Leo G.4501

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".

If you've managed to do and complete the content without conjures being useful, I'd argue you can survive with conjures being slightly less than useful but keeping their interesting share mechanic.

You keep saying that but it's like you're attempting to remove agency from a subjective observation. It'd be different if this were a legal definition used in court or something related to science, but this is a consumer observation description. Why you trying to take away consumer agency? If someone wants to label something pay to win because they believe it, is there harm in that?

A high enough fall IS a kill. And you aren't denying yourself a tactical advantage, you're just not using it properly. If you need a knockdown then use a knockdown instead of asking for the rules to be changed.

I also suggesting having different criteria for the "fresh element" effect so it wouldn't be as simple as getting a crit. One could really tailor it in a way to be more balanced so it wouldn't be as broken as swapping elements so rapidly to proc these effects that easily but still fast enough to be meaningful.

At the expense of sounding whimsical, I disagree with this suggestion as it is a cool trick that still astounds new players. They need to make more skills cool, fun and flavorful, not less. Even if it's not meta, that shouldn't really matter since the game shouldn't be bending the knee to the meta anyway. I think it's fun and I often pick up conjured weapons when I'm on other professions. If I were suggesting changes to conjures, it'd be the trait (a fire aura seems rather bland for picking this up). I'd propose adding a drop/expiration effect; could be an icy burst around you if you drop/use up the time on Frost bow or maybe a "minor cantrip" when you drop a lightning hammer (to maybe tie into cantrip traits). That and I'd shift the bonus granted from holding a conjure weapon to AFTER you're done with the weapon but cut down the duration of that buff to 15sec instead of 30 (potential) sec. [EDIT: I'd probably also boost the effects like adding +% healing received to earth shield, +% burning damage to flame axe, +% outgoing healing to frost bow, +% stun duration to lightning hammer and +% max HP to Fiery Greatsword. Basically, they'd be nice short term effect you can grant yourself or one ally.] Overall, it's to emphasize using the skills you *need* from the conjure and putting it down rather than attempting to hold onto it for the whole of the duration. It'd be to add affects to summoning it and dropping it to further coincide with the fluidity of the Elementalist playstyle. A lot of past suggestions for conjures focus on ease of use (acting like a weapon swap). I think making conjures something you want to summon with an AoE effect + using 1 or 2 skills with it and dropping it for an additional affect + a stat bonus after seem easy, fluid, vibes with how it's currently used and maintains the fun quirkiness the skill type was created with. It'd really embody an attunement of its own since that's how we often use attunements now.

I think you are sort of talking past each other. Micah is right, it would widen the skill ceiling and skill floor by making skills more complicated than "push the button and get the effect" gameplay. It's a more complicated scheme by having the player select the distance they can move with a movement skill because often times, you want movement skills to occur immediately or as quickly as possible and that would be hampered if you had to not only direct the skill but select its distance. Even if it was all at once, it's still more difficult and prone to more errors because there are more points of failure. Then it wouldn't just be getting the direction and distance messed up, but misclicks, lag, premature ani-cancels, etc would make it more prone to screwing something up. But so long as it's one of the options available in the menu to turn on and off, I wouldn't care if it exists or not. On the other hand, saying the current forced movement is janky or that a more complicated aiming mechanic would be smoother seems like an oversimplification. The current "forced movement" isn't janky, it's janky when you either screw up or something doesn't go right. In at least 80% of the times I use movement skills, it does exactly what I need it to do baring certain movement skills that are bugged. The other 20% could be lag, human error, AI or janky pathing. So having a few times a skill does something weird earns it the label of janky? Well if a new mechanic like the OP suggested were added as an option, it probably would be just as janky and prone to error but just in a different way but apparently a hypothetical mechanic is labeled "smoother to use" despite not knowing any of the code behind it? Seems like a reach to me. But more options can't be bad...until someone complains about some other minute aspect of the game to make a mountain out of a mole hill.