subjective horizontal content. In this case, however, the key word is ‘threaten’ – alienation is not yet truly in place, but the possibility is there. It’s a thing that could happen based on evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. However what threatens you does not necessarily threaten me, and just as I’m wrong in stating that everyone shouldn’t feel threatened, I can’t see how people are justified in stating that everyone should be, because our experiences in-game and the time we all spend are drastically different.

I’ve chosen to remove myself from the equation by not chasing Ascended gear. This is based on a reasonable estimation as to how long it would take me to gain from time spent gathering the items I need against the game time I have available. It’s not a protest – if I incidentally pick up gear during my usual play, I’m happy with that. Despite this, I do not feel alienated in my game time – I do not play to be, or remain statistically competitive, and this is entirely personal. If the danger of vertical progression is the threat of a non-optional grind, I currently consider it a groundless threat. For some, it may not be. Stating either as fact isn’t accurate. Your reliance on the use of a ‘mandatory gear grind’ to define vertical progression in negative connotations is open to criticism based on people’s playstyles and their goals. Even considering that a lot of mandatory actions in this game can be found enjoyable or satisfying tends to undermine this, just as non-mandatory actions can be irritating or unsatisfying.

Even if vertical progression, by your definition, was implemented on 15/11, that does not invalidate the content already enjoyed by many. Provided that one can still enjoy this content and more on a base level regardless of their tier of gear, it won’t. But the issue here is that what someone enjoys is not so easily defined, particularly when attempting to make simple fairly complex issues.

AwwGee.5628:

Pustulio.8207:

The difference doesn’t matter. You can beat this game in “greens” with little to NO problem. That ALONE, makes it optional.

It does. This is not subjective and based on opinion, it is objective and fact. with 1 more power I will deal 1 more damage than the guy next to me if he were doing everything the same. Simple as that.

By your reasoning everything is optional. You can enter dungeons at level 2 no problem, go ahead. You don’t even need to wear armor for anything. Troll away

The statistical increase is objective, but the necessity is not. This is a point that many of those who are stating that Ascended gear is ‘optional’ are trying to get to. At current, the statistical bonuses are not required to complete or take part in any content in the game, and your drive to remain effective is largely subjective and dependant on the things you find enjoyable in the game. You can play WvWvW in Whites and still enjoy it if you don’t mind the knowledge that many other people will have a greater statistical advantage over you. Remaining competitive is an option, and many have weighed the effort of acquiring Ascended gear against the benefits it can bring and decided that it’s not for them. I apologise if I’m not explaining this in a way that can’t be considered a ‘troll’, but many of us play games for different reasons. And if you don’t mind the knowledge that you’ll probably die, you can certainly attempt a dungeon naked and at level 2. I don’t really see how accepting that people enjoy different things is a ‘troll’.

Personally, I don’t much care for Ascended gear, and I likely won’t until I’m forced to; I’m currently not forced to. But if I pick up a piece or two via dailies and whatnot, that’s fine with me. I don’t care about being competitive, because nothing I enjoy demands I care, and nothing I’ve seen so far suggests that I ever will truly care.

Chuo.4238:

Vayne.8563:

Snip

You make a compelling argument. It would be really, really nice if ArenaNet came out and explained what their thinking and motivation really were. If it was this, or something similar, I would be ready and willing to forgive a LOT.

Unfortunately, they just don’t communicate if they don’t have to. I wish they’d wake up to the fact that if they were open with us, and were actually part of the community instead of aloof from it (like they were in Guild Wars), people like me would be a LOT more loyal, have more trust in their motivations, have faith in their direction, be a lot less combative and resistant to change, and a lot more forgiving.

There’s an issue in that many seem to expect human responses from an inherently non-human entity, ie; a business. The application of a business’ motivations to a more traditional community (such as is found in a video game) is often awkward, and it’s incredibly rare for representatives of said businesses to discuss stickier topics with the community. I’m honestly impressed that Devs have gone on record in stating that Ascended gear wasn’t implemented as well as it could have been – that sort of statement can lose customers, faith and support from backers. It can cost money. Some of us may respect it, but it’s always a risk.

However, consumers see familiar names scattered about public places, and they come to think of an entity as being a handful of people, expecting a more personal level of service and communication. That immediacy and intimacy are things that customer relations has spent decades getting to grips with, and the levels of which they’ve managed it vary wildly all over the place. To what level are the Devs we see on the forums capable of discussing thornier topics?

I’ve been in the position where I’ve made adjustments to a live game based on balance, but for reasons that I couldn’t get into beyond ‘It was broken before’. I’d had a pretty close relationship with my players, as it was a (very) small community, but as soon as I was unable to state precisely why we’d made the changes we had, in levels of detail that we feared would lead to abuse of the systems in play, the situation became difficult to deal with. People took it personally, because they knew us personally – and it felt that it was even more personal because this was something that people did for fun. And, as has been mentioned, there are always people within the decision-making machine that disagree with the decision, and dealing with that’s a whole other deal. This experience isn’t really representative of GW2, as it’s a far bigger game with much bigger issues, but if it’s comparable, then I sympathise.

Heck, despite Devs owning up to a past mistake with Ascended gear introduction, some people still insist that they were lying about a significant part of the apology. It’s maddening.

TL;DR: Communication between businesses and customers is tough, particularly when things get as personal as entertainment can be.

Out of sheer, bull-minded and potentially hazardous curiosity, does seeing miniatures out in combat areas also risk breaking the immersion of those complaining about the Dreamer?

Some of them are fairly ridiculous, and there’s no option to simply ignore them as far as I’m aware. Tiny Dredge Mining Suits; micro Priest of Balthazar; teeny Logan – they might not be considered as obnoxious as rainbow unicorns, but I’ve never seen anyone complain about these fairly blatant breaks in immersion that are far more common than the Dreamer before.

Does the pure saturation not have an impact on your enjoyment?

Chauncey von Snuffles III.

Want dat cat butt.

Avatar.1923:

anet doesnt care for their setting.

they would sell you a shield with a clown face on it if it brings money.

You really want that clown shield, huh?

TheDaiBish.9735:

Avatar.1923:

cheesy.

i want a shield with a clown face on it.

Isn’t this, like, the 10th time you’ve said this?

I just think they really want that clown-face shield.

Gehenna.3625:

Snip

That’s a big old post to say that you like different things to some people.

Scootabuser.4915:

Is now the official term for a boss you just use ranged weapons and dodge his attacks.

You’re not the boss of me! >:[

I like the concept of Fractals, but people’s drive towards hyper-efficiency turns me off. I don’t much care about Ascended gear (I don’t feel as though I need it), but if I ever do, Laurels will probably be how I get what I can.

Ironically, the people that run Fractals the most are also likely to be the people I want to run Fractals with the least.

Avatar.1923:

makes me smile ?

no. a bow that shoot unicorns and rainbows makes me sad.
hovering on brooms a la potter too.

i guess the game is not discriminating and EVERYBODY can find something they like, even the “different” peeps.

I see you can appreciate another person’s point of view. This is good. I think we’ve made real progress.

Now let’s make out.

Avatar.1923:

Scourge.4317:

Man people will complain about anything on these forums my god.

absolutely.

but if you like bows that shoot unicorns and rainbow in your fantasy mmo…
explain me… WHY ???

It’s fun. It makes me smile.

I like fun and I like smiling.

Why do you want me to be sad? ._.

An Endless Toymaker’s Tonic dropped for me within the first few days of the Wintersday event. I think I got it from Tixx’s chest, but I might be mis-remembering.

Anyway, I didn’t know what it was aside from a Tonic, and I never really use them anyway, so I stuck it on the TP for 35 gold with the hopes that someone else would enjoy it.

This was still early into the event. Over the next couple of days, it rose to around 60 gold.

Happy End: Now it’s back down to ~35. I expect it’ll get more valuable as time goes on, but I just like to think that someone who uses it more than I would has it sitting in their inventory (rather than a trader’s bank ._.)

Make everybody’s characters into Chauncey von Snuffles III.

I got bored of my baby when next-door bought their baby a new onesie that makes it look like a little dragon.

Traded my baby in for a new baby. Much happier.

somsom.5201:

proxy.7963:

BadHabitZz.1856:

stop trolling its small and ugly

It’s what you do with it that counts.

This is a silly comment. We are talking about a SKIN. How it looks is ALL that matters. The stats can be had from ANY exotic; the look…not so much.

I’m not sure if you understand innuendo.

BadHabitZz.1856:

stop trolling its small and ugly

It’s what you do with it that counts.

YOUR FACE IS ROUGH

>:[

(I’m sure your face is lovely)

I think this is the only time I could consider randomly rezzing someone to be trolling someone else.

Garambola.2461:

proxy.7963:

I can mine gold all over the place, so why is one gold coin worth more than one gold ingot? :[

ANet why

Actually, a gold coin must always be more valuable than the amount of gold put in it. Otherwise the coins would mysteriously disappear.
Also, I think our gold ingots are rather small. One ring can take quite a few ingots.

Psst it was jokes

‘World Versus World Versus World Versus Enemy Versus Player Wars: the Sequel to Some Other Game’.

gimmethegepgun.1284:

proxy.7963:

I can mine gold all over the place, so why is one gold coin worth more than one gold ingot? :[

ANet why

Well, when it takes 5 ingots to make a ring, they’re not exactly very big ingots, now are they?

Or they’re really big rings!

Maybe the dragons just ruined our sense of proportion.

Xynn.2748:

This is all (or mostly) due to the Godskull mystic forge “bug” (I use quotes because I am sure ANet built this in for themselves and their friends, and when the actual public found out – probably from 1 friend telling another – then they removed the “bug” —but not the items!).

I’m not commenting beyond this making me laugh and spilling water down my chin.

Thanks, now I look like a buffoon!

P.S. Prices are bound to crash if ANet ever implements a system of generating Precursors without reliance on RNG. But as others have said, the prices are only this high because people are apparently willing to pay (or the sellers are a little delusional), so I guess we’re all to blame or something?

I can mine gold all over the place, so why is one gold coin worth more than one gold ingot? :[

ANet why

Mad Rasputin.7809:

How could anyone possibly take me seriously if I equipped the Quip and shot bubbles and confetti at them? I want a more bad kitten pistol, please.

Specifications for New Legendary Pistol:
1) Must be at least twice the size of regular pistol, preferably three times;
2) Must be black. Design must be completely impractical. Spikes everywhere;
3) On fire too? Fire is bad kitten always on fire;
4) Shoots smaller pistols that then fire knives;
5) Needs to be loud. Make it sound like the roaring of an angry Norse God. I want to read reports of people’s ears bleeding;
6) Emotes when fired: ‘rulez r 4 foolz’. There is no way for other players not to have this emote appear in their chat window if the wielder is on the same map;
7) Sends whispers to wielder complimenting them on their prowess in love and war;
8) No-one understands how it works, like no-one understands your heart;
9) Unsure about the name, but it must involve a combination of at least four different bad kitten words, ie; ‘Wolf’, ‘Midnight’, ‘Slaughter’, ‘Blood’, ‘Axe’. No, it does not matter if it is a pistol with the word ‘Axe’ in its’ name.

I expect my royalty cheque in the post for designing this masterpiece.

The concept of a big, tough, beardy Norn shooting rainbows at people makes it more appealing to me. I’m fine with folks not feeling the same, but the juxtaposition and the absurdity in it will probably result in me chasing a Legendary longbow if I ever get the precursor, rather than sell it on for something a little more conventional.

Tom Gore.4035:

It would be trivial to […]

It’s best not to presume that actions will be trivial without being in the position to actually implement those actions. I’ve only been involved in very cursory, minor development roles, but for every ‘This would be easy to do!’, there’s a door that closes between player and developer that is tough to reopen. Try to understand that while something might seem easy to do, that doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Tom Gore.4035:

… restrict the bases to one per guild and then adjust the cost of acquiring and maintaining the bases so that the biggest forts and towns could only be claimed and kept by bigger guilds. Also, as the PvP would be voluntary, guilds could choose whom to fight and whom to “ignore”. This would allow many opportunities to form roleplaying communities, who do not wish to participate in the “higher levels” of competitive PvP, but instead want to have roleplaying reasons for laid back PvP. Having participated in a lot of this kind of PvP in Ultima Online, I have to say it’s the best time I’ve ever had PvPing in a game. When everyone’s not that dead serious about their ladder position and k/d ratio, the fights are much more relaxed and fun and usually always include cinematic preludes, where the forces stop to exchange words before the battle ensues.

I would wager that many people who focus on PvE over PvP are just not bothered with PvP in any form. They might consider the introduction of any aspects of PvP into the part of the game that they enjoy to be a negative change, particularly if they are effectively restricted from content (beyond the system itself) – WvWvW is a decent example of this, where some are understandably frustrated with the situation whereby they cannot work towards map completion (content/goals-related) without either being on a server with the territory under control or actively organising a push to take it (which might not be feasible/reasonable). Even if additional content were not introduced alongside this concept and to compliment it, players might feel that the relative effort vs reward may not make taking part worthwhile for them (again, see the impermanence in claiming territory in WvWvW or the Temples in Orr as examples of this).

Don’t misunderstand me – I like this idea. But I don’t like presuming that something will be straightforward without feeling satisfied with the amount I’ve examined the potential downsides involved. So I’m being purposefully (obtusely) critical to try and weed out the potential issues involved.

Tom Gore.4035:

As to your questions what I would be happy with – the answer is: Anything that gives more options for player-driven content. If they will come in baby steps I’m fine with that, but unfortunately when I look at Colin’s talk about where they want to take GW2 in 2013, it leaves me with disappointment that player-driven content is definitely not in the spotlight, at least not for 2013.

Maybe not, but there are a lot of pressing things on ANet’s plate at the moment to address in the game. Maybe when those are cleared up, we might see something like this implemented. No reason to give up hope just yet.

Tom Gore.4035:

Snip

It’s interesting that you comment on EVE, considering that it’s one of the most player-driven games that I’ve ever spent time on, though granted that it’s not particularly aesthetically-driven and the PvP aspects are really rather open-ended (though that’s part of the appeal for many). Sadly, the ‘What now?’ issue is pretty prevalent in all games – in all honesty, I find sandbox games to generally be less appealing than less open-ended games, presuming both are crafted well, because given the option of doing anything, I will tend to do what I want to do the most and everything else will seem unappealing by comparison. But that’s just me. I appreciate thriving in reasonably restrictive game environments and mechanics far more than in more open scenarios.

Adding the sorts of PvP elements to open world that you’ve mentioned is also an interesting idea, but I admit that I’m sceptical as to how they would be managed or really what they would provide beyond the options available in WvWvW. The concept of larger guilds potentially monopolising even small areas of PvE is particularly unappealing to me, though there are ways to balance that and to encourage it to stay dynamic. This could well be something that could be experimented with in the new maps that ANet introduce to the game over the coming years, but it does seem a little against the spirit of cooperation that they’ve fostered. And I think in many ways, you’ve answered your own ‘What now?’ with a rather personal solution – one that appeals to you but may not necessarily fit the overall design of the game. In effect, would you be satisfied with any middle-ground that could be introduced? Instanced, but more open-ended custom PvP arenas? Aspects of WvWvW that are more Guild-focused rather than server? Greater implications of Guild Influence on the open world?

The game still has a lot of room in which to grow and the raw materials to make it work. But if people have fairly restricted ideas of how to introduce new concepts – and I’m not suggesting that you are, but in general – I’d argue that the potential there is a little wasted.

There are some really neat Exotics, so I’m probably going to aim for one of those rather than a Legendary. The requirements suit the amount of time I have as well, so they’re more realistic for me to work towards.

sostronk.8167:

Statisitically it will. New gear will come with higher stats. This could be as soon as next weeks patch. Whilst Twighlight is a legendary it is guaranteed to keep the same stats as the highest in game and will get a stat buff. The rest are exotics and will not get a stat buff. They may or may not be better looking, but stat wise twighlight wins for its stats guarantee.

In terms of effort vs reward, I’d argue that the amount of effort required to earn one Legendary could well outstrip that needed to earn an Exotic and an Ascended weapon (to upgrade its stats). We don’t know yet, naturally, but it’s I don’t think it’s an unreasonable speculation.

Sure. It’s easier now that I’m levelling a new character, because I tend to just pick up most of the requirements as I go. Same goes for if I’m going for map completion.

The Asura:Everything Else ratio being displayed here is disheartening .__.

It’s worth keeping in mind that Colin mentioned custom PvP arenas in the recent Blog post. Even if this doesn’t allow for more structured tournament/ranked match options for guilds to begin with, this could well be something that is developed after the ground work is lain. I feel that ANet developed WvWvW as a refinement of the original GvG, regardless of how successfully people feel it was implemented, so it’s possible that while GvG was never originally on the cards they’re reacting to player feedback. Time will tell.

I’ve seen people mentioning GvG in this forum, but very few really elaborating on what it is they expect from such an option, and little consensus between those that do – though I appreciate that they might just be spit-balling ideas. From a personal perspective as someone who mostly plays PvE, I’m honestly not sure what differences people expect from GvG when compared to sPvP or playing as part of a guild with a strong WvWvW presence.

Tom Gore.4035:

It makes me sad. MMORPGs today are full of wasted potential. They are effectively static single player games that you can play with your friends. They do not respond to your actions and you cannot shape the world in any way, no matter how many players you flock to yourself.

My only consolation is that there seem to be several games coming out that give more emphasis to the player. It also seems that it’s mostly eastern developers that understand this. I wonder if I should move to Korea.

What specific sort of things are you looking for, and what do these other games offer that you like? How much of these games are focused around these design details and how do their mechanics compare to those used a game like GW2?

Frankly, I’m less concerned about people buying Legendaries off of the TP and more about how they’re getting the money they need to do so. I don’t think the high costs of Legendaries promotes folks buying money from ANet in the slightest – they’re far more likely to be relying on Gold traders or tipping the market, as these are far more efficient ways to match the pretty exorbitant prices.

This scenario is actually a criticism I have with the concept of goals in a game being largely based on subjectivity (as opposed to clear, more objective milestones – note that you don’t need a Legendary to play any of the game, but people may choose it as a personal goal). It comes down to a design standpoint, but when you define your own achievements by anything that can be earned through shortcuts, you tend to undermine your efforts if you care at all about other people reaching the same goals through alternate methods. I understand those who are saying that ANet insinuated that Legendaries wouldn’t be this way, but I’ve less sympathy for those who just want a rare shiny to impress people and, similarly, less sympathy for those who actively judge others for having one.

People are driven by a lot of different reasons. But caring too much about what others have and what you have in comparison tends to put way too much power in the hands of others rather than yourself.