-
Posts
1,929 -
Joined
-
Last visited
IndigoSundown.5419's Achievements
-
Here's an idea. ANet could provide an option to buy a GoB. The cost would be 2 GoE! Reverse it also. 2 GoB for 1 GoE.
-
Remove Forced Click for Dailies & Weeklies
IndigoSundown.5419 replied to Loboling.5293's topic in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Didn't say that. Though, doubtless, a lot of in-game issues are trivial in the grand scheme of things. Didn't say that, either... Noticing a trend here. Fwiw, the forum serves a purpose and I have no interest in changing that. Feedback is not trivial to ANet, it's business. Well, sorry, can't agree with that assertion, but I will accept that calling "something" in this game a "first world problem" sounds inane to you. Look, you complain all you want about whatever you want. Just, maybe realize that because something matters to you doesn't mean that that issue should matter to everyone else. -
Any plans for vanilla servers?
IndigoSundown.5419 replied to Godfather.9058's topic in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Blizzard motivation for Vanilla WoW: "There is lots of demand and we can charge a sub fee to access it!" ANet motivation for Vanilla GW2: "There is not a lot of demand and we don't have sub fees... 🤣" -
Remove Forced Click for Dailies & Weeklies
IndigoSundown.5419 replied to Loboling.5293's topic in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Sorry, a concern about the number of clicks required to get a virtual nothing in a video game is the poster child for first world problems. -
I don't care for JP's and have no desire to do the one in question However, the fact that there are eight choices to get 6 for the weekly bonus means that I can ignore the JP chore. That said, I wouldn't mind if ANet removed the JP from the rotation, along with the (spotty) 10 defend events chore and halved the (tedious) 10 ruins/monuments chore since you need 5 for the other weekly.
-
ELI5: What exactly does MAG do differently
IndigoSundown.5419 replied to Knighthonor.4061's topic in World vs. World
Having been both linked with and opposed to Maguuma this year, I'd say that in addition to what others have said, there are two factors that occur to me: 1) When opposed to: if a lot of enemy players are avoiding Mag, the Mag players have nothing to do except congregate to the few solos/groups who do show up. Thus, you'll see 6-8 defending an enemy's home camp, say, to some degree because they have nothing else to do. 2) When linked to: aggression. I cannot fault Mag players in general for being eager to take on an enemy. This amount of willingness has not always been evident when linked to other servers than Mag. -
Yes, afaik you can tick one option (WvW, sPvP, or PvE) and get tasks only from that mode. The one exception I've seen is the sPvP task to do 100,000 damage, which allows damage done in either sPvP or WvW. I am quite happy for this setup as I find even the thought of doing most of the PvE tasks to be off-putting.
-
This assertion is an assumption. First, it assumes that new players who purchase HP on the TP are not "learning their profession." We have no data to support this assertion except the assumption that this would be the case. Second, it assumes there will be a statistical difference between players who earn HP via play and those who buy them in so far as learning their profession. Again, no data is available to support that there will be such a statistical difference. What we do have is anecdotal data from dozens (if not hundreds) of older posts asserting that meta events were failing because the vast majority of players don't know what they're doing and "just press 1." I am going to assume that that vast majority who "earned" HP are not going to suddenly learn their profession better because other players are buying HP. In GW2, free to play is really a trial of the game. F2P players are not only denied elite specs and mounts, they are barred from more than 90% of content inserted post vanilla. Most trials in other games are limited to attaining some level (usually short of the level cap). GW2 allows F2P to get to the cap, but not to progress further in the game, which amounts to the same thing as stopping short of the cap. While a core-only free player in WvW will be at a disadvantage vs elite specs, this disadvantage is not as bad as being a level 35 in a cap-90 game (if that game's trial even allows access to a PvP mode.
-
Do you play beta characters?
IndigoSundown.5419 replied to Solvar.7953's topic in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
No. I don't really play PvE much. Taking a new spec into WvW where I would have a very short time for the learning curve is not appealing. Couple those two factors with the lack of progress or reward and I am disinclined to provide ANet with free QC. -
There's grind in GW2? OK. I guess the "Return to" achievements for the Lege Amulet would qualify. Are you talking farming gold as the grind? Maybe we just see the game differently. FWIW, though, my main point was the misappropriation of the term P2W. No issues with people not liking this turn of events, just for dog's sake call it something else. Are you suggesting I should care about this because of precedent? I guess I should have started by caring about L80 boosts and WP unlocks. Truth, though, after caring about things like declining story quality, copy-pasta meta events, boon-ball and less value for money with each XPac, I am all out of cares.
-
I wish there was less disingenuity in the appropriation of terms. The term, Pay-to-Win, has very negative associations in the gaming community. When first coined, it was in reference to the selling of combat power in games with PvP elements when that power was either not available in game at all, or available in game only via massive grind. Essentially, it referred to people winning in competitive combat with other players not through skill, but by virtue of having splashed cash. What happens in threads like these is that people use the term because: the game has done something that they don't like; the new thing can involve spending cash; and they want a term with the heaviest negative connotations to make their point. Thus, the selling of HP unlocks is labelled pay-to-win when it meets none of the criteria from which the original meaning came. This is disingenuous. Don't like something? Fine. Post about it. Just stop misappropriating a term because you can't be bothered to come up with some new term to label the behavior you dislike. As for me? There's a lot about GW2, particularly more recent GW2, that I dislike. Selling HP unlocks, though? Not even on my radar. Obtaining HP in game is so trivial as to be inconsequential. Could. Not. Care. Less.
-
Gem prices are going out of control
IndigoSundown.5419 replied to nellone.5836's topic in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
When did this happen? -
So, some people who have trouble getting event credit in lower level zones because of mount damage skills assume the other player(s) are griefing. Just so, some players who see other players using a mount attack to attack from on high assume the other players are being lazy. In both instances, these assumptions need not be correct. One likely explanation for using mount attacks to get event credit in lower level zones is because the player doing so is only there to get some reward, and wants to get credit fast so they can go do something else that is not by its nature mind-numbingly boring. Likewise, there are a number of possible explanations for why players use Skyscale attacks that have nothing to do with laziness. One is: the feature is new and can fit a concept that the player has for their role-play of their character in a, you know, role-playing game. Another is that -- especially for the less informed -- ANet meta events are a confusing mess of arcane mechanics involving 60,000 red circles which are not survivable for a great many of the possible builds out there.