Leo G.4501

What would I do? Throwing random kitten at the wall on a test server for players to mess with probably. When some stuff works out, consider putting it into main testing for potential updates. I think a lot of discourse comes when they seemingly just change stuff just because. Just having stuff for players to mess around with on test might sate a lot of desire to mix stuff up. Since a lot of discussion is around boons, how about mixing those up? Might: instead of 30 power/condi per stack, might grants 800 power/condi and stack caps at 10. Might grants increased damage to your next offensive attack and reduces your stacks by 1 per hit. Application stacks from skills/traits/gear will have to be adjusted (with small might application dropping to 1 might, moderate might application being 2-3 and the most might applied at a time being capped to 4). This would be to rebalance might to still be great but needing upkeep not by just duration but application itself to keep the damage flowing. Alacrity: Would become intensity stacking up to 5 and would decrease cooldowns by 50% instead of 25% but only on the next skill with a cooldown is used and decrease stacks by 1. If the tech is there, making this the first user-based activation boon could be cool...like, if instead of just the next skill used, if you have a skill that is currently recharging while having Alacrity on you, you could click that skill that is recharging to apply the reduction to it. If it works somewhat well, you could try making it a full user-based activation boon, giving players the ability to strategically use skills and these boons to capitalize on a strong effect. Quickness: Shift the dynamic of this to increase skill activation from 50% to 100%...but only for basic attacks (the #1) and heal skills (#6). All other skills get a *stacking* 20% activation speed up. This means, you can then shift some of the boon to traits so if you want more activation speed up, you have to stack traits/gear/boons to get it but I'd look to keep this relegated by filtering what can and can't stack with quickness. Swiftness: Just a random idea; Add an effect that decreases the degradation of boons' durations by 33% while out of combat. I think of all the boons that is slept on primarily for its abundance is swiftness. I just want to emphasize that people should desire this boon. This, I'd imagine, would make this just as pivotal a boon when setting up prior to a push in WvW scenarios and organized PvE.

And even when they fix things that need fixing, they manage to still do odd stuff. Mirage Cloak definitely shouldn't be a stunbreak equivalent BUT it certainly should allow you to dodge while immobilized (that's the whole schtick of Mirage Cloak...dodge while standing still)...but they managed to screw that up and bundle MC's nerf with both CC and immob. Considering Full Counter not only requires adrenaline on top of a specified cooldown for the skill, many say these multiple penalties for War's profession mechanic is oppressive for utility and skill plays. That adrenaline drains near instantly upon exiting combat is another hinderance. Necro doesn't lose life force out of combat and Mesmer can still use their shatters without clones...

Oh no, you're doing it again. I'm pretty sure I did NOT say that. In fact, I'm sure I made a post in this thread about what I think they could do with conjures. I'm coming from the perspective that they don't need to make it a whole avenue of gameplay that revolutionizes the profession but rather, a niche tool that ultimately can lend itself to temp gains just like any other attunement works now.

No I'm not. You have somehow interpreted it as that though. Closest thing to your accusation I'd be making is "the profession shouldn't be stupidly power crept because you don't like how conjures work". Wow, you must have dug WAAAY deep into my post history because I did indeed complain about all of those reworks and still hold a grudge about them to this day. But I wasn't against those changes because I preferred the old version, I was against them because they simply removed the option...primarily for lame reasons that ended up neutering other aspects of the game. Instead of using their trait system to diversify how these skills work (the phantasm change was likely specifically done to make room for Mirage), they simplified and genericized. Yes, and it's called "being lazy and not thinking outside the box" as well as "not caring about your original vision". I mean, the whole horizontal progression system is mostly impractical for a game that needs to retain as many players as possible. Replacing it for a vertical progress system would have kept the game going for longer with less content. As lame as you think elementalist is currently, changing conjures to fill whatever niche hole you feel it has is only going to follow with a swath of skill changes and nerfs to other skills that you likely won't like. All for the sake of a utility skill you don't even like and will probably only use for a month after it's changed to replace it with the next thing that gets buffed (and there's spirit weapons peeking in at the finish). Yay. *golf claps*

I guess I'm the one who brought "boon ball" into the conversation lol The complications of the boon ball aren't binary. The game has practically always had this boon ball strat since the beginning. It's just closer to the start, it wasn't as main-stream and specialized as it is now. That and it wasn't about having all boons all the time but rather necessary boons at a given time. The problems mutate with any given meta whether it's unique buffs or just the max uptime we are contending with now. One could complain that it's too effective because most strats default to it or possibly that the resultant upkeep is the product of spamming skills which is low-skill/low-coordination or that it favors specific applications or boons over others. I personally find the subject interesting to discuss as we're talking about streamlining application of boons when application of boons is already the peak default goal. It's basically making a moderately straight-forward strategy into a one-handed strategy. As far as balancing around the boon meta, I'd say that probably coincides with quickness and alac specifically. Being the premier boons to provide, balancing not only the uptime so every profession can apply it with a specific spec but also suggesting streamlining the application method to match is a red flag to me. We're only a stone's throw away from just regulating all quick/alac to a relic instead so everybody's boon-dps is the same. Is it good? Is it fair? Should those boons be thrown in the trash? I dunno...I'm just a player here. I'm just pointing out the patterns that some people see. Same with them changing skills to be easier and faster to use then have to rebalance everything else to accommodate that these once slower skills can be popped out with little window for punishment. Or maybe I'm a masochist and just want to be punished while everyone else just wants to make punishable skills easier but then complain that the game gets rebalanced all the time. I guess that's a different kind of masochism...like shooting yourself in the foot.

The utility doesn't need to change into a "practical backup weapon" as you describe. Elementalist has functioned from the beginning without an equivalent weapon swap so using that as your baseline to uproot the skill is doing so on faulty premises. Or to explain it more clearly: your argument is starting from the false premise that elementalist requires it to be a certain thing. And trying to argue that what is holding back ele is conjures is absurd. To argue that any one set of utilities holds back a whole profession is absurd. The unfortunate truth is, if you're going to make up truths then how is someone suppose to have a conversation with you? If conjures are made better, they don't have to adhere to a meta-status. They don't have to fill in the hole you think the profession should have filled. At the end of the day, the best option for conjures is to just change them into kits that do huge damage at long range and are swappable like engi kits but that doesn't mean it should happen because you could say the same about practically any professions' utilities: just copy a strong thing and profit.

Mostly directed at the general audience. I just think people need to hear it more, about what boon-ball meta results into. And that not everyone is a fan of it.

Are you saying you don't like the boon-ball?

I think suggestions like these should aim to be more for fun rather than actually taken to be implemented. At best, maybe inspire someone who is working on content to alter their future addition.

If they are "balanced out of the game", then that means they have spare power budget to boost them up. You don't need to chop stuff off of it to get it rebalanced. And if you just want to fit them in the meta for raids, why not look at Glyph of Elementals too? Let's just take those non-meta powers and force them through the raid-group holes at all costs? I'd be much more receptive to attempting to maintain the little quirkiness to these powers in some fashion than to just chop it off like so many other flavors that have been lost to time over the game's lifespan. And no, I'm not saying maintain all of the old quirks, but this is a very unique and flashy one that I don't think needs to go away just to make conjures good. Like someone said, making the conjure trait affect this. It's not hard to maintain flavor.

Statements can be opinions. Statements can even be facts but not all facts are correct.

And how well did that work out for them? I'm all for counter criticism, but I don't think you understand what the actual scope of the argument is. At worse, the OP would be pushing for weapon mastery from specs they already purchased to be available to core by default. Again, I don't think you really get this. You're trying to compare scientific data to subjective consumer opinion. That hypothetical is just bonkers. I'm surprised you're not embarrassed posting it lol Buy to play is not a middle ground between free to play and subscription. It's an alternative, yes, but there is no metric that puts it between the two unless the only metric measured is money exchanged. Understand that those metrics or scales don't even interact with the concept of pay to win. A game can be subscription based AND pay to win. A game can also be buy to play and subscription. So on and so forth. Do you want me to make a real argument to why GW2 is pay to win?

You do you. I will say, though, if you just filter via buzzword, you could also be hindering potentially good candidates. I worked as a recruiter as well for 4 years (finally got out of that racket) for the military. While it is important to filter your applicants (sex offenders and felons I can't work with), you could be passing up a potentially great and hard working person with only good intentions if you don't do some due diligence. I've worked with plenty of people with medical and criminal records that end up being fine soldiers or able to build great lives for themselves because of new opportunities by digging a bit deeper. I'm just saying, it's possible to have fun with some cash-grab games if you know not to sink any money into them or putting support behind a longshot game because you see potential in it/had fun with it. Of course, you're going to hit stinkers that waste your time tho so there is that.

This feels like a backtrack though. Like, it sounds interesting but, the devs removed these types of effects from runes and put them into relics....it doesn't sound like they'd ever put new effects back into runes but it would be cool if they did.

You realize people are free to demand practically anything, right? That doesn't mean anyone has to give it to them. And no, I will not agree it was customers shooting themselves in the foot that sank Wild Star. NCSoft can sink their own games without the direct intervention of players. But this is a huge tangent as being free to play shouldn't have anything to do with pay to win, at least not in the context of GW2 since it's not a true f2p game nor did it's f2p aspects hinder the rest of the model. This is about p2w and what it means to players. Lastly, you say there is a wave of angry foaming-at-the-mouth players demanding more and more things for free here....no one in this discussion is. Even the OP is just disappointed, not demanding. Everyone here, as far as I know, is NOT doing what you're implying in the context of GW2. Heck, I'd even argue who is actually angry here? I'm not angry. Are you angry? I thought we were just sharing our opinions. Cool analogy. I'd compare it more to the Apple (the tech line) blue bubble texts. For the longest, iphones had blue bubbles unless a non-iphone user was texting you/the group and would get a green bubble. This was because text convo shifted to mms/sms instead of imessenger. It wasn't because the other user couldn't use more advanced messaging tech but rather Apple gatekeeping service to iphones by defaulting non-iphone to an inferior messaging standard. That failed and now you're going to see that blue vs green thing go away. Same thing with P2W, the old standard to gauge this is old and transaction types and the video game markets have changed. At best, the term "pay to win" (and it's ilk) will probably be retired because it's just not informative enough of a term to describe games with transaction services anymore, often required multiples of the terms to actually describe it. Like I said (because I often have to repeat myself for you guys), I'm not stealing or changing anything. I'm describing what people already do. And yeah, people do come up with new terms but then we have to go down the road of defining new terms and how they relate or differentiate from similar terms and it really only hurts those trying to anchor the term "pay to win" because that term, even from its infancy, was a flawed description without context. I guess I'm the opposite. When I want to make decisions on if I want to buy a game, I don't want a term, I want to see what the shop looks like. I want to see the gameplay and see the progression through the levels. I want to hear people's opinions on why it's bad/didn't like it. I want to hear about the fun parts they liked. Gone are the days where I'd buy a game by how it was described on the back of the box (although that time was pretty dope since there used to be a standard the game was actually finished and not blocked behind a season pass or some kitten). My phone doesn't have a data limit, I can read, watch and research as much as I want on a game before purchasing. I usually try to play devil's advocate on a lot of stuff I hear/watch on YT and Josh isn't any different. I don't actually agree with his scaling or conclusion (there probably shouldn't be levels to the p2w scale he outlines, rather just ticks with a scaling "watch out" level attached, and I don't really agree with the final conclusion that "it's whatever your definition of winning is" as the final caveat). But he puts forth a more robust argument FOR his position than what I'm reading here. He's persuaded me moreso than the posts I've read thus far. This is also why the discussion keeps going. I don't think anyone said words aren't allowed to have definitions. I say words can take on more context, more meaning and you can adapt more terms (convolution) or elaborate (specificity) to communicate. I'm not dictating which you should do, rather I'm telling you what people attempt to do to communicate on a broader scale. And yeah, everything's an opinion. The only way to reach people is to argue. You won't reach people via enforcement...or at least that shouldn't be how you want to reach people.

I try to keep things civil (emphasis on try). It has a bunch to do with perspective tho. Having an expansion that adds a new class/job and boosted level for new content will seem more like an expansion and less like a microtransaction than having an expansion that has a walled off part of an old class/job that you could have access to anywhere. The former usually doesn't compete with/replace what exists (it's forced to be balanced to, if the game is careful about balance) where the latter is specifically balanced to be better or diversely equipped compared to what it's directly competing with (especs). By no logic does that not equate to paying for power. It literally is regardless of if it's a transaction or a microtransaction but that isn't a bad thing inherently. [EDIT: but if we want to steelman this paying for power, remember there were aspects of the core specs that were *removed* so they could add them to elite specs that you have to pay for....] Go watch the video I linked. I didn't make that video, someone else did. I didn't upvote that video 24 thousand times, other people did. I didn't leave hundreds of comments on that video agreeing or sharing their own opinions on the term (I didn't leave any comments, actually). As much as I don't agree with redefining terms for a modern audience, pop culture terms are inherently sensitive to shifts in culture...or in this case, gaming monetization. You can have your facts, I'll just live in reality. True. But that weaponization can backfire. Remember that old saying "The customer is always right"? While I can understand what that was trying to communicate, I will say kitten that and kitten the customer. We all know the stereotypes of the customers trying to weaponize that saying and it's not about the customer being right but rather appeasing the customer up to a point that isn't detrimental to your business, after which, kick that customer to the curb and record it for personal defense. You say players have decided to blur the lines on that term. But you want to know what actually blurred that line? Cash. Eh, I doubt a company just caved to customers complaining to have a game be free. Unless the game was bad, a boycott wouldn't have worked. That and you really can't pull one example of NCSoft screwing the pooch on their own licenses and then shutting them down. Have you heard of City of Heroes? That was a game that, for all intents and purposes, wasn't a money loss, just not much of a gainer but they shut it down anyway even after shifting it to F2P. It's still got it's fanbase though, there are people playing City of Heroes now with the consent of NCSoft (it's a cool game with lots of customization, give it a try, it's free). Somehow they can keep the servers up on donations alone over 20 years (hey, the 20 year anni was a couple last week, I think) after the game debuted lol I've never played WoW and don't doubt it could be more P2W than GW2 but that's neither here nor there. Ah, I've finally communicated my point to someone clearly! lol

It's not about want, it's about reality. The reality is people interpret what p2w is for themselves. I'm sorry if you didn't understand that people have different perspectives on stuff. And I'll tell you the same thing I told Puck: people aren't dumb (at least not most). And if you are, you can smart up over time as you learn. Saying a term doesn't negate all other criticism around it because most people understand context. Your point makes sense when people are ignorant, prejudice or not-so-bright. I know they're out there, but that's why we have written language to wrap around ideas, a process we often use to communicate complex concepts. And you worry about desensitizing to a term, I could go on a whole rant about how people are desensitized to hyper-critic culture, a term I use to describe how people have galvanized their opinions to an extent that mediocre is bad, decent is mediocre, good ranges from good to "better than sex" and bad is an assault on humanity. One can't even say "GW2 has P2W aspects to it but-" without a blistering barrage of counter argument and debate. But I'll save you and myself the breath on that tangent....this time. Sarcasm aside, can you at least admit that microtransactions have already changed the face of gaming? Kind of similar to how post-release patches have altered the state of a lot of games on release date...

Not just story. Haven't there been raids that cleared using only auto attacks or with minimal gear? I'm just saying you shouldn't have to clip cool and unique stuff just so everything fits in meta builds with minimal effort.

It's not that P2W has become subjective, it's that it is subjective through objective observation. Don't make me list the attributes that mark GW2 as P2W because I know you know them and pretending they don't exist or downplaying them because you've surpassed the necessity for them thus they are meaningless to you is why I'm here playing devil's advocate about that part of the discussion. GW2 doesn't qualify as P2W because someone feels like it does, it qualifies as P2W because it has the markings of such a game and trying to describe why it isn't to a player who hasn't played the game will just make you sound like a white knight. And I mentioned removing agency as an argument, not an objective observation. The quoted poster has no power to remove anyone's agency, of course, just like you have no power in institutionalizing what P2W means objectively to everyone. This is just debate. And I don't disagree that the OP's complaint is absurd. But I don't find it absurd because they feel the paywall is unjustified, rather I think it's absurd to think the devs need to justify a paywall at all. How I judge the fairness of the monetization isn't by what they charge you for but rather what they give you without extra charge. How that boils down to if it's P2W doesn't really matter if the price to pay to "win" is reasonable. And if it's not, don't pay it.

Like I said to the other poster, I recommend watching the video I linked. The overall point isn't about setting up expectations by using a label. It's about letting the player decide how they want to approach playing games. For a personal example, I am a fan of Digimon and there aren't as many games for Digimon out there as something like Pokemon. A friend recommended me a mobile game he was playing and it could effectively be described as a pay-to-win gacha game (Pokemon have several of these too but I'm not as big a fan of it). I actually found the game quite fun and sunk in over 60 hours on it, threw about $25 at it and eventually put it down after it got more repetitive. By all definitions, people would just tell you to avoid such games because [label] but you should, as gamers, be more open minded to what you want to play/have fun with and not wall off your experiences because some critic's judgement or label. The gaming and monetization tactics now-a-days is different than 15 years ago and better to describe the actual monetization rather than hide it with a cheeky label.

From the perspective of keeping the unique flavor of the skills, it would work. But meta-gaming min-maxxers will still complain to change the trait into something more useful for them to use. Even I would argue they could add a little something on top of the trait retaining the dropped weapon feature, tho.

Think of it this way: people tried to gatekeep the term "pay to win" by keeping it specific and inventing and standardizing new terms like "pay for convenience", "buy to play", "pay to advance", "loot box gacha" etc to categorize games and make the distinctions between games obvious. That attempt failed and didn't really do anything but create categories that particular games can fall into multiple categories and further muddies the actual intent of the monetization. Now, it's easier to just rip off the stupid labels and be upfront when you're getting a game that you will be paying money and this is how it gets your money. It's like going to a restaurant and the bill having a service fee, a gratuity fee, a meal tax, sales tax, a tip and still ask for a donation vs a bill that has what you pay for the food and that's it. You can then decide if the price is something you want to pay to get the product/service.

You're still not making an argument. You're just promoting that you already don't need conjures while, in the same breath, hoping, begging and praying sacrificing something on the alter will grant you the buff your heart thinks it desires but has forlorned since they change the multihits on large hitboxes. At the end of the day, you're still asking to genericize a mechanic in the hopes to make it stronger and that is why the game has kept spiraling into the same tailspin it's been going, desperately chasing validity in the meta for no reason but to increase a dps benchmark that isn't needed to complete the content. It's futility by definition because, unless the change pushes those benchmarks further, conjures will still go unused at the price of another player's fun. I can tell you, those players that do get a jolly out of conjures, you just don't care about. It doesn't work the other way around though because players that currently don't find conjures fun simply don't use them and they are likely content with that by now.

I'm sure your point is aimed at a general audience and not just me. I'm just talking about the term pay to win. There's a video I linked earlier in the thread that pretty much represents my position on that which is comprehensive enough to describe the practices that lead to negative outcomes in p2w models going back to the old era of mmos to current online games. It's a pretty solid watch and the creator is popular so it's not a low quality video either.

And this takes away agency from game devs, companies and critics. Critics can use terms, videos, audio and feedback to accurately describe how they feel about a game. Game devs can look at that feedback with an analytical eye (like they're supposed to) to make their game better for a bigger audience. Companies will analyze methods of monetization and player retention with and without the full feedback of the playerbase as well as how other games function and succeed/fail. Saying a magic word (P2W) doesn't summon a bar that alters reality outside of that specific term. People can call something P2W and be wrong...or only partially right. People aren't that stupid that everyone's "switch" is turned off. Or maybe you over estimate the word of a critics or something? Even critics have their checks to keep their opinions closer to factual rather than misinformation. Outside of initial impressions (which isn't relevant here) or malpractice, the term doesn't carry as much weight because it's already too late to gatekeep the term or fearmonger with the term "microtransaction".