kharmin.7683

Another uninformed comment, I guess should be expected. The layoffs didn't happen because of Guild Wars 2 performance, but because the "unreleased" projects weren't deemed profitable by NCSoft. It was an issue with Arenanet as a company and projects we'll never get to see, and not about the game. As for your million comment I need to remind you that the game never had millions of players. if GW2 was performing well, it could had funded even more side projects. wow funded SEVERAL big titles, and even a 8 year project, that was scrappedif it never had MILLIONS of players, then i doubt , that hot would had sold over a million copies in the first month alone.they had them alright, but not anymore... You are assuming facts not in evidence. No one here knows how Anet budgets for projects. it doesnt matter, since another company has done it...ergo IT CAN BE DONEbut if we dont use THE BEST as reference anymore, im all for that tooThat's your argument? I mean, sure, anything CAN be done but you compared Anet with Blizzard in your example where everyone knows that the two game studios aren't even close in comparison.

Because putting PvP into PvE maps will ruin the game for many. And that is what the OP is advocating. Diverting the discussion would no longer remain on topic. Several posters, including me, have said that putting the elements that the OP wants into its own PvP instance would be fine.

Another uninformed comment, I guess should be expected. The layoffs didn't happen because of Guild Wars 2 performance, but because the "unreleased" projects weren't deemed profitable by NCSoft. It was an issue with Arenanet as a company and projects we'll never get to see, and not about the game. As for your million comment I need to remind you that the game never had millions of players. if GW2 was performing well, it could had funded even more side projects. wow funded SEVERAL big titles, and even a 8 year project, that was scrappedif it never had MILLIONS of players, then i doubt , that hot would had sold over a million copies in the first month alone.they had them alright, but not anymore...You are assuming facts not in evidence. No one here knows how Anet budgets for projects.

That is not what the OP is asking for. Hey, if Anet wants to create a new, limited PvP map that is accessed from the existing PvP mode, then that's fine with me. That's not what the OP wants.

Hello!Have you taken screen shots and sent them to support through their ticketing system?

if the core game was that bad, it wouldnt had sold roughly a mio times every year. hot only sold around 1.5 mio times TOTAL.if TONS of players loved it, you can bet that they would had made MORE like it. a good mmo is like a house, if the foundation is flawed, its never gonnawork out. Exactly. The core game was flawed, so they made it better. And here we are. If only they hadn't made the mistake of making those boring PoF maps by listening to people like you who hated HoT, we'd have a great game! Oh well. At least the other features from PoF were good.I don't see that as a mistake. I see it as Anet listening to their customers and analyzing their data.

The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it. Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW. Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either. You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums. I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something? In what way is 100% opt in PvP “ruining PvE”? This sounds incredibly biased and dismissive of other people’s requests for content.One can already 100% opt in to PvP in the mode which is already provided for that type of content.

Obtena never said it wasn't justified. Have you been reading the thread? S/He has been asking the OP to justify the change requested for the warclaw that was asked for in the first post. The question couldn't be any more simple, but it seems that some people (not targeting anyone specific) want to lash out at Obtena and not even address the point.

Maybe take a look at this thread? https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/112264/best-gold-farm-2020-in-guild-wars-2-30-gold-per-hour

So.... do all of this and stop working on raids and strike missions.

You're perfectly capable of questioning peoples ideas. Just... Actually question their ideas. Don't start waffling on about their need to justify ANet working on it. Ask them instead to justify why they want said change in the game.But, he kinda did...@Obtena.7952 said:It does matter ... it's the claim of the OP. His whole point is that we need to give it love. That doesn't make sense ... it doesn't. Now, if he had an ACTUAL reason to change Warclaw, I'm all ears. But 'need' isn't it ... as you EXACTLY point out to prove my point; changes aren't made because 'need' most of the time ... and this time isn't any different. And again@Obtena.7952 said:It's not going all technical ... you don't think there needs to be a good reason for Anet to change something in the game other than 'it needs love'? That's an interesting but unrealistic belief. It's too much to even ask people for non-trivial reasons for changes? Seems like you think so. I mean ... obviously you think it would be a good idea to make more Warclaw more useful in PVE ... do you care to explain why?Here too@Obtena.7952 said:Right ... and it's poorly thought out suggestion because there hasn't been provided a reason to do it.@Obtena.7952 said:It's the proponents of the suggestion that need to show it's a great idea to implement it. You got this backwards in a BIG way.@Obtena.7952 said:No let's be clear .. there are benefits; I'm not asking for thiose. I'm asking people to justify the idea to do it. @Obtena.7952 said:I don't need to explain that; I'm not making a suggestion for change here. The burden to justify the suggestion is on the people making it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied at this point that we don't have a sound suggestion for improving Warclaw in PVE, especially based on the original premise of the OP that Warclaw is useless in WvW or any continued speculation of skin revenues.@Obtena.7952 said:... I don't even SEE what the OP thinks should be done to make Warclaw more useful in PVE since everything he suggests we already have in other mounts.

Core sold well due to over-hype. How much revenue did core lose after a single quarter? This shows how many players -stayed- playing the game after they tried it (hint: not many compared to overall sales) This is an unsupported claim given the buy to play business model. You have no way to know whether the decline in Q3 2013 from the all-time high in Q4 2012 (which by the way was the quarter after the game's release quarter) was due to players leaving. A much more likely explanation is that most who were going to buy the game had already bought it by the end of 2012. This by the way does not mean I am against what HoT brought to the game, it's just that this particular argument is flawed.It could also be that players aren't buying gems in the same quantities now because gold farming has become so much easier and lucrative.

Justification is that people want it. That's it. That's all the justification it needs. Some people want it, therefore it is a valid suggestion. Valid suggestion, sure. Practically any suggestion can be deemed valid. The reason that you state for justification may be less valid. "that people want it" ? Anet needs to determine whether enough people want it to justify the change. I'm not sure that anyone here on the forums would have those metrics, so in my opinion this needs a different, better formulated justification. /shrug

That would entail buying the thing first. At least, that how it seems. Anyway, I found that one can preview items from the Preview option in the BLTP before purchasing. EDIT: for outfits, they can be previewed in the hero panel, too.

So, we're no longer able to preview selections in-game then with the vendor removed?

I thought Anet created fractals to replace dungeons and that dungeons were content that was no longer being supported? Then, came raids and strikes which, in some ways, supplanted fractals. I don't see Anet going backward at this point.

Snowden Drifts. Seems like every time I have to go there, events are bugged.

by plenty you mean 20 ppl right? :D Well, yeah, because apparently the rest of the PvP players are bots?

Maybe try bringing this up in the stickied QoL Suggestion thread? https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/53097/suggestions-qol-quality-of-life-ideas-merged

Warclaw should have stayed exclusively in WvW. Heck, if they disabled it in other modes, what would really be the harm since people seem to think it is so sub-standard in PvE anyway.