GreyWolf.8670

I wouldn't. I never go to my home instance.

I don't think the visuals look outdated at all. Gameplay > visuals 99% of the time. If I'm having fun I don't care how detailed that tree or cactus I just ran by was.

Does this mean there is currently no way to progress? We'll be sent right back to the dock? Can we at least be dumped into the new area so we can explore?

Don't expect a WU patch to fix this. Wait for the game patch that a GM mentioned in this thread. :/

Did you open a ticket and submit logs?

I think this page shows any tickets you've created whether open or closed. https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/requests

This. It may seem like it's the Windows update but it's not. It's something that got changed in the game client recently. Perhaps whatever they did to reduce the new zone's loading times. The game is dropping out of DirectX's full screen exclusive mode during asset loads.

It's the game popping out of DirectX exclusive mode during loading screens. I haven't had it happen with other games that use exclusive for full screen so I suspect it's something changed in the game client. It seems like it started happening around the beginning of April maybe?

It's their grave.. they can dig it however they want. All I have done is try to warn them.. this is not a good way to do things. WoW (and other MMO's) already went though this, they already learned that it was not a good idea to do things that way. It defeats the point to hire professionals to design and build things for a company if those people are not willing to learn form the mistakes made by others. But again.. their game.. their job.. their pink slip if they screw up.. good luck to them. You fail, as always, to mention four key differences. All those other games have automated grouping features for the lowest difficulty, which won't happen in GW2 ArenaNet already said 5 years ago they don't want such systems in PvE. And all other games use raids as main content, part of the main story and main part for gear progression. This is not the case in GW2 so how should ArenaNet learn from those games when their approach is completely different? That is because, not all games with raids have those features. But, the way Anet put in raids and the rewards behind them, fell into the trap all those games suffer from, which is also a massive failing on their part as well. "Oh look the highest tier gear is locked behind a Raid" Humm now where have we all seen that before.. oh right.. every game ever with a raid. Zero originality, Zero Effort to make Raids in this game their own Unique Thing, and Zero effort to Avoid Any of the Pitfalls of all the MMO's before them. If they are going to WoW Clone like that, they should at the very least, make some effort to learn from WoW's mistakes.. that's just common sense. And if that is their forward method.. yah.. it's their grave. Thank god legendary armor is not locked behind raids. So they already avoided everything you wrote here.Oh, it's not? Pray tell, how do we get access to legendary armor that requires raids, then? Gaile was right. This thread is worthless. All I see is people that are already raiding saying others don't deserve access to content they also paid for.

The labyrinth in Silverwastes is in one of the living story episodes. You don't have to wait for the map to unlock it.

Quick question, since I have limited experience with wow (only did trial accounts). Can you do easy mode raids there while under geared to the extent that is being said here (i.e. 100% success chance with little to no difficulty to and from the group)? Not really. The raid finder will not let you queue if your average item level is under a certain threshold. since we don't have gear tiers to the extent of wow in gw2 and rely mostly on skill, how would that translate then?Restrict it to 80/exotic, maybe? Even though we as players don't make ANet policy I'd really like to see stuff like how this could work rather than people saying, "Nope. You can't have that." :) Story/"easy" mode doesn't actually have to be easy. It just might need to be toned down a bit for a group that may not be communicating with each other other than through in-game chat. It shouldn't be necessary to remove rewards from "easy"/story mode, just make a premade challenge mode and increase the drop rate for it for the cool loot. LFR in WoW got a lot of guff but it was quite successful. It was still pretty routine for Garalon and Durumu to completely destroy LFR groups. :D

Quick question, since I have limited experience with wow (only did trial accounts). Can you do easy mode raids there while under geared to the extent that is being said here (i.e. 100% success chance with little to no difficulty to and from the group)? Not really. The raid finder will not let you queue if your average item level is under a certain threshold.

It's a very sturdy dress. :D

Every dungeon I've listed as "SM, anyone welcome" fills up within a minute. I'm wondering how many people even try listing before they say nobody wants to play them. :P IMO it's LFG that needs a revamp rather than the dungeon story paths.

Did you open a ticket about it while you're standing in the bugged map?

He visits the stations in the same order. If you have an ingredient and he's already at one then get in position to throw it to him at the next stop.It took me multiple tries -- at least twenty -- and NEVER ONCE did the chef proceed in the same order.He doesn't ask for the ingredients in the same order. He only moves from station to station in the same order. They may have altered it since I posted that a few months ago.

Why bother other than to be deceptive? The votes are not public.

As long as there is only one skin per mount available through gameplay it is an ethical issue to me. The whole gem store is, IMO.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be. The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED. Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details). That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get. What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way. How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL A little late in response (sorry, busy), but keep in mind I am not suggesting that McDonald's food items are RNG, just the Monopoly ticket. This is relevant because many people do not purchase the same volume from McDonald's until the Monopoly "game" comes out, suggesting that the Monopoly game tickets are what are driving the revenue. People would certainly not pay for a Big Mac and accept a Fish Filet, but I've seen people buy an extra meal to get an extra three tickets, despite the fact the tickets are a lottery. McDonalds Monopoly isn't a lottery. You do not have to pay for the game pieces. They have to give them to you if you ask for them. If you're curious how well that law works, go into any business that is advertising game pieces for a chance to win a prize and ask for 10,000 tokens/pieces/chances. The best you can hope for is an invitation to send 10,000 SASEs to their corporate headquarters. Part of me (the stubborn, poetic-justice-yearning side) hopes that everyone that wishes to remove RNG from games gets what they seem to want... all F2P games would be gone (startups can only fund so far), progression in games would follow straight-line method and offer little-to-no variety, all players would have the optimal equipment, and we would have a chance to move on to the next item to complain about. I'm not a fan of lootboxes (who is?), but I have the choice to not participate, as does everyone else. If you feel so strongly, don't give them your money. If enough feel that way, the game will have to find other methods of creating revenue to support their servers, staff and software, or they will simply end the game. I'm in favor of self-regulation in this case.That's a far-fetched stretch, isn't it? 10,000 pieces? You're not even trying to put up a defensible argument so there's no point in replying.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be. The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED. Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details). That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get. What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way. How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL A little late in response (sorry, busy), but keep in mind I am not suggesting that McDonald's food items are RNG, just the Monopoly ticket. This is relevant because many people do not purchase the same volume from McDonald's until the Monopoly "game" comes out, suggesting that the Monopoly game tickets are what are driving the revenue. People would certainly not pay for a Big Mac and accept a Fish Filet, but I've seen people buy an extra meal to get an extra three tickets, despite the fact the tickets are a lottery. McDonalds Monopoly isn't a lottery. You do not have to pay for the game pieces. They have to give them to you if you ask for them.

Off topic. This is not about world problems. This is about problems with the mount skins, the game, and the gem store.

If a person hasn't gotten the griffon because he/she thinks 250g is too much, but thinks spending 400 gems on a random mount skin isn't too much, I suggest that person rethink their priorities. The griffon is a solid gameplay upgrade. It even unlocks two new adventures in each PoF map (once you complete the second mastery). In my opinion, people who are considering buying these mount skins, but not considering unlocking the griffon should instead reconsider unlocking the griffon rather than complain about getting a griffon skin they can't use.The griffon is an actual usable mount. The skin is just an appearance change. I also think the cost of the griffon collectible is a huge gouge even though I finally ended up paying for it. Not with cash or gems, though.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be. The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED. Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details). That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get. What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way. How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL MacDonald's is all ways a bit of a gamble though. Can never tell what's been going on in the back there.But don't forget the sparkly super burger for $25 too! Or the value pack of every burger at once for only $120 bucks! The savings are huge and it comes with a free ride in an ambulance. McDonald's Monopoly is also a sweepstakes and governed by laws. If you ask them for a piece they have to give you one for free. :) Stop trying to deflect. If you have nothing to add to THIS topic then don't bother. This sn't another collectible, and you can trade those. They're physical objects.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be. The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED. Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details). That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get. What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way. How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL MacDonald's is all ways a bit of a gamble though. Can never tell what's been going on in the back there.But don't forget the sparkly super burger for $25 too! Or the value pack of every burger at once for only $120 bucks! The savings are huge and it comes with a free ride in an ambulance. McDonald's Monopoly is also a sweepstakes and governed by laws. If you ask them for a piece they have to give you one for free. :)

When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light. If the skin distribution is weighted and it doesn't say that on the store then it is absolutely a scam. So it's ok to call it a scam based on something you have absolutely no evidence of? Seems reasonable.If you want to counter what I suggested the burden is on you to show that it is fair, which you also cannot do.