Jump to content
  • Sign Up

maddoctor.2738

Members
  • Posts

    5,498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

416 profile views

maddoctor.2738's Achievements

  1. Are we talking about Guild Wars 2 here? Anyway, assuming you genuinely believe what your post, in a sense you are right, most well rewarding content in the game can be called group content, it's even called such by the game (either "meta" or "group" event). However, most group content in this game can be perfectly enjoyed without the need to join pre-made groups. Although it's content that cannot be finished solo, you don't need to join a group to finish it either. If you are intimidated by how other mmorpgs treat their group content, forced pre-mades, no shared loot etc, you should know that none of that is used in this game, you can just tag along other players without joining their actual group. You will earn the same rewards by hitting the same mobs they do, you will get healing and buffs just by being close, instead of being party/group limited. It helps to join Squads if for nothing else, but to see where everyone is, it takes no effort to join one as well. It might be called group content, it might look like group content, but it's nothing like group content of other games. It's more fun, more accessible and with zero commitment involved.
  2. Game is about to surpass both 2019 and 2020 in revenue, it's already close without Q4 sales, which is very good. Now because I see some comments about the "hype" and how much of it the new expansion generates, let's take a look at the game's performance 2 quarters before the launch of HOT and POF. EOD will launch in Q1 2022, Q3 2021 has a revenue of 19199 and is expected for Q4 2021 to be higher. POF launched near the end of Q3 2017 but most sales were in Q4 2017 with a revenue of 34903. Q3 2017 had a revenue of 20145 and Q2 2017 13350. HOT launched in Q4 2015 with a revenue of 37331, Q3 2015 was at 20699 and Q2 2015 was at 22470. To summarize the financials: 2 quarters before the launch of EOD the game has a revenue of 19199 2 quarters before the launch of POF the game had a revenue of 13350 2 quarters before the launch of HOT the game had a revenue of 22470 So in the same timeframe EOD is doing better than POF (by almost 6000) while being behind HOT (by 3000) All values in KRW million won. I think some people forgot that Q3 2021 isn't the launch quarter of EOD and are comparing the performance of past expansion launches with this one, which doesn't make any sense. If we become more reasonable and compare how the game's revenue was 2 quarters before expansion launch (to judge the effect of the expansions on the game) we can see that EOD is doing fine. Worth noting that in the HOT prelaunch quarter revenue dropped, instead of going up, we will see how the prelaunch quarter of EOD will look like.
  3. As in my reply above this one, if the leaderboard is weekly you resolve most issues. Changes to instabilities, balance, new elite specs and even additions of new fractals won't affect the weekly leaderboards as everyone will be fighting under the same ruleset. Of course adding the last Fractals should be the highest priority. I'm not sure how resource intensive it's gonna be as most of the code and even UI elements is already used in Adventure leaderboards. I don't think the resources required for this are anything close to making an entirely new Fractal. I already expressed my extreme dislike over a global speedrun leaderboard for the various reasons I presented. But to re-iterate once more, a global speedrun leaderboard is simply unfair. A weekly one, as the one in my suggestion is fair, as everyone is using the same rules. Plus, that's outside the game, I'm talking about something inside the game that everyone can participate in, something that even offers a few more fractal rewards to incentivize players of all tiers to continue playing Fractals.
  4. That's a possibility, but different instabilities, changes to the meta, balances patches and of course new elite specs, would make an "overall" leaderboard a bit pointless. A tactic that works today when someone got an awesome time might not work in 1 year anymore, making the "competition" unfair. Although they could offer an overall time, the "weekly" results are gonna be way more accurate representation of player/team skill level as everyone will be fighting on equal footing, same skills, same items, same instabilities.
  5. Got an idea from this thread: That idea is about turning fractals into a seasonal mode, that resets progression every few months and requires players to finish 100 fractal levels fast. I don't like that idea, so I got my own "Version" here. Instead of a season, I propose a Fractal "competition". No I'm not asking to bring PVP in Fractals that would be silly, purely PVE, but an actual competition that rewards the "best", not the "first". Details: Each round (season) lasting 1 week and resets on Monday like all other things that reset on Monday. Players need to beat a single fractal, or at most five fractals, that change every week. Think of how the recommended Fractal system works. This is important because it will accomodate the entire playerbase. They could pick 5 fractals of each tier (T1/T2/T3/T4) so players on the relevant personal level can participate in the content idea and not be left out. Think of everyone, not adding content ideas for the top only. Of course higher tiers has higher rewards as it's normal from regular Fractals too. They can also add a T5 for those that have reached personal level 100 and maybe got a few CM achievements, that ONLY uses CM Fractals, the T4 version won't include CMs. And now the important part, HOW to reward players. Instead of rewarding the fastest, which is how those "seasons" work, reward the "best". How do we figure "best"? Simple, by comparing completion time. Add a leaderboard that resets every week, that contains CLEAR timers. Everyone can compete as many times they want during the week, and their BEST time will be recorded on the leaderboards (not the LAST, the BEST). On reset Monday, there will be a calculation and the developers will figure out which teams were the fastest on all 5 tiers (T1 through T5). To make things better, you won't reward the "top 100, or top 10" or anything like that. Instead, do in percentage brackets to accomodate any number of teams. The system can work with 10000 teams and 100 teams. If you add a fixed number to be rewarded it won't work, because you might get less participants than those you want to reward. So, players in the top 50% of the leaderboards will get something extra for their effort. Players in top 25% will get something more. Players in top 10% a bit more. And players in top 0.5% will earn a unique title. This title will "last" a limited time (next week?) and then the player(s) will lose it, they will need to "re-acquire" the title again. This is VERY important, so this title won't be used as a means to exclude players on the LFG, or teams asking for this title or whatever to form teams. It's gonna be temporary and be used EXCLUSIVELY to show off who was the best last week. The only question here is wether to reward an individual player each week, regardless of how many teams they joined over the week, or reward the team itself. That's a bit hazy and I'm not exactly sure about it.
  6. This 100%. Finishing 100 levels every few months would be exhausting and never fun, regardless of how much time they will allocate for this so call "season". Furthermore, rewarding those that reach the top -first- is another thing I'd never agree with. This puts pressure on players to fit their life schedule around the game (which is NEVER a good thing) so they can get to the top first to get the reward. You are giving rewards to players that have a lot of free time in a week, and not for example those that demonstrate a higher skill level. The idea of a "season" isn't a bad one, however it needs to be shorter, much shorter in duration than 100 fractals and also designed in a way that players with lots of free time cannot get the rewards based on their free time.
  7. It's more about organization and code. Fractals have many different mechanics compared to dungeons, this means there must be a way to tell the two apart. You can't simply call them all dungeons. Same with Strikes and Raids. Although it might sound better to use the same name on different, but similar, types of content, in the end it's gonna simply cause extra confusion. Imagine how internal discussions would look like if both Fractals and Dungeons were named "instanced dungeons" and the developers wanted to add some new rewards to Fractals. "Will add some new rewards/mechanics, on the dungeons you can play from THAT portal, not the other ones" And then there is the actual code. Developers can apply a "type" to each instance, Dungeon, Fractal, Raid, Strike, and by using this one definition the game's code will know exactly what mechanics to add there. From a database perspective it's much simpler to have all these content types (or rather, the maps) have a variable that easily tells their type, than coding each one individually, it's bad design that way. For example, it was confirmed by the developers that each dungeon can only have 3 explorable paths, which is why when they added Aetherblade they had to scrap one of Twilight Arbor's prior paths. Fractals were designed as something entirely new to avoid that problem. In a lot of cases in programming it's easier to make something entirely new, than fix (or add to) something old. So to answer the question of the OP, it's not about attracting players, but rather a necessity based on how coding works, and how hard organizing a large project like a video game, especially an mmorpg, can be. The exception being when they first added Raids with Heart of Thorns, they could've picked ANY name, but picked one that would indeed attract players from other mmorpgs. But other than that, I don't think attracting players has anything to do with naming modes.
  8. Minor correction (regarding Raids). The problem with an automatic matchmaking for Raids is that they require specific roles to work. What if you don't get a player that can fill a specific role, that would only cause frustration and lead to failure. Random matchmaking isn't going to work for Raids. That said, it IS going to work on all other types of content, including -most- Strike Missions. Content that has increased single player responsibility (one player failing causing all to fail) isn't really good with random automatic matchmaking. Content that has lower responsibilities, if I fail, I will die, but the rest of the team can go on, is appropriate for random matchmaking.
  9. Splitting the .dat file will only affect loading, shouldn't do anything for performance
  10. Yes out of the box install with all updates. I've used multiple Windows 10 PCs/tablets, ranging from Atom CPUs, old Core 2 Quad, I7 6th and up to Zen 2. All with the latest updates, constantly updating when they are released, and never had any issues on any of them. I'm talking about performance as well, ever since Windows 8 released it smashed Windows 7 in performance. And Windows 10 is an update over Windows 8 so it carried over most performance benefits. You were the one that said: Which is obviously false, since most machines I tried Windows 10 have mechanical hard drives and they all boot significantly faster on 10 compared to 7. I'm running Windows 10 on my old E8400 (Core 2 Duo) which can also play several old/easy games (also has Steam installed to run them). You want even older than that? And... game on it?
  11. In reality, Windows 8 is much different compared to Windows 7. I think you might've confused Windows 7 and Vista, those were similar. But 8 has fundamental differences "under the hood" compared to 7. I use Windows 10 on my 7 year old tablet, with 4 GB of Ram and integrated graphics (Intel ATOM CPU). Works just fine and is noticeably faster compared to the Windows 7 it used to have before I upgraded it. And I use Chrome, which is a resource beast. So I really don't care if your old laptop runs well with Windows 7, that doesn't tell anything. As I've tried it, on the same PC, formatted and clean, Windows 10 PC boots fine a mechanical drive. I also have Windows 10 on my tablet and on 3 more different old PCs with mechanical hard drives, none of which have any issues with booting, in fact all of them are booting significantly faster with Windows 10 compared to Windows 7, so your argument is invalid.
  12. When it comes to performance both 8 and 10 are far superior to 7, from much much faster boot/shutdown times, loading times, to simpler things like copy/pasting data. Windows 7 is just way too slow compared to the later Windows versions. But Windows 8 and Windows 10 don't have such a gigantic/overwhelming performance difference like with Windows 7.
  13. If that was true then players using sub-par gear, even green gear, wouldn't out-dps players using Ascended with meta builds. But that does happen a lot. Having a "meta build" doesn't mean anything if you don't know when (and where) to use it. It also depends on what we mean by "using a meta build". I mean even on the SC website they clearly state which "meta build" is good on which boss, and which is terrible. So using an off-meta build might be more powerful than using a "meta build" that is not good on a particular boss. To answer the OP's question, no it's not required to use snowcrows builds but they are indeed the best available builds, and can make a massive difference. However, you should READ the entire build, how to use the build and on which boss to use it on, instead of doing a copy/paste of the standard and expect it to work out of the box (and on all bosses).
  14. I've been asking for an engine update for a very long time and this is good news. It's curious to note here that on the NVIDIA side there is no GPU that only supports DirectX11. GeForce 200/300 series only support DirectX 10 (not 11) but all cards above those, starting with GeForce 400, support DirectX12. This means, for NVIDIA users, going to either DirectX 11 or DirectX 12 demands the exact same hardware. On the AMD side is a bit more complicated. Up to 4000 HD series they support up to DirectX 10 only, from 5000 HD to 6000 HD up to DirectX 11, and 7000 HD and above they support DirectX 12, so there are two series that support DirectX 11 and not DirectX 12. That assumes of course that they won't offer both versions, like most games do anyway, so players with old hardware won't notice a difference. Although the minimum GPUs that support DirectX 12 from either vendor are older than the game itself
  15. If you are talking about the Warcraft movie, it has nothing to do with what players characters do in WoW. Which is exactly what I said they'd do if they made a movie/anime/series/whatever based on the Guild Wars license (1 or 2), either a prequel, a sequel, a story between the two games, or a side story. To my knowledge, there has never been an mmorpg adaptation in any form, that specified a fixed "main character", that would be suicide. Take a look at the negative reactions towards the latest Mortal Kombat movie, where they added a brand new character, instead of using a well established character. That's the same feeling you'd get if they added a "commander" with traits you don't like. Heck, in the cutscene where Scarlet dies, they used a female Norn commander, that also got a lot of reactions from the community.
×
×
  • Create New...