Fipmip.7219
-
Posts
290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Fipmip.7219
-
-
It strikes me that there's nothing particularly difficult to obtain in the game for solo players. there's a lot of very time consuming things, but none that really demand a combination of build, skill, patience and willpower. In runescape there's blood torva, in ff14 you have the palace of the dead. I feel GW2 is really missing that piece of gear or mount or title that once you see, you know you're looking at someone that can really play videogames real gud.
I know the precedent for GW2 shies away from this philosophy. But couldn't that also mean its about time? We have achievements tied to hardcore group experiences. its not like theres not hard stuff in the game. but what about something solo? one that really pits you against the game with no help, no allies, just a serious challenge you can sit down and take anytime, and a prestigious award at the end.
-
1
-
4
-
-
56 minutes ago, costepj.5120 said:
No - I don't like any "adventures" and avoid them whenever possible. Fortunately it's optional for the Annual achievement.
I mean what, do you like smashing 300 pinatas? whats your favourite activity to get coffers? also im talking as a daily, its probably the best one for dragon bash.
-
1
-
3
-
-
I'm talking about the adventure in hoelbrak where you have to get 19 in in under a certain amount of time to get gold. you get 7 coffers as a reward which is basically 1.5 gold. you can do it daily, and i always enjoy it because its hard. not too hard, but just the right amount of challenging, a decent reward you can get quickly if you are skillful, and a unique mechanic to boot. I enjoy the race as well, but that is much easier by comparison. but for some reason, this particular adventure is tuned just right for a satisfying challenge.
I wish every adventure had a carefully tuned "platinum" medal, one that was obtained by some QA testers to obtain a really good run and then had like a 1g reward. then, if you were good, you could hit up all the adventures every day and farm gold while also having fun.
-
6
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:
Because the consequence of GW3 launch would be the fall of GW2. It may be a minor point for new players, but most of the GW2 players aren't new.
That's even if we do not consider how unlikely GW3 is to do even as good as GW2 (much less better) did in the today's market...
i guess thats why the "second life" people that think they need to play gw2 constantly would be mad. but should you really cater to them every time you make an MMO? most people, the ones that just return for a month or two after each update, would be fine with GW3 because its functionally another update. As long as the game took all the best parts of GW2 and added onto them with its own unique mechanics, I'd say a successful product is well within the cards for arenanet.
-
1
-
5
-
-
I dont see why people would be mad about GW3. As long as it was made well, I think it would be welcome. I would be happy to play a new guild wars that build on top of the old formula with modernized combat, better graphics and some new core mechanics.
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:
That's the point where your argument crashed. Hard. Sorry, but no - the balance state of this game being in a questionable state in no way means we should be unbalancing it even harder.
there is no "unbalanced even harder" for games with ultra complex skill customization and variety. there is only a plateau of unbalance where one thing is the best at a certain thing and needs to be nerfed while all others need to be buffed. The best you can hope for is multiple "viable" ways of doing something, and there's no reason why my suggestion would make that impossible to happen. In any case, it wouldn't be more unbalanced than many loved games with boundless variety like pokemon, yugiho, mtg, etc.
5 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:In Guild wars case you'd need to have warrior as primary or secondary profession to get hammer skills and if you do have this profession then being able to use a hammer is a given.
As for your idea, you're basically describing bundles and Masteries would be the way to unlock those and limit them through the various gamemodes. Just like Path of fire offer a variety of mount with their own skillsets, you could have masteries that offer a variety of "bundles" that are limited in use to specific areas in the game. This way, one can be the cool kid that wreck havock with his volcano hammer in some open world PvE maps without ruining PvE end game balance and competitive modes.
I meant that if there was a weapon that had a new skills, you could either make it so skills 1-5 were all different, but the same among every class that can use a hammer, or just have one to two skills change with that hammer but the skills are different depending on the class using them - those classes being the ones that can use hammers. so for example you pick up the hammer as a guardian and get a new guardian themed volcano skill specific to that hammer, or a warrior and get a new warrior themed volcano skill. alternatively, warrior or guardian pick it up and get the same skills which come with that weapon.
Yes we know bundles give you new skills but i see that as a toy concept. Its entirely another thing to have an item be a part of your gear with its own stats, skills and be obtainable through questing/raiding/exploration. Having a new collection of these items with every expansion would be a great reason to look forward to them. There's still room for specializations in this system, since they offer new passives and utilities. perhaps you could give weapon skills keywords like "smash" and then have passives in those specializations that interact with those keywords, like "20% more AoE with smash skills"
-
1
-
-
In horizontal mmos like guild wars we have new stat combinations released with each update to help min/max certain builds. In vertical mmos like lost ark and wow the limits on our power are simply raised through some method or another.
I was thinking, what if new weapons were added with each expansion. I'm not talking about new weapon types, but new weapons within those types that had skills attached to them. for example, a hammer called the volcano hammer that has a new 5 skill that smashes the ground and causes fireballs to come out of a fissure. In guild wars case, you could have this skill be shared among every class that can use a hammer, or you could make a new skill for every class.
Imo this type of "progression" for trying to obtain tangible new items that meaningfully effect the way you play the game would feel way more satisfying to chase after. This sort of thing would be great for legendary weapons too with appropriate legendary skills.
Balance wise, it would be unbalancable, but there really isn't a balanced mmo out there. Imo, it wouldn't be functionally different from the way the meta constantly changes with each update currently. In essence, players dont have time to settle before old stuff gets shifted around and new stuff gets added.
This is basically an idea I've been sitting on that I havent seen tried. granted im not much of an MMO expert, but anyway, could be a good idea for GW3.
-
5
-
1
-
-
I would support a GW3 purely on the premise of improving the fundamentals that can't really be changed anymore in GW2. The action combat gameplay in GW2 is still fine but its very old at this point and its been overtaken by other mmos with better gamefeel. GW3 would also offer a chance at addressing the photon soup fights by redoing skills and effects from the ground up, and a new engine will allow for better networking code and better large group experiences.
In terms of setting I'd prefer to keep it medieval fantasy with a dash of magitech as it currently is. I think full sci fi would alienate the thousands of GW fans that would be willing to return to try out GW3. Maybe put things into the 1910s - 40s in terms of how warfare works. As for writing, well, I've accepted the disney-marvel tier story for what it is.
Imo GW2 did so many things right and I think most people would be happy to see GW3 be similar in nature but expanded where techniques in game development have risen. Graphics, seamless open world, readable group fights and improved action combat feel. Keep the meta events, keep the class customization, keep the amazing story set pieces, keep the detailed world and setting.
-
GW3 for sure. i believe GW is an iconic name in the MMO genre and a new GW would generate a ton of interest which could catapult it into a staple MMO if handled correctly. the new GW would also focus on improving the systems of the old, with similar build customization but weightier action combat, less massive particle heavy abilities and improved audiovisual feedback. The tech limitations should also be expanded with the use of a new engine, allowing for more players without lag, and bigger cooler events with less screen clutter. personally I believe the metas from heart of thorns were peak GW2 and deserve to be the bar for overworld PvE action going forwards. I would also prioritize a seamless open world instead of map zones, and finally I would make sure there was a space for wars between guilds in Guild Wars, perhaps via some specialized PvP meta events.
-
1
-
3
-
-
Would be cool if they added a massive sea map between cantha and tyria and added proper voyage mechanics with personal sea ships and airships and some kind of intercontinental trading theme
-
2
-
-
people act like killing characters is some insane concept. it aint. they are narrative devices and at this point in the story, they are all completely disposable. Its not edgy or toxic to want some kind of sense of reality to the story. people die when they get put in perilous situations. is it so bad to respect that concept when making a story? New characters are easy to create and I'm fully ready for them.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 9/20/2022 at 11:04 PM, Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
Untrue, there are several dangling plot hooks left even from the core game and GW1 which could be picked up by the next overarching storyline of GW2.
There's no need to set up the new story from scratch.
except for taimi's illness think having some sort of payoff in the end i cant really think of one. And even then, you could use that to justify her sacrificing herself. you've been arguing yourself that the characters have been written out. at the point of the finale in EoD, they had barely any relevance.
22 hours ago, Lord Trejgon.2809 said:Yeah, you didn't watch the video. Or failed to pay attention to it's content.
I did watch it. You should use quotes from the video to justify that argument.
-
10 hours ago, Kalavier.1097 said:
Besides the fact that EoD is not the end of GW, and your opinion is not universal on character worth.
its the end of the main dragon plot: any new story has to be set up from here as a new plot
6 hours ago, Lord Trejgon.2809 said:Of course nothing prohibits author from doing whatever they want, but as far as whole page one of this thread goes, pretty much every argument mentioned either by you or people reacting to you are addressed in linekd trope talk.
"every member of DE and DW could die in one long cutscene at the end complete with slow motion and sad music,"
this is specifically killing of characters as a "big plot point", with all the downsided covered by Red in the trope talk.Just because there are shows and movies that pulled that trope fine does not mean it should be hamfisted into a story writing of other media, without regard to the downsides of the usage - and especially - overusage of the trope.
Rest of the post is your heavilly opinionated take on the quality of GW2 writing, and hardly relevant to your inquiry about "would it be better ending", so I won't be wasting everyones time addressing it.
No, she's talking about a separate topic: the impact of character death and how to deal with it, and ways to convince your audience characters are dead. There is no unfinished plot or thread or secrets that need to be wrapped up with any of these characters, and the reason is because they are not interesting, their stories are not planned out from beginning to end, and they've been done for a while. there is no meta reason to keep them alive. which is why this ending would be fine.
Also, "everyone dies" is not overused. its actually a trope most shows are afraid to use.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Lord Trejgon.2809 said:
I think OP needs to give a listen to this very fine piece of a trope talk, by OSP:
theres nothing in there that strictly prohibits the "everyone dies in the end" trope. she mainly talks about characters that get killed individually as a huge plot point, which is a separate topic. Imo every member of DE and DW could die in one long cutscene at the end complete with slow motion and sad music, or maybe split up into segments a little so we can breathe a bit before continuing with the wholesale cast massacre. I'd like to add that some shows and movies have pulled this off decently. saving private ryan was one. honestly the bar is so low for GW2 storytelling that it would probably work fine. its the series finale so why not? probably the best time to do it. OSP talks about the impact character deaths have on the rest of the cast. tell me, has anyone mentioned trahearne since S3?(honestly they might have but thats not the point). Every character combined in GW2 is worth 1 good character from a good show. so killing them all at once is what it would take to have literally any effect on me. and which character would that impact? the commander. this would be a rare opportunity for some actual character building for our main! with their whole crew gone, we could spend a season exploring that impact. and then in the next one, we can show them moving on when they decide to go on another adventure later, with a new more focused cast, without all the current baggage we still have.
-
2
-
-
Airships and ships could work, if they had special maps dedicated to them. like the space between cantha and tyria, or a special floating island air map somewhere. At the end of the day, you have to add more content to the game and ships are as good a concept as any for implementation. the technical side of if may be a different story however.
People that just offer a blanket "no that just archeage go play archeage" just drag down the discussion to no benefit.
-
2
-
-
been playing bsw in wvw, i am by no means any good at the game but i get utterly shredded every time against rifle mech in 1 on 1. I'm like sheesh i thought i was supposed to be the overpowered one. i did a cursory search for some bladesworn wvw but found nothing against mechanist. share your techs/footage below
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:
We have those, they've just been nerfed to the ground over the years because the other side doesn't like losing stability or their 11 other boons even for a second.
i know we 'had' those, im saying we should 'have' those
-
On 9/4/2022 at 2:07 PM, Sviel.7493 said:
The reason this works better in Planetside is because the battles themselves are usually slower paced and heavily rely on momentum. You can't just rush up to a point and overwhelm a slightly smaller force because defensive force multipliers actually exist. You also can't stack 50 deep and rely on AoE target caps to mitigate incoming damage. You largely push in small cells, sometimes comprising a large overall force, and die in small cells then return to the push.
Distance in WvW is extremely important to the game's balance. This is why, on their newest map, they were careful to mirror walking distances between objectives. It's also why the addition of the Warclaw was akin to shooting themselves in the foot, but there's no going back on that now. If players can re-enter the fight too quickly, you end up with stalemates that are epic if you're into that sort of thing but exhausting if you're not. Battles are won not because of strength or strategy, but simply endurance.
Still, your feeling that fights in WvW are the RvR equivalent of minute-men is not wrong. Sieges are a lot of waiting around followed by the possibility of a one-sided fight and that isn't a whole lot fun. We could use a fix for this that works for GW2, but we can't just import the Planetside version.
I think the best solution is to make the siege part more active by toning down the inevitability of large groups. There's already a huge advantage to splitting up an assault, but players don't bother because it's easier to just sit a fat zerg down on some proxy catas and wait a minute or two. The zerg fight at the climax doesn't have to be the only part anyone enjoys. This would require a bunch of changes and could be implemented in myriad ways, but the general idea is that the whole siege should be a fun and legendary event.Honestly i think the point about stacking and boonballing is the main blocker here since even with longer sieges, it's hard to kill anyone 1 on 1 like in PS2 which is the main reason that you usually cant just blast your way into the objective in planetside (MAX pushing is a thing though), which means gw2 fights will always revolve around either rapidly smashing the enemy ball or being smashed. respawning players would just trickle into their respective commander balls since being left behind means rapid death against small knots of players, like two tornadoes constantly being fed with more particulate.
I think one way of fixing this would be more anti zerg mechanics and classes built around mass stripping boons ( i had an idea for a 'negate magic' class that could strip AoEs off the ground) but if im being honest, WvW fights aren't that fun to begin with. no wonder no one wants them to last more than a few minutes.
-
38 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:
Like I said those meatgrinders already exist with those boon ball guilds camping out keeps grinding pugs. You know why it doesn't last? because eventually the meat gets tired and moves on, guess what they will do when you have those temporary waypoints out in the zone, they'll ignore it and move on to something else. I've seen t3 keeps fall because defenders got tired of running into virtually unbeatable boon balls for 20 mins.
For wvw fights it's not a matter of respawning faster for players, it's whether or not you can even beat the group, if not they move on even to another map. Go ahead and find one of the grinder groups if that's what you want to do.
Well yeah that sounds like abuse of game mechanics to artificially draw out a fight. but that's not the average experience is it? that's a separate problem with a separate solution.
Getting beat is part of the game, someone has to be on the losing side. That's not exclusive to long or short fights. my proposal isnt to make fights last forever, its to make them last longer. Beating your enemy into giving up because its taking too long isnt the win condition.
-
2 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:
Why do you think we've moved into boon balling? it's to help pleb groups with sustain. It's the whole reason anet has made this push to have boon spam everywhere in the game, to help raise the level of play for players cause their own personal skill wasn't cutting it. They took away stuff like fields and blasting for more spamming because players either couldn't understand it or it was too much work for them.
Are you asking for longer fights through constant respawns like you're playing some random fps game like battlefield or cod? Cause tbh playing meat grinder isn't fun.
Well yeah, the meatgrinder is fun to me. It would be better than what we have now, just running from cap to cap just shattering all resistance in minutes/trying to blast through walls before people can react. its just depending on skill you can be the one doing the grinding or getting grinded. right now, the difference is either instakilling or getting instakilled.
-
8 hours ago, godfat.2604 said:
I was thinking exactly this. It’s epic and unforgettable, even though it’s like a joke. Perhaps we should bring this back, just add downed penalty to the lords so they can’t be revived for too many times in a row.
As for the topic, I actually think that SMC is exactly the place today, and also most of my experiences for bannering the lord back then. As long as the walls and gates are down, and there are not too many roamers catching zergling running back, it can still last quite some time even we can’t banner the lord now.
The only map which I think it takes a bit too much time running back is the desert map. But I have to admit that it’s also because I am still not familiar with it today, and I often got lost running back…
Imo people probably complained because repeatedly reviving the lord just feels kind of unsatisfying, like you should have won but cant finish it. functionally it leads to longer fights but thematically it would feel bad. I think from reading this thread, people dont mind having longer fights but it needs to feel right.
Taking from planetside, you could rework the castles to have multiple small objectives with weaker lords defending them, so that the majority of points need to be held and a bar fills up to take the objective. That would require a full map rework though so just wishful thinking here.
5 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:This already happens, have you not witnessed fight guilds in their boon balls farming keeps or towers? happens ever day, just turn on Indo's stream to see it. Even last night it happened when ET SoR DH all had fight guilds battling around Swt on green bl. You even get the pug v pug fights in places like ogrewatch sentry or wildcreek sentry areas. The problem isn't respawns, it's the sustain and positioning of groups. Adding more spawns isn't going to make battles longer and better, it'll just be more feeding the boon ball meat grinder groups. Fun when you're the meat grinder sure, not fun when you're on the other end though.
I mean, no i really havent. I dipped my toes in for enough time to reach WvW rank 30. I also played a couple of years ago to get my other GoB and i was kind of dissapointed to find the experience is basically unchanged. I do see boon ball zergs farming objectives but when they fight eachother? fun for a few minutes then its over. If you read my post, I was suggesting the same siege camp mobile spawn mechanics found in PS2, and I remember seeing suggestions for it on the old forums as well. Again though, it's just a simple suggestion and not really the focus of the post. the focus is really: to debate whether longer fights are better and whether anet should try and facilitate them with game mechanics.
-
1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:
If you want fights to not end instantly - get better and don't die instantly. Srsly. It is already way too easy to defend close to spawn structures by nonstop respawning and eventually overwhelming opponents with sheer numbers.
WvW already has a lot of carry mechanics for bad players and superior numbers - don't need even more.
Faster respawns would actually kill good (even and longer lasting) fights, because insta killing the entirety of your opponents becomes the only way to win.
How does this make sense? just because I'm not dying personally doesnt mean the overall fight is gonna last much longer. It's a team fight after all.
We know it's possible to make large scale games with long satisfying fights because they exist in this world. so why is it impossible in GW2?
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Mariyuuna.6508 said:
We already had these features;
Originally, Warclaw had a much higher movement speed, allowing you to get back to battles very quickly, and near the start of the game revival skills could be used on lords, etc. As a result battles were extremely long (almost never-ending) in both scenarios but it was "fixed" because of complaints from the playerbase.
The complaints were the same as for downstate, because players don't want longer battles, they want instant gratification. If you gave the playerbase in this game the option of instagibbing enemies, they'd take it, just so they could laugh while the funny number goes up.
The challenge of "gut wrenching war" isn't something anyone seems to want these days.
That's a real shame I guess, since I was hoping wvw might change over the years to try and facilitate more prolonged combat. I don't see why players would shy away from being able to fight longer to farm kills and get action more easily but I guess capping objectives is ingrained into the established base at this point. Maybe in GW3.
-
1
-
-
There are a few games that try to deal with large scale player battles. one that comes to mind is planetside 2, in which spawning is much more close quarters and unrestricted, leading to battles that last longer and maintain momentum. In my opinion, WvW is supposed to be the big battle mode, but big battles usually only last a few minutes. It seems to me like the focus should be on getting the ball rolling, and trying to maintain it as long as possible for the "mind bending, gut wrenching all out war" as the mist recruiters like to call it.
As to how i would do this personally, I would add more spawns around the map, and allow people to spawn in contested areas. I would also add camps as a buildable siege option that would become a spawn location, that can only be placed within a certain radius of castles and eachother, and decay over time if not used. But that just a simple suggestion, and the main question is to whether you would support this design philosophy of "keeping the fight going and making it easy to drop into the fight" overall.
-
1
-
1
-
6
-
Super hard solo pve unlockables
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
I mean the point about solo being more simple is exactly the draw of the concept. in group content, you might be carried, you might be the weakest of a strong team, or you might have to deal with others. the simplicity of solo makes it much easier to be invested in, both as someone doing it or seeing someone else do it. because there's no ambiguity. Its not like things have be easier just because they're solo. there's some insanely hard stuff to do out there, like beating halo 2 on LASO without dying. The fact that its so straightforwards is what makes it appealing.