Ashen.2907

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.

I tend to agree with the title. Players should stop making boss fights hard on themselves.

I didnt find the Scruffy fight to be particularly difficult, but it was annoying. I detest the invulnerability stage concept. If Scruffy can be made to be invulnerabble to the point that only a specific item, which is highly unlikely to be present on any other battlefield, then why not build an army of scruffies and never worry about any enemy again?

Eventually, sure. Doesn't seem like a good idea right now though.

Expansion is 2 months old. Spoiler period has ended. And, when the title specifically references content, those worried about spoilers know (or should) to avoid the thread.

This.

If a person hasn't gotten the griffon because he/she thinks 250g is too much, but thinks spending 400 gems on a random mount skin isn't too much, I suggest that person rethink their priorities. The griffon is a solid gameplay upgrade. It even unlocks two new adventures in each PoF map (once you complete the second mastery). In my opinion, people who are considering buying these mount skins, but not considering unlocking the griffon should instead reconsider unlocking the griffon rather than complain about getting a griffon skin they can't use.Not sure that I understand the logic there. Spending money or time to get something you dont want or dont think is worth the expense is somehow better than buying something you like? I detest coconut, but love pineapple. Should I rethink my spending habits about spending money on pineapple rather than coconut, even if coconut is cheaper?

They're already like that. I seldom get the movie I want, even when I think I know what I'm getting. lol LOL, The part about that post that got me was $16 for two adults. $15.50 each here.

I like this idea I like the concept of the idea, but the gem costs are too low IMO.25050010002000 Sorry man, 2000 gems for one skin is absurd. You're very nearly equating the value of an entire expansion to the cost of a skin.I disagree. We have a greatly discounted expansion due to an expectation on ANet's part of being able to make up the reduced ROI from expac sales via monetization of mounts. Essentially Anet decided to spread tbe cost of the expansion out as opposed to front loading it, and chose to allow some portion of the player base to ignore part of the cost (by not buying mount skins) and others to supplement the cost of the full expansion with in game resources via gold to gem conversion.

I like this idea I like the concept of the idea, but the gem costs are too low IMO.25050010002000

I was torn between not often and almost never. I assumed the OP meant rewarding in terms of drops and the like and so my vote specifically refers to such. I find the gameplay to be rewarding in the sense that it is enjoyable and allows for player to skill to influence character performance, but drops and similar rewards are lackluster at best.

I dislike the gamble, but I am pretty sure that the overwhelming feedback has been FOR such methods. Every time someone purchases a key to gamble on a BLC, they are telling ANet to keep going with this approach to monetization. Thousands upon thousands of pieces of feedback from people demonstrating a willingness to spend money trumps complaints on a forum. Sigh.