Obtena.7952

What...? Why would it be me judging? It'd be an automated system determining completely dormant accounts based on not having logged in for over 7 years etc. I wouldn't be touching anyone's account. It would merely be Anet recycling completely dead names from 2012/2013 that are on inactive accounts. This comment is way underrated. It's underrated because it's missing the point entirely. Not missing the point at all. Person A has something that person B wants and so person B is asking that the something be taken away so that he can have it. Period. Imagine you got a new office job. You work there for 6 years in your mediocre office space (metaphor: "bad" name in gw2) and wonder why you could never get the amazing office space (metaphor: "good" name in gw2) next to you which has been empty for 7 years. So you go to your boss and ask your boss if you could move into that office, since you've been actively with the company for 6 years now. The boss tells you that office belongs to Bob. You ask: "Huh, who's Bob?" Oh, he was a new employee (metaphor: low level, low value account) who quit his job on his first day 7 years ago, we keep his office space reserved for him on the off-chance he gets back. Would it be too much to ask for Bob's office space to be reassigned to you after 7 years and Bob having to be the one who gets the mediocre office space if he does somehow happen to come back on year 8? I personally don't think so. Bad and good name has been put in quotations since that's very subjective.But think of wanting to name your character "Ash" or "Ashen" instead of "Ashén The Burnt" as an example. People posting here need to realize they won't lose their name if this is implemented properly! If so it would only affect the dormant accounts from around launch that carry little to no actual worth. It's not like their character will get deleted either, they will simply have to choose a new name. Now I hear the argument that if they came back to the game they'd be put off the game because they'd have to choose a new name, but you also need to think about the amount of people who are put off the game because they can't get any of the names they are interested in to begin with. I gave it all the consideration it needed. "They have it, I want it, so ANet should make it happen". Using your very example, I named a toon Ashlayna, and everyone called her Ash, all the time, even in TS/Discord, which was jarring, since it's obvious that I'm not female on voice chat. However, what happens if they do this, and your much desired name is still unavailable? Is it time to move the goalposts to "well, they haven't logged it in for a long time, so they don't deserve to keep it" even if the account is actually active, just not on the name you want to steal? What if they're active on another server? There's no misunderstanding here either, steal is exactly the right word. That's the defining principle, taking something that belongs to someone else. So find some creativity, hit up the name generators that have been provided if you can't, and get a name you like, and go, or don't, as you see fit, but don't try to pretend you're not asking to steal names from someone else, that's exactly what you're doing. You're overthinking it a lot with the whole "stealing" thing. Name recycling is common practice in other MMORPGs for good reasons. World of Warcraft, Trove, ArcheAge, RIFT, Lineage II, Aion, DC Universe Online and probably a lot of others that I can't recall off the top of my head. Nothing out of the ordinary. It has nothing to do with "not being creative enough to find a name" either. The purpose is not for one person to be able to claim (or as you call it, steal) the name they want.The purpose is to refresh the pool of usable names in general. It's actually quite intriguing how opposed this community is to this common practice compared to any other game community. It's generally seen very favorably there. While some even become really toxic about the mere notion of it here.And those MMO's aren't GW2 ... they aren't made to leave and come back later. The bottomline is that even if MMO's recycle names, no one wants to lose there's if it can be helped. Just because it's common practice doesn't mean it's GOOD practice.

If they couldn't be bothered to login after being notified that they would lose their name due to inactivity, they didn't care in the first place. The primary reason to release inactive names isn't to free them, it's to encourage those who still cared to come back, who would have otherwise likely never returned. No, that's incorrect because the game is designed so players can leave for extended periods of time and come back. Being 'active' in this game doesn't mean much. I fact, I would define anyone that doesn't purchase gems as 'inactive' from a business POV.

The big problem with Anet fixing this is that they have designed their game around people leaving and coming back. Imagine you come back after some period of time and you don't have the name for picked your character. MASSIVE CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE. I'm willing to bet that for most people, the name they choose is meaningful, so to come back and find part of your character's identity removed is unacceptable.

Ah, I forgot .. this is the game where I let OTHERS tell me how to play ... No, wait, it's not.

So you were inactive for 8 months because of balance issues, and claim that you will play this game no matter what, but nowWvW is ruined because of the mount? :confused: Quality Troll post. :+1: :trollface: In addition ... these balance issues have been in the game since day 1 ... In fact, anyone sitting in the wings 'waiting' for balance just hasn't been paying attention to the game. my favourite part is that the poll is worthless. Whether people like mounts or not in WvW, they are here to stay.

Most training runs are done incredibly inefficiently to begin with so they are not even learning scenarios because instead of picking up a few trainees with some degree of competency and being grown in skill withing a group of mentors, what you have is maybe one or two mentors and then a disparate group of people with wild gaps in skill competencies being recycled around where the group members aren't even the same throughout several training sessions, so every new training session you're dealing with different problem players stretching the group training thin. In essence you get a person who needs practice with the final phase of Matthias but in the 2 days of training the consistency in getting to that phase for his or her practice is nonexistent since that person's practice is being held back by other people who aren't even prepared to make it past the first phases. And since the spots in existing statics are usually so few and often quite stringent beyond just having 3-4 kills on a boss, these people may train and get a kill but rarely move on to grow the raiding community because they find that they can't consistently raid outside of PuGing which has even more outrageous barriers to entry so they quit altogether. This game is absolutely atrocious in getting the average player to a baseline of competency for raiding/fractals because for most of its published content no degree of competency or thought into viable builds is encouraged as it allows zerging to completely overshadow individual contribution tests via open world PvE being its main form of content. At least GW1 did a much better job in training people across story missions first, then optional objectives adding further challenge and ultimately elite missions. But all of them had zero zerging involved and emphasized the individual contribution of each group member by limiting group size. So much this. Especially the highlighted sections. It's so frustrating to lead a training raid, even with a core group of experienced raiders when the group of people you train is so wildly different in skill. Why not run multiple training raids then? Because we neither have the manpower to do so, nor enough people willing to train others 24/7. It boils down to 1 training raid for new players and 1 training run for experienced players per week, and even filling those can be a pain. The performance and presence of some of the new raiders is terrible in general. This leads to essentially half a session of training, and half a session of running wing 4 b1-3 at the end so people remain motivated (ending with 4-5 boss kills for new players for the week). The most enjoyable trainings are with more experienced players where people at least know their class and have some experience with how raids work, but even there you have some disparity. Some go out and raid on their own with PUG groups and get weekly kills and experience, others only do the bare minimum and it really shows when tackling bosses which haven't been cleared for a while. In theory yes, you won't get good practice on a heal necro since you skip a ton of mechanics. In reality though: unless you are working on the top end of the spectrum, that support is needed on almost all levels. Last week during training we killed VG with 5 people (basically the experienced part of the group) and moved on. This week, where I had said we would do a set amount of training on VG no matter if it gets killed first try, no actually new player showed up. The best one can do currently is try to get people involved and interested in raids so they set out to practice and train on their own (my old raid static required people to test new builds or classes in PUG raids before being allowed to play them in the static group or to improve if one was lacking performance. That's just not something you see with many new raiders, and would also be to hardcore for a completely new player given the way how PUG groups operate). Anything beyond that is not at the level of new players entering raids but cannibalizing on already experienced players for advanced statics. This game is terrible at preparing players for group content. See the sad state how people are able to deal (or rather not deal) with even basic normal T4 fractals. There rant done, sorry had to just vent. Sometimes it gets really frustrating trying to explain to people even basic game mechanics. That's certainly something other MMOs do way better be it via the innate trinity or some type of achievements. No, that has nothing to do with easy mode raids but rather with getting people to understand HOW this game works.I'm going to bump this because it's not just true now, it's been true since the beginning, even with dungeons. I can't agree more; Anet has done the worst job at preparing people for what they will encounter in endgame instanced content. As a capable player, it's such a turn off to try to explain to people why they actually have to learn something to be successful in this game, because the PVE experience they have had treats everyone at the lowest common denominator (i.e. NO SKILLS) and rewards them for it. I hate to say it, but if Anet wants players more involved with the game at large, we need scrub-level raiding.

The issue is its marketed as it being a unique mount when its not and then releasing a 2000 recolor skin pack a week later. That makes no sense ... it is a mount with it's own skins. I don't really see what the issue is here. It's certainly unique in WvW and BTW ... you didn't pay for it, it was free, so complaining they recycled some things to deliver it to us is pretty petty. I really don't see what being 'unique' has to do with buying a skin. We get armor skins, weapon skins, outfits etc ... all the time. Buying skins is about the look. It's completely irrelevant if it's for something 'unique'. I have dozens of skins for a sword ... is Anet being dishonest when they make more and I like them and get them? Not at all and this is the same thing. A content being "free" (even though we still need PoF to be able to get it, but whatever...) shouldn't be an excuse for poor quality. It's not poor quality. The skins look as good as any other. Don't confuse low quality for reduced effort. If no one noticed warclaw had the same frame as Griffon, no one would come here and complain about the quality of the skin.

The issue is its marketed as it being a unique mount when its not and then releasing a 2000 recolor skin pack a week later. That makes no sense ... it is a mount with it's own skins. I don't really see what the issue is here. It's certainly unique in WvW and BTW ... you didn't pay for it, it was free, so complaining they recycled some things to deliver it to us is pretty petty. I really don't see what being 'unique' has to do with buying a skin. We get armor skins, weapon skins, outfits etc ... all the time. Buying skins is about the look. It's completely irrelevant if it's for something 'unique'. I have dozens of skins for a sword ... is Anet being dishonest when they make more and I like them and get them? Not at all and this is the same thing.

I can't get my head around these ideas. If you limit your options to soloing, of course you restrict yourself for content in a significant way in an MMO. I mean, you have to appreciate that when a studio sells something as an MMO, the have a set number of resource to deliver content to the market in an MMO format right? That's NOT a significant level of solo end game content. The idea that an MMO lacks solo end game content ... I'm sort of lost for words. It's like asking for a coffee and wondering why it's hot.

Exactly and Istan was a mess. Couldn’t even see what was going on so if nerfing it means a better playing experience then fantastic. There is zero link between the nerf and the business model though OH I agree, zones for farming have zero relation to game revenue ... though some people don't understand that. yea, you totally cant convert the gold to premium currency, and use it on cashshop itemsthe idea is ludicrous So .. I'm talking about farming and you are talking about gold conversion to gems ... so tell me what data you have that shows the overall percentage of gold made from farmed items that people convert it to gems and buy something from the store ... then we can have a sensible discussion about the 'impact' THAT farming-earned gold to gem conversion has on game revenue. Don't worry, I will wait. You did say farming had zero relation to revenue. Gems are revenue. There are people who farm gold to buy gems, and people who buy gems to exchange for gold. Seems like farming does have a relation to revenue, regardless of how much. Gem exchanges even fluctuates for a reason. Also, you don't have any data yourself, meaning you can't for certainty really talk about how much of an impact gold<--->gems has on their revenue. Either way, if it had zero impact, the feature wouldn't exist anyways, as it costed them money to implement it.Like someone already explained ... that's a different pool of gems.

Exactly and Istan was a mess. Couldn’t even see what was going on so if nerfing it means a better playing experience then fantastic. There is zero link between the nerf and the business model though OH I agree, zones for farming have zero relation to game revenue ... though some people don't understand that. yea, you totally cant convert the gold to premium currency, and use it on cashshop itemsthe idea is ludicrousSo .. I'm talking about farming and you are talking about gold conversion to gems ... so tell me what data you have that shows the overall percentage of gold made from farmed items that people convert it to gems and buy something from the store ... then we can have a sensible discussion about the 'impact' THAT farming-earned gold to gem conversion has on game revenue. Don't worry, I will wait.

I would say ... stop running PVE DPS builds in WvW

It's worse ... people in other threads are complaining they didn't get the free content Anet was thinking about implementing ... or complaining they got it, but now how they wanted it. Yup, we got some special people out there. I have to say though ... if Anet wasn't going down the path of microtransactions in the first place, where does the OP think it gets all it's revenues?

Scrapper is a cancer build now? Please don't tell me one PWNed you because the trade off between offensive and defensive capability on a Scrapper is significant; Scrapper depends on quite a number of good traits to pull of either and there isn't enough trait bandwidth to get both. To be fair, I believe Bulwark Gyro is overtuned, probably should get about 1500 barrier less than what it does, or have it scale with players in the radius or something. Haven't extensively tried the others.

Exactly and Istan was a mess. Couldn’t even see what was going on so if nerfing it means a better playing experience then fantastic. There is zero link between the nerf and the business model though OH I agree, zones for farming have zero relation to game revenue ... though some people don't understand that.

It was always microtransaction heavy ... that's GW2's business model.

You ever think about that? Why so many threads if there isnt interest in it. I dont care one way or the other, but maybe a lot of other people do. Sure people are interested in what they wish for ... but it's just folly for anyone to think that a GW3 is answer to combining the things they like from both GW1 and GW2. I'm mean, it's just wishful thinking here. GW3 isn't any more likely to deliver on ALL the things that most people like from both games. People need to get over themselves and play games for the things they like about it, not the things they wish it was.

I don't get the RIP BS Warrior sentiment here ... I don't actually see much changing, other than you can perma banner a group if you decide to pick up your banners (if I understand correctly). If that's not a valuable option for groups, meta will reflect that. The strange thing here is that no one desires to be a banner slave all the time, so the tone of the thread is ... confusing. Either you want to be a banner slave 100% of the time or you don't. If you don't, you have to recognize banners need to be changed .

Yeah that means im invested into other areas of the game, such as the combat (or rather this take on combat), the story and the story updates, connections and friendships i formed etc. Plus, i've sunk prob 4k hours and i have a pretty severe case of sunk cost falacy with it. Bottomline is, most games that identify as live service products live and die by the developers ability or inability to update them. Gw1 simply doesnt have enough replayability and/or content to to give me a reason to play it more plus most of the ppl i talk to dont play it/never played it. Similarly if gw2 was to stop getting updates i would play it abit maybe, log in and run around for some feels then logout for a year. Its all about how the devs can keep me invested. Do i find things in gw2 that are better than in gw1? Yes ofc. Vice verca? Deff. But the games arent on an equal footing because one hasnt seen new developments in terms of content for years. That's correct ... we play because the game has more good things than bad. Frankly, I don't get your points here ... GW2 isn't GW1, so any expectation they were supposed to be the same in any player-defined way is just unreasonable, especially based on the extremely vague comments that I see Anet made at the time ... that was what the discussion here was focused on. Sure, there are things that you feel aren't as good in each of them. That's not a problem. It's not something to complain about after 6+ years of GW2 being established. You feel Anet butchered some part of the game ... that doesn't mean much since there wasn't any expectation Anet set that they were delivering GW1 part 2. There was the expectation that since gw2 went full mmo that the social aspecs and incentives would be greater. That's a matter of opinion ... the idea that the social aspects and incentives aren't 'greater' isn't a globally accepted one. Anet didn't develop a game to ensure that a specific group of players feelings are catered to. It's just not reasonably possible for them to develop a game appealing to everyone, including people that love whatever specific social interactions they experienced in GW1. Most things in life arent globally accepted, that doesnt mean whats been said about said things aint true. Gw2 is considered by many a rather lonelt mmo where u have to go out of your way to socialise. Gw2 after all is known for ots play alone together mentality.Right ... everyone feels different about GW2; some people feel denied/cheated/etc ... That's not something Anet can fix for everyone. Anet simply can't make the game everything that everyone wants. Anyone that believes they can is being completely unreasonable.

Thanks man - In a few words you managed to provide a perfect definition of "condescending" There isn't anything condescending about that post. Player A doesn't like the (in his opinion) diminished social aspect of GW2 compared to GW1. That's not an objective evaluation, nor did Anet explicitly define what the social aspect of GW2 compared to GW1 would be when GW2 was released. In otherwords, that's Player A's own imposed requirements based on his own subjective opinion; no reasonable person would ever expect Anet to be able to achieve that for all players in the first place. Even by his and others own admission, that social aspect in GW1 no longer exists either, so it's a moot point to begin with. True: Anet did not define social apects between Guild Wars and GW2 prior to GW2 release. However, they DID tell us they would bring the things we liked in Guild wars into GW2... Some of us are still waiting for that to happen.Like I said ... that's such a vague statement that any reasonable person wouldn't expect that to mean ANet are going to deliver on any particular thing any single player was expecting. I mean, this is not even unique to GW2 or games; this concept applies to almost every single product or service that you can get that's available to the open market. They simply aren't designed to cater to whatever any particular person wants. Honestly, if you are just waiting around for Anet to deliver something specific you wanted from GW1 that is subjectively determined by you that isn't in GW2, you're just being unreasonable. Let me ask you a question to illustrate: What are all those things people liked in GW1 exactly? I don't just mean you either , I mean everyone from GW1. Can that question even be reasonably answered? It's just ridiculous to think it's possible. There just isn't a way to deliver that.

Yeah that means im invested into other areas of the game, such as the combat (or rather this take on combat), the story and the story updates, connections and friendships i formed etc. Plus, i've sunk prob 4k hours and i have a pretty severe case of sunk cost falacy with it. Bottomline is, most games that identify as live service products live and die by the developers ability or inability to update them. Gw1 simply doesnt have enough replayability and/or content to to give me a reason to play it more plus most of the ppl i talk to dont play it/never played it. Similarly if gw2 was to stop getting updates i would play it abit maybe, log in and run around for some feels then logout for a year. Its all about how the devs can keep me invested. Do i find things in gw2 that are better than in gw1? Yes ofc. Vice verca? Deff. But the games arent on an equal footing because one hasnt seen new developments in terms of content for years. That's correct ... we play because the game has more good things than bad. Frankly, I don't get your points here ... GW2 isn't GW1, so any expectation they were supposed to be the same in any player-defined way is just unreasonable, especially based on the extremely vague comments that I see Anet made at the time ... that was what the discussion here was focused on. Sure, there are things that you feel aren't as good in each of them. That's not a problem. It's not something to complain about after 6+ years of GW2 being established. You feel Anet butchered some part of the game ... that doesn't mean much since there wasn't any expectation Anet set that they were delivering GW1 part 2. There was the expectation that since gw2 went full mmo that the social aspecs and incentives would be greater.That's a matter of opinion ... the idea that the social aspects and incentives aren't 'greater' isn't a globally accepted one. Anet didn't develop a game to ensure that a specific group of players feelings are catered to. It's just not reasonably possible for them to develop a game appealing to everyone, including people that love whatever specific social interactions they experienced in GW1. Thanks man - In a few words you managed to provide a perfect definition of "condescending" There isn't anything condescending about that post. Player A doesn't like the (in his opinion) diminished social aspect of GW2 compared to GW1. That's not an objective evaluation, nor did Anet explicitly define what the social aspect of GW2 compared to GW1 would be when GW2 was released. In otherwords, that's Player A's own imposed requirements based on his own subjective opinion; no reasonable person would ever expect Anet to be able to achieve that for all players in the first place. Even by his and others own admission, that social aspect in GW1 no longer exists either, so it's a moot point to begin with.

Yeah that means im invested into other areas of the game, such as the combat (or rather this take on combat), the story and the story updates, connections and friendships i formed etc. Plus, i've sunk prob 4k hours and i have a pretty severe case of sunk cost falacy with it. Bottomline is, most games that identify as live service products live and die by the developers ability or inability to update them. Gw1 simply doesnt have enough replayability and/or content to to give me a reason to play it more plus most of the ppl i talk to dont play it/never played it. Similarly if gw2 was to stop getting updates i would play it abit maybe, log in and run around for some feels then logout for a year. Its all about how the devs can keep me invested. Do i find things in gw2 that are better than in gw1? Yes ofc. Vice verca? Deff. But the games arent on an equal footing because one hasnt seen new developments in terms of content for years. That's correct ... we play because the game has more good things than bad. Frankly, I don't get your points here ... GW2 isn't GW1, so any expectation they were supposed to be the same in any player-defined way is just unreasonable, especially based on the extremely vague comments that I see Anet made at the time ... that was what the discussion here was focused on. Sure, there are things that you feel aren't as good in each of them. That's not a problem. It's not something to complain about after 6+ years of GW2 being established. You feel Anet butchered some part of the game ... that doesn't mean much since there wasn't any expectation Anet set that they were delivering GW1 part 2.

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Personally, I think GW1 was a mistake; when all these game companies were releasing games where you could interact on a massive scale with other players ... GW1 was severely limited in that area. Seems to me that Anet under-estimated how much value players put interacting with each other in open world, instanced group, etc... and realized what a missed opportunity that was. I'm sure if the information they had said otherwise, GW2 would have been GW1 part 2. And then released a sequel where the value and the need to interact with others was butchered. and yet, here we are 6 years later playing GW2 when you could still be playing GW1. I won't debate that's how you feel but clearly, the butchering of the interact hasn't prevented you from being here has it ... The truth is this: GW2 is it's own game and you don't have a choice but to come to terms with that. The problem I have with this whole thread is that if you haven't come to terms with that after 6+ years of playing GW2, you can't blame Anet for that. Why wouldnt i play a game that gets updated?I dunno ... why wouldn't you? I can't answer that for you. The fact I stated remains though ... IF your underlying motivation is to play a game that gets updated vs. one that you like, that's all on you. I can't tell you why you should play GW1 or GW2. I can tell you that you have choices and obviously you have chosen to play GW2 despite the butchering. Clearly even with your feelings about how Anet has butchered it, you still play it, so that means something.

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Personally, I think GW1 was a mistake; when all these game companies were releasing games where you could interact on a massive scale with other players ... GW1 was severely limited in that area. Seems to me that Anet under-estimated how much value players put interacting with each other in open world, instanced group, etc... and realized what a missed opportunity that was. I'm sure if the information they had said otherwise, GW2 would have been GW1 part 2. And then released a sequel where the value and the need to interact with others was butchered.and yet, here we are 6 years later playing GW2 when you could still be playing GW1. I won't debate that's how you feel but clearly, the butchering of the interact hasn't prevented you from being here has it ... The truth is this: GW2 is it's own game and you don't have a choice but to come to terms with that. The problem I have with this whole thread is that if you haven't come to terms with that after 6+ years of playing GW2, you can't blame Anet for that.

While I don't think it's an ideal approach, I think we can count on still getting them, just because some developments are just way too large to introduce as a LS feature. I'm also thinking that the way LS episodes are structured, Anet wouldn't want to exclude new customers from the features in LS that they provide as fundamental game mechanics in expansions. One thing that I think everyone can agree upon is that there is a large appetite for more especs; I don't see that being delivered in a LS or over a series of them. I do think it would be absolutely amazing to watch the evolution of your character as they learn a new espec through a LS season, but I don't think players have patience for that.