Obtena.7952

Exactly. Again, my point is that someone is unable to judge if the person copying is using the inspection feature or not, so the argument about ease of inspection is absurd. If I'm going to take the time to copy someone's look, it's irrelevant to me how easy it is to figure it out. If I'm going to get angry because someone has a look that I created, it's irrelevant to me how easy it was for someone to mimic it. If the only argument is that people can inspect others fashion easily, they are going to have to provide a WAY more significant explanation for why that's actually a problem, especially if the game doesn't tell them they are being fashion inspected (it wasn't clear from the demo if that's the case or not). So, here is the final conclusion. If the only argument people are making is that it's too easy to be inspected, then Anet just needs to not tell people their fashion is being inspected in the first place.

That doesn't make sense ... the offensive part to people is that it's easier for people to copy their fashion? That's a illogical argument because if you put a string of people in front of a fashion judge, the judge would have NO idea how hard or easy it was for those people to come up with their fashions, whether they were copied or not. Let's be honest here. The only issue is that people are offended they can be inspected. That's it. It has nothing to do with ease of copying. People that are so concerned with their fashion are GOING to spend as much time as they need to create their look, whether it was copied or not.

The point is that Anet makes changes to the game all the time that have negative impacts on people's feelings so it's absurd to think that this development is unique with that regard and somehow 'feelings' becomes some significant factor. From another perspective, the decision to add fashion inspect wasn't 'feelings' based in the first place, so it's unlikely to be affect by 'feeling-based' arguments to affect it.

Here is the thing ... sure Anet could add an opt-out function. I'm sure if it's not too much work, they it will be considered if the consequences are significant enough. But that's not really the point. The point is why would they? I've YET to see an argument to add an opt-out for this other than "it hurts my feels if people can see my fashion choices".

You wouldn't believe how fast some people melt if they feel their sense of entitlement is being challenged. For them it actually IS about safety. Somehow they have associated the secrets of their fashion to the worth that it has to them. It's not even about people copying their look. It can't be ... people can already do that and it's unlikely they would encounter person sporting the 'stolen' fashion anyways. SOMEHOW ... it's simply offensive to them that people can look at their choices.

That's the problem. Anyone that thinks shaming Anet with labels to compel change is pretty ignorant, especially if it's flavoured with a dash of entitlement.

Yes it has been. In fact, it always has been, because there isn't a definition for it. It's simply whatever someone wants to think it is. More reasonable players will recognize that Anet selling an expansion isn't P2W. Disgruntled, angry players will label EVERYTHING Anet sells as P2W. But here is the best part ... it doesn't matter what people want to call it or how they want to define it. Arguing what is P2W is not relevant ... it's just a label. It's not going to stop Anet or any other company from selling what they want. The reality will be reflected in how consumers patronize Anet ... and obviously they do that, regardless of whatever snowflakes are being melted over how they are labeling Anet's practices as P2W.

If that someone is attempting to throw shade at the game because of how they want to label it with their subjective opinion of P2W, I would say yeah, that is harmful ... and that's exactly what's happening in this thread. People don't like something about the game, so they associate it with something ELSE that is generally looked down upon. The unfortunate part is that no discussion can be had because the second P2W becomes subjective because people 'feel' it's true, they can never be wrong about it. The fact remains that there is nothing unreasonable about charging people to access content, regardless if that content is a simple skin or an I WIN button. No one is removing agency ... consumers still have the option to purchase things or not. This is the power we have. No one should pretend Anet is our friend or some charity. This is a business, we are its patrons. That's the relationship. If someone 'complains' they don't get to experience something they can readily purchase, that's their problem, which is why the OP's original post is so absurd.

True, but not for the better. Prior to people measuring DPS benchmarks, people were trying to dictate what was optimal based on excel calculations, which were literally demonstrated to be completely inaccurate and nonsensical when applied to real encounters ingame. So the reality is that prior to the existence of Snowcrows/Metabattle, the game WAS much different ... and not in a good way. There are ALWAYS going to be people that game the system; in GW2 case, optimizing their DPS. That doesn't make them or the sites that provide that information bad things for the game. What is bad for the game is when people PUSH optimization on unwilling/unknowing players, for their own selfish motives, then turn around and play the victim when people don't conform this optimal way to play. Welcome to metapushing. At least with Snowcrows and DPS meters, an objective argument can be had about the benefits and value of playing meta vs. not.

No, I don't misunderstand. It IS a choice that they are playing QScrapper. There are OTHER quickness specs they could choose if QScrapper doesn't work for them because 'movement' or some other nonsensical reason. There is no narrative where Anet is forcing ANYONE to do ANYTHING. That's completely absurd considering the lengths that Anet has made to balance the game in the last 2 years in their roles-based system. There IS choice. People need to make better choices for themselves if the choices they made don't work for them. Force movements skills DON'T need to be removed from the game. Players that don't like them simply need to git gud or choose something else.

Hold on ... you have a choice what skills you use in this game so ... the whole thread makes no sense. Don't like forced movement skills? OK, don't use them. 'Being OK' with skills is irrelevant if you can choose to not use them if you aren't OK with them. What you THINK is a bad design decision is just a L2P and/or a 'you making bad skill choices for yourself' issue.

Lots of opinion presented factually here. There is no 'silent majority' Anet should listen to ... Anet SHOULD be using data from the game to determine what content and mechanics works for players and what doesn't. Anet has over 10 years of data to tell them these things. As veteran game designers, they will port 'the good things' to GW3. To be honest, what will make GW3 a success is more about what Anet offers players to get them to spend money on the game. Sure, that's good content, but it's also how willing Anet is to follow the trends of selling things that allow players to 'accelerate' their progression. As for the thread, it's easy for people to look back now and say HoT is the best. I think a more objective look at the data suggests HoT at the time of its release was not the pinnacle of game experience most players were looking for. I think it's looked on positively at this point because we have obvious power creep (which shouldn't have ever happened) and it's simply very familiar with most players. IMO, the success of HoT over the history of the game is due to it's re-play value and not necessarily it's content. I liked the content in PoF the most, but there isn't much reason for me to revisit going there.

Why stop there? We should fire anyone that creates mechanics where we have to do anything BUT press 1. 😆

LAWLWUT? The longtimers don't 'share' and don't want it to be more accessible? Did you post that under duress or lose a bet? That's incredibly obtuse way to think. Cringey. Who do you think is providing you all the information that allows everyone to do the content without learning it themselves? Oh right ... the very people you accuse of gatekeeping to protect their sunken cost. JEEZ.

Game wasn't to your taste? OK ... but that doesn't mean it has a design flaw. But people will say anything to convince themselves it's a problem with the game when it doesn't suit them. Almost like EVERY game should be something they like.

CHOOSES to play an MMORPG ... complains they have to do the story to progress. Someone didn't read the label ... Eagerly anticipated PART 2: Complaining there isn't enough content

Except you don't need to use a metabattle build to get that. Even most of the out of date builds are still going to deliver more than acceptable DPS ... as long as the people using them know how to play them and the encounter mechanics. So what I said wasn't wrong. Don't pretend like you can't deliver DPS unless you are using THE most up to date DPS builds. Even then, it's unlikely you will get close to the stated DPS values. The primary improvement that needs to happen here isn't Metabattle handing you the most up to date builds that DPS pushers who abuse you with DPS meters approve of. But here is a suggestion. If you have a suggestion to improve metabattle ... talk to the people that manage it. What does this even have to do with GW2 forums?

The changes we have seen in the last few years are definitely not random and most are aligned to what Anet is trying to do. Specs defined by roles (yes, we see that) Specs within their roles are reasonably balanced within those roles so no specific choice is favoured (that sometimes results in unfavourable effects OUTSIDE those specs) IMO, the functions of things are related to theme and focused on PVE. Competitive modes "balanced" (loosely) around changing the numbers of specific elements More attention to 'unbreaking' things (though we can still get some changes that overshoot and need to be addressed later.) This isn't to say there aren't still some weird changes going on that make people think WTF, but as always, the context is important if you want to really understand. Interesting case ... change to Necro Signet trait. Funny part is that if the current version was introduced at launch, no one would have questioned it but NOW, it's blowing peoples minds.

Funny, some people STILL haven't figured out that your team mates rage quitting on you isn't about your build, it's about you knowing how to play and the encounter. But I'm sure someone coming back from a prolonged break has both of these things locked down so the only important factor is the build they use 🤣 Imagine a world where you find things about about how to play a game ... by playing it and not having a website tell you how to play it.

It's completely weird how within a decade, some MMO players want content to be free and when it's not, they label it as P2W to justify their unreasonable expectations. The irony is that MMO's like this are some of the BEST value for money gaming entertainment you can get. Here is the kicker ... any label you want to apply doesn't matter. If the content has value to you, you buy it. If you don't buy it, then you don't have any reason to complain you don't have it or that people that do have it are open to options you don't have, regardless of whether those options make them "win" more than you do. Another common misconception here is the expectation that GW2 is going to drown you with that 'big score' loot prize and make you rich. It's just not that kind of game ... and it's not hard to see it isn't that kind of game before you even hit level 80. If you are pre-occupied with the 'big dirty' and ignore all the other value the game offers, that's not a game problem. It's a 'you' problem.

I think it's important to be accurate with something being talked about here. The Living story content we got between expansions was NEVER free. It was part of the cost of the expansion. Still, there is some truth in the claim this wasn't an ideal situation because people forgot they DID pay for it and needed the expansion to access it. Therefore, I agree it was a mistake for Anet to throttle content this way because it made a bad perception with players who convinced themselves that NOW we pay for all new content, they are getting shafted. The one point I will acknowledge to people complaining about the new model is that the content is more expensive than what the original expansion costs were. Unfortunately, that's just a consequence of how the game has aged as well as it's players and the content/skins they already accumulated. Still, you want the old content, AFAIK, it can be purchased from time to time at prices that are inline with the cost of the new content as well so. It would be a bold move but I'm of the opinion that if Anet wants players (veterans or not) to continue to patronize the GS at levels that could justify more content and features, they need to start considering selling content that IS pushing that P2W boundary. At some point, offering more mount skins can't pay the bills because a player starts asking themselves "How many mount skins do I ACTUALLY want?"

OK so to answer their question ... NO, you don't have the data either, yet you make the claims about Anet offering lower quality content because they 'can', implying they are 'sneaking' something by us to take advantage of people for some nefarious reasons ... since you 'see' things. The problem is that you to create the narrative that fits your beliefs based on the things you see. Except you ignore things you can't see (or don't want to see) that don't fit that narrative. That's how conspiracy theory works. I really don't get this mentality. I'm not going to debate if you like the content or not, but no one should be pretending that how they feel or their subjective opinions about content should be some indicator to Anet about the quality of that content or the value it brings to players.

No, it's not about me or you or any individual. It's about EVERYONE. So when people make general claims that the quality of the content is decreasing, that's THEIR assessment. They don't speak for anyone else. So what those people making those claims need to do is stop pretending like how they feel and their subjective opinions are related to general truths about how everyone feels about the game and therefore ... Anet is doing things wrong or bad. Again, if the game was about ME ... Anet would be coming to ME and asking ME what I wanted and making the game how I want. That's not happening. That can't happen. Service-providing businesses that require large numbers of people to be successful just don't work that way. You already know how this works. The money talks. If people are GENERALLY not seeing the value in the content, they will not buy the content. If they are, they will. If enough people do buy it, it will work as a business. That's what matters. Anet does not care if some particular player does or does not buy something. That factors in EXACTLY ZERO to their decisions on how the game changes or the content they offer.

I made no "admission" as to how I label SoTo so ... 🤡 The absurd thing is that this kind of comment shows how bad people miss the point. The discussion here isn't about how you label the content because whether it's an 'expansion' or not is irrelevant. It's about the value it delivers you for the price Anet charges for it. I mean, SOMEHOW people forgot how buying stuff works. Whether something has value to you is a YOU decision, not some general assessment the general population makes for you. Whether Anet can make a business out of GW2 selling content depends on WAY more factors than if they are making 'expansions' or not.

That's the problem with what you are saying. The question isn't about quality, it's about value ... and whether the game is 'lower quality' is a subjective assessment. You simply don't speak for everyone about the quality of the game. You feel you get less quality? OK ... you also get to determine if you want to pay for that lower quality in more frequent and smaller amounts. That's where some of the value comes in. Again, if content doesn't have value to you, you don't have to buy it. Anet isn't 'sneaking' anything past you for whatever nefarious reasons you think they can. That's just some bad acting narrative painting Anet as some villain because you are bitter about not getting expansions.