Ashen.2907

Definitely Charr! Female Norn have ridiculous body posture and girly movement for a warrior/hunter race, and their fighting noises sound like they were taken out of a s&m adult movie. Weird, I was going to suggest female norn for those exact reasons.

The part that gets me, from an immersion standpoint at least, is: Yesterday I saved your farm/home/life or something of the sort.Today you wont even sell me an X. These NPCs have got to be some sort of special dbags to, as merchants, not be willing to even do business with the person who saved them just yesterday.

All classes, including warrior, have magical abilities and use magic weapons.

Sure, just make them expensive.

That's kinda contradictory. You want smaller doses, but then people need to rush and farm it if they want to get the rewards in time. Were it permanent, people wouldn't feel forced to focus exclusively on SAB during the festival. You could do tribulation mode at your own pace, no hurries. That's a dumb argument, you don't stop going out just because you can drink at home anyway. 55 Non-seasonal Jumping Puzzles, 4 Activities, 15 HoT Adventures, 18 PoF Griffon Adventures, 7 Non-seasonal Mount RacesThis game may be lacking a few things. Side-activities is not one of them. How many of those are replayable, hm? All of them. Every last one is replayable. We must have a different concept of what replayability is. For starters, I don't see any of those giving any meaningful rewards after the first completion. Some don't even have any meaningful rewards even in the first completion.Replayability means, by definition, the "ability" to be "played" repeatedly. Rewards for repetition are nice, I suppose, but are not necessary for something to be replayed.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

I stopped playing the game due to season one and hope it doesnt come back. I guess fractals for a couple of the segments wouldnt be too bad though.

I like the idea.

The tools are approved by Anet, both the OP and Kheldorn have stated agreement on that point. My concern is, and will always be, the statement of lack of support for issues arising from the use of the tools. When, not if, something goes wrong, not being able to get it fixed via customer support is too great a detraction for my taste.

I really enjoyed Factions in GW1 and would be interested in seeing Cantha again.

Which is what i just did - rougly ~ 12 euros spent on LoL skin about half an hour ago, cause i had that amount to blow and wanted something fun. Had gem store more tame prices on tools (as i already have full set and am not desperate) i would toss that cash at a-net, but the better deal imho got my "fun fund" money today. Just saying there are guys like me who would join in and chip in for the game, had the deals been better. If they're not, it's not that i won't spend at all. I'll just spend it elsewhere... Exactly! IF the choice is:buy a new raptor skin for 25-30€orbuy XCOM2: War of the Chosen for 39.99€ (less when Steam sales)Now guess why i'll be finishing XCOM 2 Campaign again in a couple weeks (i'm too busy to play either atm).Now if mounts were like 10€ each (~1000 gems)? I'd probably have bought 3 of them so far (Jackal, skimmer and springer, didn't like the peacock). Agreed. I would totally buy three new cars if they were $100 each. LOLThat's a sound logic. Does it compare to the game?No.Not even close...A car has specific costs in creating, materials, branding, distribution. And the cheapest you can buy a brand new car is usually around 10 000€. Gem store items don't have material or distribution costs. Also, other "cars" already in the gem store, don't cost 2000 gems. Outfits are similar in scope and use, and cost one third of the mount costs. If you compare value and possible workload on all gem store items, mounts are clearly an outlier. Even permanent tools can be justified because of the savings in gathering tools.While mounts are just an outfit for a skill with some extra sounds. Compared to Character outfits that need to be redesigned 5-10 times (because racial and gender differences) the price difference is clearly exaggerated. I was agreeing with you. Of course we, as consumers, would want prices to be lower so that we could buy more. Are you sure that game production doesnt have specific costs? Anet, last I heard, had between 300 and 350 employees. In their neck of the woods the average pay for a game dev is in the ballpark of $70k per year. The cost to employ is beteen 1.2 and 1.3. So (potentially): 70,000 x 350 x 1.3 = $31,850,000 in payroll alone. You need to read again what i posted, because i was very specific. Which is what i just did - rougly ~ 12 euros spent on LoL skin about half an hour ago, cause i had that amount to blow and wanted something fun. Had gem store more tame prices on tools (as i already have full set and am not desperate) i would toss that cash at a-net, but the better deal imho got my "fun fund" money today. Just saying there are guys like me who would join in and chip in for the game, had the deals been better. If they're not, it's not that i won't spend at all. I'll just spend it elsewhere... Exactly! IF the choice is:buy a new raptor skin for 25-30€orbuy XCOM2: War of the Chosen for 39.99€ (less when Steam sales)Now guess why i'll be finishing XCOM 2 Campaign again in a couple weeks (i'm too busy to play either atm).Now if mounts were like 10€ each (~1000 gems)? I'd probably have bought 3 of them so far (Jackal, skimmer and springer, didn't like the peacock). Agreed. I would totally buy three new cars if they were $100 each. LOLThat's a sound logic. Does it compare to the game?No.Not even close...A car has specific costs in creating, materials, branding, distribution. And the cheapest you can buy a brand new car is usually around 10 000€. Gem store items don't have material or distribution costs. Also, other "cars" already in the gem store, don't cost 2000 gems. Outfits are similar in scope and use, and cost one third of the mount costs. If you compare value and possible workload on all gem store items, mounts are clearly an outlier. Even permanent tools can be justified because of the savings in gathering tools.While mounts are just an outfit for a skill with some extra sounds. Compared to Character outfits that need to be redesigned 5-10 times (because racial and gender differences) the price difference is clearly exaggerated. I would argue that regular outfits have to be priced at the lower price point in order to achieve sales goals. An outfit competes with the vast number of armor skins in the game. So a player has a huge range of appearance options for their character making it less likely that they would choose a particular outfit. Mount skins are not the same as outfits from that perspective. It's also a regular price on the market as far as I can tell. WoW mount skins that are in the store cost as much, if not more. WoW's standard is also that they have like 100 mounts available in quests and drops, and only 10 in the store.Also pretty much all items on the WoW store cost similar money. They have single head-gear items for 15€.While in GW2 you have whole outfits for 800 gems. You have bundles with outfits, a weapon skin, back and glider skin for 2000 gems. And then a mount for 2000 gems. It's a matter of consistency. Anyway, no use making excuses or trying to question prices any more. Time will tell who was right. Payroll costs are as integral to, "creating," a product as materials. Having access to a single mount in WoW costs as much as $180 per year in rent.

Which is what i just did - rougly ~ 12 euros spent on LoL skin about half an hour ago, cause i had that amount to blow and wanted something fun. Had gem store more tame prices on tools (as i already have full set and am not desperate) i would toss that cash at a-net, but the better deal imho got my "fun fund" money today. Just saying there are guys like me who would join in and chip in for the game, had the deals been better. If they're not, it's not that i won't spend at all. I'll just spend it elsewhere... Exactly! IF the choice is:buy a new raptor skin for 25-30€orbuy XCOM2: War of the Chosen for 39.99€ (less when Steam sales)Now guess why i'll be finishing XCOM 2 Campaign again in a couple weeks (i'm too busy to play either atm).Now if mounts were like 10€ each (~1000 gems)? I'd probably have bought 3 of them so far (Jackal, skimmer and springer, didn't like the peacock). Agreed. I would totally buy three new cars if they were $100 each. LOLThat's a sound logic. Does it compare to the game?No.Not even close...A car has specific costs in creating, materials, branding, distribution. And the cheapest you can buy a brand new car is usually around 10 000€. Gem store items don't have material or distribution costs. Also, other "cars" already in the gem store, don't cost 2000 gems. Outfits are similar in scope and use, and cost one third of the mount costs. If you compare value and possible workload on all gem store items, mounts are clearly an outlier. Even permanent tools can be justified because of the savings in gathering tools.While mounts are just an outfit for a skill with some extra sounds. Compared to Character outfits that need to be redesigned 5-10 times (because racial and gender differences) the price difference is clearly exaggerated.I was agreeing with you. Of course we, as consumers, would want prices to be lower so that we could buy more. Are you sure that game production doesnt have specific costs? Anet, last I heard, had between 300 and 350 employees. In their neck of the woods the average pay for a game dev is in the ballpark of $70k per year. The cost to employ is beteen 1.2 and 1.3. So (potentially): 70,000 x 350 x 1.3 = $31,850,000 in payroll alone.

Which is what i just did - rougly ~ 12 euros spent on LoL skin about half an hour ago, cause i had that amount to blow and wanted something fun. Had gem store more tame prices on tools (as i already have full set and am not desperate) i would toss that cash at a-net, but the better deal imho got my "fun fund" money today. Just saying there are guys like me who would join in and chip in for the game, had the deals been better. If they're not, it's not that i won't spend at all. I'll just spend it elsewhere... Exactly! IF the choice is:buy a new raptor skin for 25-30€orbuy XCOM2: War of the Chosen for 39.99€ (less when Steam sales)Now guess why i'll be finishing XCOM 2 Campaign again in a couple weeks (i'm too busy to play either atm).Now if mounts were like 10€ each (~1000 gems)? I'd probably have bought 3 of them so far (Jackal, skimmer and springer, didn't like the peacock).Agreed. I would totally buy three new cars if they were $100 each.

No it isn't WoW is doing great without a WoW2 and if you compare WoW graphics to GW2 Grafics I don't really see why so many people here talk about graphics as a reason for a GW3... I personally absolutely hate this motivation of many companies to just produce new games / consoles as fast as possible - that doesn't make anything good... But since there are people who buy a new Smartphone every year and every single new console whenever there is one and every single Fifa game I can tell where the idea of GW3 is coming from. This consumer madness is ruining every single aspect of quality and user friendlyness and I hope ANet will not give in to that madness. I, like many others, would not buy nor play a GW3 for various reasons.I've already stopped buying consoles, the last console I bought was the PlayStation 2 - I've been buying Pokemon games up until Sun/Moon and I regret every purchase after Diamond/Pearl and will not buy any more Pokemon games. I'm not buying anything from EA anymore, for rather obvious reasons and I encourage everyone else to do the same. And I have bought 1 Smartphone in my entire life and it still serves me well, if it ever breaks I will buy the same Smartphone again. What I'm trying to say here is: just because something is new doesn't mean it's better and just because there is more of something doesn't mean any of it is actually good. Everyone who wants to see GW3 probably has a very twisted view of reality... Yes the graphics will probably improve, maybe the engine will run better but does that make a good game? No, graphics and how well a game runs don't matter in the first place, if the gameplay and story aren't gripping then everything else won't save the game. And when it comes to gameplay and story you will find that Companies which just pump out game after game usually produce kitten quality gameplay & story or just reiterations of previous games of the series with very little change while indie companies usually have incredibly detailed stories with innovative gameplay. Is it because they're more talented? Maybe but most likely it's because they focus all their attention to making that one game amazing instead of trying to produce as many games as possible. So please ANet, take good care of GW2 and don't waste a single thought on GW3! Does this mean that you consider making gw2 to be a mistake? Producing a new product years after the old, when new heights are possible due to the increasing capabilities of the tech used is a perfectly reasonable thing in my opinion. I certainly am not attempting to use a TRS80 computer (and I notice that you mention owning a PS2 not a PS, or NES, or Atari 2600). Yes and no, I haven't played Guild Wars but as far as I know it was very very different as far as gameplay goes from GW2 so I think GW2 was a good step. If we think about GW3, what do you imagine would change from GW2 to GW3? Better graphics, better engine, and? It'd most likely be pretty much the same type of gameplay as GW2 already offers so why not polish the GW2 engine and graphics over time (as WoW has done in the past too) and keep releasing content?There is no point in making a new game just for better graphics and engine except greed. We as players gain nothing except a more spread out fanbase - many GW2 players would stick with GW2, and many GW players aren't playing GW2 and will not play GW3 either - sure you attract new players, but if you kick your veterans in the guts every 6 years that'll probably cost you. WoW is still successful because it's still WoW and even though many have quit WoW, a lot of them still come back after a few years because it's still there and there's still new stuff every then and now, if they'd release a WoW2 that'd mean they'd have to quit developing WoW and then they'd start loosing precious fans.To be honest I do not know what the gameplay differences between gw2 and a hypothetical gw3 should be. I do know that gw2 is still running on a version of the gw1 engine and that devs have indicated that this limits what they can reasonably do with the game I think that change for its own sake is not necessarily a good thing, but then neither is refusing to embrace growth because it steps away from the status quo. I dont think that the franchise is ready for a new iteration, but I can see the gap between what is and what could be, with upgraded tools, growing.

No it isn't WoW is doing great without a WoW2 and if you compare WoW graphics to GW2 Grafics I don't really see why so many people here talk about graphics as a reason for a GW3... I personally absolutely hate this motivation of many companies to just produce new games / consoles as fast as possible - that doesn't make anything good... But since there are people who buy a new Smartphone every year and every single new console whenever there is one and every single Fifa game I can tell where the idea of GW3 is coming from. This consumer madness is ruining every single aspect of quality and user friendlyness and I hope ANet will not give in to that madness. I, like many others, would not buy nor play a GW3 for various reasons.I've already stopped buying consoles, the last console I bought was the PlayStation 2 - I've been buying Pokemon games up until Sun/Moon and I regret every purchase after Diamond/Pearl and will not buy any more Pokemon games. I'm not buying anything from EA anymore, for rather obvious reasons and I encourage everyone else to do the same. And I have bought 1 Smartphone in my entire life and it still serves me well, if it ever breaks I will buy the same Smartphone again. What I'm trying to say here is: just because something is new doesn't mean it's better and just because there is more of something doesn't mean any of it is actually good. Everyone who wants to see GW3 probably has a very twisted view of reality... Yes the graphics will probably improve, maybe the engine will run better but does that make a good game? No, graphics and how well a game runs don't matter in the first place, if the gameplay and story aren't gripping then everything else won't save the game. And when it comes to gameplay and story you will find that Companies which just pump out game after game usually produce kitten quality gameplay & story or just reiterations of previous games of the series with very little change while indie companies usually have incredibly detailed stories with innovative gameplay. Is it because they're more talented? Maybe but most likely it's because they focus all their attention to making that one game amazing instead of trying to produce as many games as possible. So please ANet, take good care of GW2 and don't waste a single thought on GW3! Does this mean that you consider making gw2 to be a mistake? Producing a new product years after the old, when new heights are possible due to the increasing capabilities of the tech used is a perfectly reasonable thing in my opinion. I certainly am not attempting to use a TRS80 computer (and I notice that you mention owning a PS2 not a PS, or NES, or Atari 2600).

This. Buying the components and installing them yourself (or bugging that one friend that does this sort of stuff for himself) can be relatively inexpensive. But if the cloud solution works for you, go for it.

I like the number of instances. Wouldn't mind greater use of instancing. The instances were not too long. I detest the frequency with which the instance crashes during the post fight dialogue.

If the topic is still relevant, and the posts within it relevant, then I think that it should be possible to bump a thread.

Only if you believe every forum member that voted answered honestly. Its possible for there to be people under the age of 10 playing without every forum member who voted being honest with their vote. I know of multiple kids in that age range who play or have played.

I so wanted to enjoy the new one...sigh.

Entirely too much of this game is dependant on crafting. That dependence influences my real money spending habits heavily, causing me to question spending real money on the game.

A consumable, purchased for either gold or gems, that provides a buff similar to what you can get in the special forces training area, all boons and buffs at max stacks, that removes the ability to gain XP, karma, gold, etc while in effect might be easier to develop than a separate difficulty setting. Since this mechanic is already in the game, to some extent, and provides bonuses only comparable to what a (extremely) min/maxed group could do, would this address anyone's concerns?

That is the thing though. Many people claim here that it can be done solo. Anyway the personal story will never be truly personal because you can always invite people to join your party. And if you couldn't, much would be saying that it is a shame that you can't play with friends/people in personal story. Agree. My point was that a personal story instance shouldn't be difficult to where inviting others was a requirement rather than an option. Also agreed. However, by definition, its not a requirement if it is not required for success. Assuming that no one claiming to have successfully completed the instance solo is lying, it is established as a fact that inviting others is not a requirement.

Aren't you the bloke that said it was easy? That you did it first go, no deaths? You said: "I didnt find the Scruffy fight to be particularly difficult, but it was annoying." So, you're exactly the type of person I was referring to being unable to have a discussion with. One the one hand you tell us you weren't challenged and the fight wasn't difficult. On the other, you're telling me it's meant to be challenging. So, either you're SO GREAT that you didn't notice the challenge, OR your argument is wildly inconsistent. Thus, "the type of person who won't understand my point of view and can't accept it's valid". Until you can relegate the inconsistencies in your own logic (is it challenging or not?) there's no discussion to be had because the only person being challenged is me, between the two of us, and you're saying I should be. You don't get to decide that for me. I do. And if you WEREN'T challenged, then making it easier for me so I'm NOT challenged seems pretty fair, right? My argument is not at all inconsistent. The only argument that I have made is that a story which is specifically about challenge should be, by definition, in order to deliver the effect of that story, challenging. At no point did I say that I was not challenged or that the fight was not difficult. If there is an impediment to discussion here it originates with the willingness of some posters, such as yourself, to delve into falsehood and fabrication in order to further an agenda. I also said nothing about first go, nor no deaths. You might want to consider the qualifier, "particularly," as I used, and which you quoted. The phrase does not mean that I did not find the fight to completely lack challenge. It means, by definition, that I did not find the fight to have a higher than normal level of challenge. Particularly was included for a reason. There is no inconsistency in my logic. At no point have I argued for anything other than the idea that representing a story about a challenge requires some degree of challenge. If someone complained about the inclusion of tragic elements in a tragedy or the inclusion of humor in a comedy I would respond much the same as I have here.

Its an interactive story about a challenge to be overcome. The interactive challenge is inherent to the story.