Leo G.4501
-
Posts
1,632 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Leo G.4501
-
-
Are you saying you don't like the boon-ball?
-
17 hours ago, DeceiverX.8361 said:
Has been attempted before, threads got combined, and the ideas either ignored or completely spat in the face of.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suggestions-Future-Elite-Specializations/page/6#post6072256
Many posts, like the above, were their own threads.Don't waste your time. Better-off home-brewing D&D classes.
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.
-
15 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
People have cleared vale guardian with ten heal tempests (before alactempest) simply outhealing the enrage damage.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't make it good.
Sharing conjure weapons was effectively balanced out of the game nearly a decade ago. We can retain a gimmick that feels cool but in practice has led to almost the entire skill group being dead, or we can hamburger that sacred cow and allow three out of six primary elementalist weapons to be actually used in regions where you might find yourself needing a ranged option (and some of the others be used in regions where you might find yourself mobbed in melee and needing better melee defensive options than staff can provide).
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:
P2W isn’t a subjective opinion though lol. It’s a statement.
Statements can be opinions. Statements can even be facts but not all facts are correct.
-
1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:
People don’t call things p2w to wish they stay the way things are, they call things out as p2w to create a push for change.
OP didn’t come here saying this to simply say “oh well” they stated it to get like minded people in agreement to amass numbers, I.e to push change in direction. it’s a demand in itself.
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.
1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:Your right everyone’s free to spout nonsense we live in an era there are people who still think the world is flat, or the world is only 2000 years old.
and alike these arguments it’s impossible for them to be opinions, the world cannot be both flat and round, games cannot be both pay 2 win and not be. It can’t be subjective, because it’s impossible for them to both be correct lol.
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
1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:this isn’t a exchange of opinions it’s a flat question of weather gw2 is or isn’t by definition p2w
they didn’t create multiple types of model for us to all use one for everything, it’s a fallacy of logic, gw2 was advertised as a B2P game, a middle ground between F2P and Subscription based models. It has remained a B2P game, I.e no subscription costs, no p2w micro transactions but you still pay box prices for content.
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.
1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:It is not a “opinion” that it isn’t that model, the issue is without making it subjective no one can put together a real argument to why it is p2w.
Do you want me to make a real argument to why GW2 is pay to win?
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:
I don't have a data limit either, but I do have a time limit. I simply don't want to waste my time reading reviews and accounts for every game out there that looks cool or interesting. I won't buy a game based on buzzwords and terms, but will certainly use them to weed out the ones I'm not interested in. I'll give a closer look only to those that pass the buzzword filters, which is specifically why preserving precise, accurate definitions is important to me. We do the same with resumes for hiring around here. I can't imagine how much of my life I'd have wasted if I looked at every applicant or game that wants my time. I could be playing by now! 😄
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.
-
3 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:
I'm all for removing quickness and alacrity share from the various profession abilities. Relics are certainly a solution as long as those specifics relics can't be used in competitive modes.
To limit players even more, they could even tie those boons to runesets with the relic only increasing the base duration of either alacrity or quickness your character generate.
For example:
Superior runes of volubility:
- 25 concentration
- 10% alacrity duration
- 50 concentration
- 20% alacrity duration
- 100 concentration
- Grant nearby allies Alacrity for 4 Seconds after entering combat. (Cooldown: 10 Seconds)
Relic of Sogolon: Increase base alacrity duration of your skills, traits and runes by 20%.
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.
-
18 hours ago, Magmi.6723 said:
Which it’d appear we are at the point of, this post is demanding expansion content to be given free in a game without a subscription.
It wasn’t a case of company’s caving it’s more of a situation, where the customer shot themselves in the foot, it is evident the move to f2p options have ironically increased the cost of gaming.
we once paid £9 a month with 1 expansion over 2 years,
not only did being f2p reduce the quantity of content per launch that was felt to be acceptable, but it also meant your buying each piece of the game individually at a additional cost, making no portion of content consumable free of cost.
I’m simply giving you a example of a real p2w model,
these angry bunch can be as angry as they want, but as someone who’s recently tried quite a few of mmorpgs to find my main game, you’ve got it as good as it gets monetization wise.
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.
8 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:It isnt, "gate keeping," to adhere to the definition a word or term was created to convey. I am not gate keeping by turning down a grapefruit when asking for an apple. The fact that the grocer has decided that they think the former is the latter is irrelevant. They are entitled to be wrong, but an apple is still not a citrus fruit.
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.
7 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:No one said that there isn't powercreep tied to expansions. Just look at especs in general. We only said that "pay-to-win" refers to microtransactions, because it does. If you want to coin "pay for power" to cover expansions, or even all payments that introduce power, go for it. Maybe that's not taken yet. Just don't try to steal an established term with an extant definition. We are no longer arguing the concept here (long past that, and I agree with you there), only the sanctity of preserving terms for their intended meaning.
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.
3 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:Yeah, I like clear, specific terms over broad ones. They help me decipher meanings more easily and let me know what I'm getting into. If someone says a game is "pay to win" vs "pay for convenience" vs "buy to play" vs "pay to play," I know what pay structure I'm getting into.
If we allow people to dilute "pay to win" down to any other type of payment, and then they have explain what they mean on the JSH scale, then it's no longer helpful. We lose the point of the term in the first place. Why even have a term then if it's useless without having to explain the use case every time? Just give me the explanation and skip the vague, superfluous terminology.
Edit: Nothing against JSH. I love his content and respect him a lot as a YT creator. He's just off the mark on this one, IMO.
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.
10 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:How can any topic stop going with the fact words are no longer allowed to have definitions?
everything’s now a opinion so arguments go around and around in circles because everyone stands behind “a opinion is subjective and cannot be incorrect”
Welcome to the problems of 2024 gaming.
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.
-
1
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:
Sure, microtransactions have altered gaming and how they are monetized. I never had an issue with that. I only had an issue with some players treating payments for expansions the same as micros and using the same terms for them. (And I'm glad you caught the sarcasm instead of taking it seriously. 😉 )
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....]
2 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:No. The reality is you're interpreting that definition for yourself when it already has a definition which is not what you want it to be. GW2 is B2P, my guy. Facts.
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.
52 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:No, but players like to over exaggerate and weaponise key words that they know people in general look into, in a attempt to scare a company into making changes.
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.
52 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:Pay 2 Win, has always had a definitive definition, players have decided to blur the lines with opinions and the reason for that is because by driving subjective concepts you remove the ability to be “wrong”.
Pay 2 Win in direct definition, is Paying for Power that is not accessible in game or is locked behind a unacceptable grind to compete with,
You say players have decided to blur the lines on that term. But you want to know what actually blurred that line? Cash.
52 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:Eh, Not in any way that it wasn’t the consumers fault
2012-2014, was a period of time customers demanded free to play gaming, we saw players spamming wild star with boycot til it went f2p as well as several other games
customers were just dumb in demand, they had this mystical idea mmorpgs would retain the fast content development and high quality without having to pay a dime into the game.
This type of gaming has always existed in eastern games, this was the model of games in places such as china since forever, except their models really are p2w. But that’s the standard in these countries.
ofciurse it’s changed aspects, but also, players wanted non- subscription based games, with lower costs to access, and games delivered on this, but like all things compromise had to be taken else where.
The game still has to generate the profit margin required to remain open. Gw2 would be shut down otherwise, I’d love GW2 to become subscription based with More accessible cosmetics in game without the need to buy bag slots and bank slots etc etc.
but realistically this no longer works, because are so against the idea, so unfortunately we take these compromises instead.
I have recently started this game, like 3 days ago, it’s consumer friendliness, not being p2w are core reasons I’ve chosen it coming from World of Warcraft… and tbh WoW gets called p2w far more often then gw2 and I’d even argue it really is p2w.
WoW is a sub based game, with higher box prices and micro transaction wise definitely is more p2w then gw2 lol
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.
8 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said: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. 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.
Ah, I've finally communicated my point to someone clearly! lol
-
1
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:
So, because you want to interpret the words "pay-to-win" literally instead of using the commonly understood definition of the term "P2W", you get to institutionalize what P2W means objectively to everyone? Sure, bud. Whatever you say. 🙄
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.
9 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:Ever come across the principle that if you swear infrequently, people immediately realise you're serious when you do, but when you have a reputation as a potty mouth, you have nothing left when you really need to curse because you've been using f-bombs as punctuation?
It's a similar princible here. When pay-to-win means something specific, people pay attention when it gets used as criticism. When it gets watered down to mean 'boo hoo, I want literally everything for free', though, it becomes meaningless, and devs will naturally start to ignore it because they need to feed themselves and any dependents too.
Except in this case it's not just the potty-mouth for whom the term has lost its impact, but the entire gaming community.
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.
7 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:Hmm, that's an interesting take. I never heard that before. Maybe you are right. Maybe they were just trying to gatekeep the term to unjustly preserve its meaning when other people tried to appropriate it for their own agendas. That sounds almost as bad as when my lawyer told me I couldn't declare stealing my donut a "capital offense." Or when the sad folks at KFC tried to tell me that my lamb and tunafish combo shouldn't be advertised as "finger lickin' good." 🙃
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...
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
So literally every criticism of the playability of every profession can be ignored because it's still possible to complete the story with them, even if doing so requires carefully selecting builds that minimise those issues?
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:
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.
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.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:
I think making a distinction between buy-to-play, where you pay for the full features of the game, and pay-to-win where you have to keep making microtransactions to realistically compete is more useful than describing both as "pay-to-win" on the basis that you have to spend money. The pay structure is completely different and it's much easier to tell what you're getting with a buy-to-play game. That's why pay-to-win has the negative connotation that it does.
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.
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, Bleikopf.2491 said:
What's the opinion on making the second conjure weapon a trait option? So if you pick the conjurer trait in Fire, you drop a second weapon?
I haven't thought this through, but it seems like it would allow base conjures to get a little more power as the powerbudget now includes a trait (that's currently underused).
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.
-
43 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
It's a good video, but in the end it highlights the problem Puck is talking about. 'Pay to win' used to be a pretty damning criticism since it was reserved for situations at the higher end of the scale where you had to engage in microtransactions to realistically compete.
Now it's being thrown around for "expansion pack has a few sidegrades" and "if you see getting cosmetics as winning, buying cosmetics is paying to win". At that point, it's become so watered down that it's just white noise. Expansion packs as a model are quite possibly older than the median age of Guild Wars 2 players, companies aren't going to stop making them because someone screams PTW.
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.
-
2
-
-
53 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
Meanwhile, conjures! Except that the ranged conjures are all bad, because they've been balanced so they're not OP when two are used simultaneously, which has translated into being so bad in practice that nobody who knows the numbers wants to pick them up (elite excepted, but that's balanced with a prohibitively long cooldown). And if an elementalist does need that standoff capability for longer than short bursts, you either need to carry two (goodbye utility slots, hope you don't need too many stunbreaks...) or to hope that they can pick up that spawned weapon at as close to 30s as possible without it despawning first, and that somebody else doesn't pick it up by accident or out of a sense of 'novelty'.
Face it, it's a cute gimmick, but it's a gimmick that's holding back an entire group of skills, a group that without that handicap could be the solution to a problem that elementalists have struggled with pretty much since release. "You managed so it must be okay" is just not a good counterargument.
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.
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, Puck.3697 said:
. Your criticisms are aimed at a mmorpg charging u £10 a year for full access, it’s the cheapest mmorpg on the market and if became any cheaper would go bankrupt
your Complaints are the demand of the games shut down effectively
no dev will take your argument seriously as gw2 is literally the cheapest mmorpg available today, you want something for free and sad you aren’t getting it.
this game has no sub fee, half the expansion costs of others, and nothing that severe to invest money into, with full access to the store via gold.
you kill your player agency by demanding something absurd the company simply can’t afford to make cheaper.
Bigger player base? How do you add that up, the less money the game makes the less development is added to it which reduces the player base lol, gw2 has never lacked players because of its business model, but it’s lack of content, due to the fact they’ve already made the game cost so little they can’t afford to push content development
They have given you player agency, this game was launched on the least amounts of cost possible, and completely blew other mmorpgs out the water in terms of accessibility
. The issue is, players want something for nothing, and no, no company or dev with self respect would honestly spend time reading into that
and what? Power of criticism? lol, WoWs been told to go f2p for a decade, it’s changed nothing lol. And the games more popular because of that. Saying no to demands is healthy, players don’t understand the business side of the situation or the losses that would be taken to reduce costs further, they just expect the same quantity of content for less money
,”criticism holds value, when it’s pointed at worthwhile topics, and someone’s personal opinion is worth grains of salt.
just because I don’t like WoWs verticle progression systems with gear it should be deleted tomorrow right? But I’ve criticised it, so it gotta happen ye?
your screaming out to a game developed to make money, as a player who doesn’t want to spend money, and you think that’s gonna change what?
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.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Puck.3697 said:
But I’m not am I lol,
by calling everything p2w by default nothings p2w, that’s just as it works I’m afraid, the wider you stretch a word the less meaning it actually holds.
You have taken a word used as critic against specific models and made it a meaningless opinion,Critic is used in absolutes, the moment you imply personal opinion your customer agency is gone, Anet already know there’s a % of the market who won’t like their game, so anything Opinon wise, is simply redundant it holds no player agency.
p2w was used to make example of games which passed the normalised standard of cost of the market, i.e games that moved progression from the game itself to sell to you on the market to enforce unacceptable micro transactional payments.
its now moved to basically being nothing, you can’t call every mmorpg in the market p2w, and expect results why?
because the market will have a normalised bar to what’s considered acceptable, if your stating every game is at that bar,
the problem is no longer the company, but simply the player is out of touch of the costs of entertainment, and that’s how any game dev will read ur statement.
Hence the biggest factors in complaints
content quantity
story,
bugs
longevity
repeatability
thesr are all measurable points where Anet can physically see the rate of fall off from content drops to measure if content ends too quickly as a example here
the Moment you say p2w has a thousand definitions, and every games p2w, devs ears will switch off, because you can’t measure this. Because all they read is “our game is at the standard cost” because ur saying the identical thing about the other 5 mmorpgs on the market.
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".
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
It's become a gimmick, but because the conjures need to be balanced according to the gimmick, they can't be balanced so they're actually useful to the elementalist themselves either.
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.
-
10 hours ago, Puck.3697 said:
Except pay to win is a binary thing, it’s simply people have decided to blurr its definition. If we want to go by a spectrum every available game on the market is p2w, that’s just fact
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?
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Shadowpeixera.2918 said:
So is killing them, if we can properly set them up to eat a burst instead of denying ourselves a tactical advantage of keeping our foes within our range.
You know, how trained Warriors are supposed to do.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.
-
8 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
To be fair, I think there was a proposal somewhere in this thread to make it so you had to choose which element you freshened rather than having two (or three with core ele, but what would be the point of that?). I suspect being able to Sunspot or Healing Ripple almost at will would get them nerfed hard, though.
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.
-
On 3/22/2024 at 4:56 PM, nofo.8469 said:
At least remove the share thing so if eles want to try and make this jank work they don’t subject others to it
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.
-
2 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:
Someone complaining about willbender or dd testing their nerves is rather clearly a skill issue and a request to make easy builds even easier. Pretending that OP made this thread in order to make it harder to utilize the specs he's complaining about is so weird (and evidently wrong).
1 hour ago, Micah.3789 said:While it's clear by the exaggerations and melodrama that OP is likely lacking the skill to effectively cope with forced movement issues, that doesn't invalidate their complaint. I'm not pretending anything. I'm choosing not to focus on OP's credibility, and am instead addressing the complaint itself in good faith. OP specifically suggested more control over movement that is otherwise unwieldy. I agree and note that this would remove auto-aiming features of these skills which would make them harder to land, but smoother to use.
It's embarrassing that anyone is taking this as an opportunity to dog on someone, even if it means arguing in bad faith that compensating for janky forced movement is healthy skillful gameplay. Like, can we move on from the fact that OP was raging a bit and just discuss this reasonably?
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.
-
1
-
2
-
Remove forced movement from the game.
in Professions
Posted
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.