Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Rasimir.6239

Members
  • Posts

    1,748
  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

1,694 profile views

Rasimir.6239's Achievements

  1. That's the problem: you can't create challenging, skripted content that offers "particularly good rewards for your time" repeatedly. Sooner or later you'll learn the encounter mechanic and put it on farm, at which point the challenge is gone and the encounter is only valued by its "loot per time" ratio. Ultimately repeating a pve encounter gets tedious, and encounters will only be played repeatedly if their material gain per time invested is thought to be competitive with if not better than what other encounters in the game have to offer. We're talking about a multiplayer game here, and a big draw for many players, no matter if "high-end" or mediocre, is playing with other people and encountering others in the game world. Somehow I can't think of a scenario that would make solo encounters in this setting competitive for players' time, since it would automatically draw from the pool of available players to encounter in-game and lure them away into their seperate instance (since leaving "solo" challenges in open world would likely just lead to frustration when other players passing by mess with "your" challenge). If you want high-end, repeatable solo challenges, the activities can never be competitive material-wise since that works directly against the idea of a "living" gameworld with everyone interacting and cooperating with each other. Especially scripted pve challenges are just not something that is endless, but rather will eventually loose the "challenge" aspect once you've learned how to conquer them, in which case they fail as a source of repeatable high-end rewards, too. As mentioned by others in this thread, there's plenty of activities you can try solo if what you're looking for is challenge, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a lot of it that's top-end both challenge and reward wise in pve, because pve challenge isn't something infinite.
  2. Fractals are 5-man instanced content, technically what most games would call dungeons, but with different difficulty levels that add and change instance mechanics. Check the wiki for more information, or just go to LA and ask in map chat and/or lfg for people to join you in your fractal exploration. The lower level (1-25) fractals really are a good place to start out.
  3. The suggestion thread at the top of this forum is likely the best place to have somebody from the dev side pick up this idea.
  4. Did they change anything around that recently? Last time I played ESO (a couple of weeks back) moving stuff to a guild bank still wouldn't auto-stack.
  5. I suspect that it's technical reasons. With the delay in data transfer between local clients and the game servers it would require several extra messages to be exchanged and a delay (and possibly a "can't do that right now" message if somebody else's action on the same bank item interferes) on the user side of things which could easily be more jarring than the "need to withdraw to stack" handling we have now. Concurrent access coupled with data transfer delays requires a whole bunch of extra saveguards to guarantee data integrity and ensure that no exploits like item duplication are possible.
  6. "Mounts" the way they are implemented in GW2 are much less the (prestige?) reward they are in many other, similar games. Instead mounts in GW2 really are new skills and abilities you can unlock in the course of playing. I think the disconnect here comes from the fact that you associate mounts with the ultimate gameplay reward for what you preceive is the pinacle of the game's challenges. You even mention harder content and raids in this context. In reality though, GW2 mounts are much less rewards and much more tools for gameplay. To me, getting new tools/skills/abilities only after I've done most of the content defeats the purpose. Why should I replay the content with tools that reduce the challenge after I've beaten the challenge without them? I love that GW2 allows me to unlock different masteries (no matter if mounts, gliding, whatever) and that I need to use them in my journey. Having those abilities locked until I'm done with the story/map defeats the purpose for me.
  7. Leveling masteries to certain key levels to progress story has been a thing in this game since the introduction of masteries. In HoT you have to go level your gliding mastery right out of the first story instance, and several other masteries throughout the course of that story. The requirements were lowered sometime after the release of that expansion, but there are still several masteries required to play through the whole thing. PoF only has mount masteries, so needing certain of them to continue the story sounds like the natural thing to do for me. We can discuss whether there are enough mastery points available before you get to the story step that requires the raptor jump (there are, but you could argue that it would need more "in your face" options since that is the hurdle most players new to PoF get stuck at), but I see no problem with requiring certain base masteries for story progress. If you argue against needing expansion masteries to progress the expansion story, then I would take it a step further and say that level gating of the personal story is in the same boat. Expansion masteries in GW2 are not much different to level gating in more traditional games (and our basegame). I'd even argue they are less strict since they're account bound, not character bound. Making the full story available without requiring any (account or character) progression does feel weird to me in an RPG game.
  8. Let me get this straight: players came up with a build that provides top dps if handled by a skilled player that knows how to deal with the drawbacks of the build (in this case the somewhat unpredictable golem ai). You now call for a removal of (the major part of) the drawback to turn this from top of the line dps into baseline damage that everyone and their mother can put out without much care? Meta builds are builds that players come up with that give a theoretical best (or near best) output of whatever is expected of a certain kind of build, in this case damage. Meta builds are not (necessarily) what a game developer expects to be the build(s) necessary to clear specific content. Meta builds are also not the only viable build(s) for a certain role or piece of content. If you find yourself unable to put out the performance you expect of yourself on a build, the solution is not to ask for the game to change to make it easier for you to perform to your expectations. The solution is to tweak the build to where it suits your abilities and preferences. In this case, as others have pointed out, there might be other runes that make it easier for you to put out the damage you want to put out without disrupting the fight in ways not acceptable to you. As others have mentioned above, there are rune sets in this game very similar in stats to the golemancer rune, that might suit you better without noticably reducing your damage output. Personally I have a few full sets of golemancer runes on several asura characters that have used them for years mostly for roleplaying purposes, but also because the golem tends to be a great help especially with breakbars on builds that might not have enough cc. I'm aware of the potential to troll instanced content with it, either on accident or on purpose. I honestly would miss the knockback since I have learned to play with it rather than around it. It's just part of the golem, no matter if friend or foe.
  9. That is not a game problem, that is a you problem. You might feel that way, and I'm sure others do, too, but there are easily just as many players that feel the opposite. Personally I am playing this game precisely because it does not lock the vast majority of gear and skins behind some arbitrary requirements like having the time and connections to play the same instances at the same time each week with the same group of other players to maybe be lucky to get what you're looking for (been there, done that, down to raiding with a static group for a whole expansion cycle without ever getting the top-tier equipment piece for my class, in another game of course). You seem to be looking for a game that tells you what to play by giving you an "incentive" for playing specific content to get a chance at specific rewards. I came to GW2 precisely to get away from that kind of thing (after running instances, bosses, whatnot in other games way past the point of enjoyment, because it was the only way to get what I was looking for). GW2 from the start has been advertised as the game that gives you a variety of ways to get to pretty much anything in game for pretty much anybody playing. Changing this to locking useful or pretty stuff behind barriers that only a few players can achieve, mostly not even because of personal skill but simply because their real life does afford them to no-life this game, would be a sure way to turn off a big part of the playersbase. There are plenty of games out there that give you what you want: gear and skins that are only available by a few, and populations that accept this as "prestige". GW2 is the game that many of us play because it respects our time and allows us to play what's fun and still progress towards the equipment or skins we enjoy. It's two different ways to look at gameplay and rewards that are almost polar opposites and don't mesh with each other. To be honest I've always wondered about that. To me, whenever I see somebody ping the legendary mats, I rather pity them for what seems to be a need to be validated by others for in-game pixels. I have a pretty extensive legendary wardrobe myself, but rarely if ever use the skins or auras associated with those items because they just never seem to suit my tastes.
  10. New shinies are always more in demand than old shinies, and as such more expensive. As such, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the material prices for materials used in both the crafting of the gen3 legendaries as well as the skin variants are high right now. It's a simple question of supply versus demand. Wait a while, and prices will fall, as more and more of the early adopters finish their crafting, or craft a gen1 if you don't care about the skin. Making an expansion purchase solely on the base of a preceived discount legendary crafting process when said process is obviously dependant on supply and demand of materials at the trading post seems like a pretty big risk to me, and apparently one that hasn't paid off unless you're willing to wait a good while longer.
  11. That might be true for NA, but certainly not for EU, since reset time is in the middle of the night for most of EU. You do however have a decent chance of finding groups in lfg during primetime and even at other times of the day.
  12. Honestly, from a technical point of view that's way too complicated for a very small gain. It would mean checking a lot of data (and probably storing additional flags in the database, too, since it's way too expensive to go through all of the raw data at each login) for each and every account each and every day when the vast majority of these accounts is elligible for everything anyway. On top of the technical overhead, it would also become more obscure for the players to understand which dailies they have available. Would a player realize and remember that just because they accidentally stepped outside of their Windswept Haven guildhall once, that they're now elligible for dailies in Vabbi? All of those that let themselves be carried through the first PoF chapter to get the raptor now get Crystal Oasis and generic desert dailies in their rotation? There already are plenty of people confused by the current restrictions (max level character on account, expansions unlocked) and why they have different dailies available than their friends. Complicating the selection of available dailies would only make this problem worse.
  13. ESO had a system like that when it first released. You would seamlessly move to different map instances depending on your progress in main and area quests. It was great for single players, since the world would totally change around you depending on the quests you experienced, but it was nothing short of awful if you tried to play the game in a party. I vividly remember trying to quest with my husband back in the first year of ESO, and we would regularly end up in the same place but on different map instances and unable to join each other's map because of things we might've done on the character while the other wasn't around. It was a total mess, and ESO removed that tech within a year. Different games have different ways to handle quest progression related world changes. LotRO freezes maps and instances in time, so they always stay the same. ESO uses phasing for certain NPC and environmental effects, similar to how GW2 has done it in more recent years, making things show up/disappear depending on individual quest progress, but this does lead to its share of awkward situations where one person talks to an npc the person right next to them can't hear nor see. Genshin Impact, being mostly a single player game with coop functionality, simply bans you from playing coop if you have specific quests active. In the end it all comes down to the fact that different players live in different "realities" depending on what their characters have experienced in game, but still want to play together at some point or another. To allow this while keeping the process as organic as possible (I don't want to have to manually trigger a map instance change just because the friend I'm playing with hasn't played a certain story step on their character) the game world has to be set up in a "one size fits all" kind of way, which in our case includes broken waypoints. I'd love it if they would include a side story of an asura crew that sets out to repair all the broken waypoints Scarlett and Mordremoth have left in their wake. This won't "fix" the problem with events contesting waypoints, but it would at least get some of the permanently broken waypoints back into working order (and give us a bit more story in core Tyria 😉 ). while maintaining the integrity of the maps to work for everyone. Maybe they could even move on and fix up Fort Concordia and Fort Salma again.
  14. I always assumed these two are contested because the outposts they belong to are destroyed and not used any more. They activate when the meta events reclaim the outposts. Would it be convenient if they were available outside the meta? Sure. But it wouldn't make any sense story-wise. The core Tyria waypoints that are contested all of the time (like the Concordia one) all have lore reasons, too. Most of them (like the two in Timberline Falls) used to be just regular waypoints, but were destroyed during certain events of Living World season 1. You can still see their broken remains on the ground if you go to the place, and technically they still are map exploration points, but they don't work any more. That's "Living World" as it was advertised (and executed) long long ago 😉 .
×
×
  • Create New...