kharmin.7683

Dude there are raids with DPS checks. Dude, who is asking for DPS? If a DPS check were required for the content, then ANet would have implemented something to enable that functionality. I'm not saying that the players themselves aren't using a third-party tool to establish their own criteria. I don't understand what you are saying, this whole thread is about DPS. Do you even know what an enrage timer is? @ASP.8093 said: "Many encounters include an enrage timer: if the encounter isn't finished by the time it runs out, the incoming damage will greatly increase." https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Raid This is a DPS check. It's explicitly designed with the expectation that a group will wipe soon after it triggers, putting a fairly hard cap on how long the encounter will last.Thanks to you both for helping me to understand. I don't raid, so no, I didn't know that this was a thing. HOWEVER, my point still stands (even if it is my opinion). If this stage that you both mention is a check on the party's DPS, and IF a DPS monitoring system were REQUIRED to pass this check, then Anet would have implemented one. Having a third party tool certainly would help at this stage, sure, but it isn't required.

Dude there are raids with DPS checks. Dude, who is asking for DPS? If a DPS check were required for the content, then ANet would have implemented something to enable that functionality. I'm not saying that the players themselves aren't using a third-party tool to establish their own criteria.

IMO, if a DPS meter/checker were needed to complete content in GW2, then Anet would have provided one. That's not to say that many players get a lot out of the 3rd party add-in; I'm sure that they do.

No extra benefits? No advantage over those who don't pay? That is most likely the reason.Well, there really isn't a pay to win advantage, but the extra benefit to voluntarily paying $15/month is getting gems that those who don't pay wouldn't get. Those gems would allow the player to purchase things in the gem store that players who don't pay per month wouldn't be able to purchase. Since the suggestion was a "premium account thing that gives you gems etc" I feel that was the benefit that was being requested.

If anything along this vein, current players ought to be given more incentives to stay than new ones. /shrug

The issue is players wanting free mounts.

_Cultural _armor vendors. That's what I meant. :)

Also check the armor vendors for the different races. The lower tiered items aren't too expensive.

It's not that hard to believe ... for some people, a game that has better stuff is a game they can't play; they are limited by their gear. For others that are more astute ... recognize that performance is something you have to pay for and realize what we would pay for what we would get isn't that so good a proposition. I'm not sure I'm following you correctly - do you believe that improved performance will only benefit people with high-end or expensive systems? IMO, improved performance should positively impact all users, and quite often the biggest gains (in % terms) from improved performance are usually seen on the oldest/weakest specs. I think what's being said is that Anet could charge more for GW2 (like subscription or charging more for content that is only available for actual cash instead of gems, things like that) in order to bring in more capital to spend on performance improvements. Then, the point turns to being careful what is wished for because should this type of thing come to pass, there is no guarantee that the studio would actually be willing and/or able to make the performance improvements that the players want.

Keys are one of the ways in which Anet makes actual money from the game. I'm actually surprised that, over time, they've allowed key running characters on the same account.

And do you have marketing knowledge and financial data that we don't? See it works both waysNot for Anet, no, but I have been in business for over 35 years. My experience should count for something. When I see a suggestion that I don't believe will help the shareholders realize more profitability, I tend to address it. But no matter.

????? moving stuff elsewhere doesnt mean you fixed the issue. if i make a program with non hardware related bug, moving it to different machine wont fix the problem.. So now we're blaming the software? I thought that the complaint was that ANet needed to fix the servers.

Personally, I would not want an Aurene mount in any age/form. I think it's ugly. Was so glad to find other skyscale skins more to my liking. There have been other threads about spider mounts. Apparently, there are quite a few people here just in the forums who have aversions to spiders.

Hmm... ok, I see what you're saying. I'm not convinced that such a system might run counter to what would be in Anet's best interest for an MMO experience. /shrug

Isn't this what "guilds" are for?

Ok, I'm done here. Clearly, others have much more marketing knowledge and insight into financial data that I don't.

This.I appreciate a lof of the arguments made against my OP in this thread. Lots of good points, even if I personally disagree with them.But a lot of the replies i'm also getting this vibe. At the end of the day, what's more important.Growing the playerbase as much as possible, or that someone might get something for free that you had to pay for?(Even though they wouldn't actually get the mounts unlocked, but just get the chance to try them)I would say that more players joining the game is a win win for everyone. More players joining has nothing to do with free mounts or zone speed buffs. Also, it isn't a sense of entitlement. If it were, then I'd be asking for my free legendary. Free mounts or zone speed buffs invalidate the benefit that mount owners currently enjoy, and that is having more than the base speed. It is a QoL improvement and nothing more. Mounts (or lack of them or lack of zone speed buffs) do not prevent players without them from completing content. But, we all know how this will turn out anyway. Anet will listen to those who cry about mounts and implement some form of solution proposed in this and the other, similar threads. Thanks for suggesting that i'm crying about mounts.I didn't single you out. Don't take it so personally. I was referring to the many other posters who have advocated for this in many other threads. This idea isn't new. So why make a new one?????????? Sorry, I'm not sure to whom your comment is directed?

Large part of the player base?

and? doesnt change anything about the fact that its server side problem... we still have skill lag and now even pve lags on top of it, whats your point?Completely different architecture. Completely different infrastructure. This invalidates claims made from 7 years ago with an entirely different set up.

Because optimization is costly and leaves people with older rigs in the dust. Considering this game can't function without appealing to a large group of people and there isn't a monthly fee, it's a hard case to justify optimization. Just a reminder that some games have an option to switch between different dx versions. Like POE which was released year later by (at the time) a indie company. How come small company could keep improving the game, performance and so on yet AAA title is stuck with dx9 in 2020, in fact 2021 (4 months away)? I highly doubt theres anyone who still play gw on 15 yo rig. That's true but unless Anet finds a way to fund this ... why would they bother? What's the return on this investment for them? It's purely a QoL upgrade and who's going to pay for that? Newer games keep comming out that either take more advantage of new hardwareHow many newer games are based on 10+ year old spaghetti code, built in-house by devs who are no longer with the company? or other older games choose to upgrade because they want to keep up.How many of these older games are F2P?The crowd of ppl that choose to play less and less because the game runs and plays badly is a very real, very sizable one.Source? Data to support this claim?

If you take offense, that's on you. The sarcasm isn't completely without merit. Ideas such as this... where does it end? Free mounts? Then why not free elites? And if free elites, then what next? What could remain that would entice new players to purchase the expansions if every time something that they don't have without them is just given to them? Or, said another way, perhaps show how your proposal will make more money for Anet than the status quo.

Ascended is not mandatory either. Perhaps it is preferred for specific types of content, but it isn't mandatory.

Not sure they'd do this either as it has the potential to split the player base and make maps appear less populated.