kharmin.7683

It's not only the implementation but the moderation of other languages. Someone would have to be responsible for that, too.

The forums represent a very small minority of the player base. Crowdfunding might likewise involve a small sub-set of players. I'd wager that most players don't even look to the forums or would find out about any crowdfunding avenues. This could lead to Anet implementing things for a much smaller minority rather than for the larger majority which I believe their internal metrics have already factored in. There is nothing stopping players from purchasing gems with real cash if they want to infuse Anet with capital. The method for this already exists. No crowdfunding necessary.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/307741/#Comment_307741"People from around the world play Guild Wars 2. For most of them, the game is not presented in their native language. We localize for French, German, and Spanish because those gaming communities are large and there is a solid business reason for doing so. However, we do not have plans to localize for other languages. By the same token, we cannot accept and implement community-translated text, because verifying and implementing the input would be very time consuming and costly. (Consider that inputting text involves things beyond words -- it also can involve videos, animation, and more.) We have received offers to do community translation for Russian, Hungarian, Czech, and several other languages. We regret that we are not able to offer Guild Wars 2 in every language, but doing so simply would not be feasible, even with the kind offers of the community. I've talked to players from around the world, and I actually asked many of them what language they chose when playing the game. A surprising number of them, while they were native French, German, or Spanish speakers, told me they preferred to play in English. Most cited the opportunity to practice their language skills; some said they liked to play "exactly what the devs created." I hope that all players are able to choose a language that allows them to join in!" https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/444283/#Comment_444283"But that is the decision, based in part on statistical information provided in this thread and readily available in general on the Internet, plus our own awareness of our products, our community, and our business. We do understand the desire, and we do respect the request, but this request is not something we can fulfill."

China has their own GW2 servers. I'm not sure that Anet is offering Cantha to that demographic.

Its a difference in interest. GW2 at the beginning was less structured and each character had its own story and relevance. After they redesigned the leveling experience (in like idk 2015?) this has felt less relevant and was more structured, so that right now you blitz past. For some thats actually a plus for other it ruined that original longer starting experience. Mounts make this even more obvious, and accountbound "character" achievements make each new character way more accessible but each character also has less of a personal story. For some that personal story part of each character is more important than the accessibility. Forothers its the other way around.If players don't want to speed through progression, they have that option. No one is forcing players to use mounts to level. To me, it seemed the proposal was to prevent any character from using mounts until they reach max level. If I have 20 characters, I may not want to level them all to 80. Why should I be prevented from using the account-wide mounts on those characters? Again, to me this point seems like someone is vexed about players having access to mounts and wants to have Anet clamp down on them for whatever reason. To me, if a player chooses to use or not use mounts to level their characters that has no significant impact on other players' ability to play how they want and level characters however they want to level them.

Please use the forums search feature. Anet has already said that they will not be doing this.

Just because something has a 1 in 100 chance of dropping does not guarantee that it will drop once in 100 tries. This is what some people don't understand about probability and drop rates.

Create a group, call out for help, use LFG or join a guild and get help with your achievements. There's no need for additional rewards.

That would seem quite limited for something like this to be implemented. I can't see that it would be worth the effort for something so niche.

Take away what is probably one of the greatest methods of income for Anet by doing this? What is in it for Anet? How could they possibly benefit if they accepted this proposal?

I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content.Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed.Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. In addition to the fact that Anet intentionally increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. And seemingly decreased it in later S4 maps which might be due to complaints about it in PoF maps. /shrug ... The opposite happened. Flesh wurms in dragonfall and dominion snipers in drizzlewood have EVEN greater rangeI was thinking more about the aggro ranges of mobs throughout entire maps, not one or two individual examples. In my experience, anyway, I found the aggro to be decreased in Istan, Sandswept Isles, Kourna, Jahai and yes Thunderhead and Dragonfall. Perhaps it is merely my perception? I can't say and have neither the time nor desire to measure these out on all of those maps plus the PoF ones. And on the point of flesh wurms and snipers -- those are more individuals than mobs. /shrug

I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content.Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed.Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. In addition to the fact that Anet intentionally increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. And seemingly decreased it in later S4 maps which might be due to complaints about it in PoF maps. /shrug

And reduce the revenue stream? Why would Anet want to do that?

Here in the thread there are some reasons why this is a problem. Do we need to break it all down again for 'your specifically needs'? Large aggro range has NEVER prevented people from completing content in this game ... so it's not really the problem people want to say it is. Again, what you find annoying/frustrating is simply a matter of personal preference and since the game doesn't cater to individuals, it's irrelevant. If large aggro ranges prevented people from playing the game ... that WOULD be a problem worth discussing ... but they don't. I think it's pretty funny that people don't see the increased aggro range as intentionally preventing people from avoiding trash mobs in OW ... yet somehow those people argue it's a problem that needs to be fixed ... I think Anet already give you the answer to that. And how do you know it doesn't stop people from playing POF maps? Because there is no mechanic that prevents people from playing PoF maps due to aggro range. Just like there is no mechanic ANYWHERE in the game that prevents people from playing ANY map due to aggro range. True, however, for my valuable play-time, I almost never go into PoF maps because of this annoyance. It's not "preventing" me, but it isn't encouraging me either.

There is no set schedule for when things re-appear in the gem store. You may want to watch this thread for announcements: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/458/news-gemstore-items-new-returned-sales

That's pretty much how I feel, too. The ones that I might consider would replace weapon skins I'm currently using that I like more.

I don't get that comment. Mounts by their very nature alter the game. How could a spider mount be useful otherwise?

My choice of words was a criticism of their decision not to work on another expansion (i.e. their failure to invest in this game's future). Was that not clear in the context of my statement? Or do you really want to engage in an argument over the strict definition of "maintenance mode"? I know it's a popular subject and all. I'm just not sure it would be productive.There already exists enough panic on the forums about the demise of ANet and GW2. You have seen the threads, I'm sure. Some might take your comment at face-value. Besides, prior to the expansion announcement, how do we know that Anet was failing to invest in the game's future? I get it. You're frustrated and disappointed. Many are. In my opinion, that isn't reason enough to add to the existing FUD with claims which have no basis.

Probably the biggest draw for me for the use of outfits. I can maintain the same appearance as I'm leveling while continually upgrading gear until 80.