Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Cyninja.2954's Achievements

  1. Was about to say the same thing. The difference between 100% and 70% would not be enough to disincentivize celestial for roaming. First off, it does nearly nothing for conditions. The sweet spot for expertise in WvW is around 30%, enough to give a significant advantage damage wise, while not being punished by cleanses to much. Everything beyond that is just gravy but usually not fight defining. Celestial is just completely overloaded in this regard. As to actual boon duration, at 60% most boons will still be permanent or near permanent. What will be affected the most is might stacking, which would have some effect. Even then though, the difference between 25 and 15 might (if we assume barely capping 25 might), while noticeable, still provides over 450 power and condition damage. The average loss in power+cd is around 300 each (which again, will have some effect given it's 600 stats points loss). That's still sufficient to almost cover the gap between a primary stat 3-piece (1,381+450+450) and celestial (639+450+639+450). Factor for the hybrid nature of celestial builds, that would still let them come out on top versus glass builds. What this change would do is discourage ANY other stats which have concentration and need to provide damage. Minstrel would remain a given, just mixed with a bit of giver currently (sure, a net loss of maybe 1-2k hit points on supports). The best way to nerf celestial is to simply remove concentration from it. Done. Now we know Arenanet is not going to do that because their approach to WvW stat balance carries over from PvE, where celestial is their "1 fits all" answer for incompetent players. As to balancing concentration, that would be a different topic and sure, making it less efficient stat wise is 1 way (but again, givers circumvents most of the "damage" to minstrel and future stat combos would/could do the rest).
  2. That's why I was referring to previous eras: the determination here being "was" (and the answer here is: continuous declining revenue YoY until IBS). Notice that a some changes which have lead to the game being better positioned were criticized in the past too (and are to this day). Best example: the switch to encouraging (or demanding) longer player engagement. Turns out, having players around longer is beneficial for the game overall. That didn't stop players from complaining about "grind" though. Another example is the merging of expansions and the free living world model into the current mini expansion model. If it was up to many players, living world would/should have remained free (obviously, no one has to advocate for a price increase) but the reality is that in that situation, the price would have been added some where else (see build and equipment templates for example). Meanwhile there is continuous expansion on what I like to call "limited revenue opportunities". Bank slots, bags slots, template slots, shared inventory slots, etc. are all items which see regular increases. The reason for this is simple to deduce: revenue bumps when necessary. Some of these items though will yield less and less meaning future revenue bumps will decline per (especially veteran) player. Legendaries changed multiple times over this games lifecycle. Their current implementation is far from what it once was. It makes sense that players gravitate to their personal most beneficial implementation. That does not have to coincide with the maximum benefit to the game though. See the wider appeal and access to legendary gear with SotO (and ever since the legendary armory was introduced) but the also price hike this brought. Players are fast to attribute and cheer on changes when they feel that "they" are benefiting, but will immediately critique when changes might benefit the game overall (which is more abstract to most), but not them personally. If issues arise with the current implementation, those issues need addressing. That's not what anyone demands, at least I am not. A bit more based or realistic expectations though can be expected. Yet even that is not necessary, given the developers will have to decide on what they have to do in order for ends to meet. If they decide that there needs to be a new carrot, because say masteries are getting out of hand for new players to catch up to (we are up to mastery rank 530 by now) and player retention is poor (it always has been, in all areas of the game), there needs to be more incentives for players to purchase the latest expansions more often (because revenue goals are a thing and the alternative is other types of monetization), then the design will get changed out of necessity. Again, I see a lot of complaining, but usually no suggestions how some of these issues could get addressed in a different manner. Every player is free to come and go ad they see fit. Absolutely. We have been in a segment of players returning after over 10 years of abstinence to a very different game which some enjoy now. The same can be true for players now which have burnt out or ones which are not satisfied with the content they are receiving at the price offered.
  3. That's literally what would happen with a LFR system, even if not always intentionally: Players signing up without experience, for roles their build can not perform, on roles they can't perform. You are here complaining about players not full-filling certain criteria, but at the same time not realizing that the issue with a LFR system does more of the same. Yes, the KP/LI etc system is not ideal, or perfect, or even good. What it is though is flexible, aka there is live communication happening and adjustments made to that communication. Something which a LFR system would not have and would need to get designed around. As to the notion of class intent and roles, most classes could not heal as little as 1 year back. Even less were able to provide alacrity or quickness as little as 2 years back. Those are changes which were made "on the fly" basically. Those changes were even subject to change since then. That's not the case for most hardcoded MMO class systems. A tank class/build will remain a tank class build in any other MMO. It might not be ideal or meta, but it WILL tank. The same does not apply to classes here given the constant shifting nature AND variability in traits and builds. Now "could" a LFR system be created with GW2 unique aspects in mind? Sure. It would require either massive developer balance investments and commitments so that specific classes/builds ALWAYS preform specific roles. It would also require very specific criteria as far as selection goes, aka a specific class would need a specific trait combination AND stat combination to even be allowed to select a specific role in the LFR. That is without even getting into any specific content or mechanics per fight, of which the more complex fights have many. The question though is: what issue does this solve and is the resource investment and sacrifice worth the change to the game?
  4. Which is exactly what the revenue reports have and will tell. The past model didn't work. That's the only fact we can base any speculation on. How much one wants to attribute this to different factors (monetization, disorganization, constant reshuffling of content deliver, free living world content, not enough focus on competative modes, not enough "grind", etc.) can be subjective, but the fact all of it combined was leading the game to its grave was not. Now that is not to say everything which has, was or is changed has to be accepted. It does tell us that certain elements of the past are not sustainable though, most notably the montization. True, but the opposite is true for other games. Let's also not forget the games which did not adapt and eventually disappeared because of that. It's easy to focus on the negatives, especially when those are paired with change. It's more difficult to look at both sides, and maybe also attribute certain elements to not game related issues, for example game fatigue. For veterans it goes even beyond that, because as more and more elements fall away (having every character, having legendaries, mastering types of content, etc.) one might lose interest in the game. Attributing this to "oh the game has changed, that's why" is usually most players first assumption.
  5. Seems to be a learn2play issue on your part: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Table_of_engineer_combo_skills Engineer, similar to elementalist, was designed with weapon kits in mind as far as variety. It stands to reason that thus those kits might be relevant for different things. In fact: replacing a single utility skill to get access to multiple combo fields seems to be one of the most generous way to solve this issue. TL;DR: Weapon kits on engineers are not fluff skills. Knowing what they are for is generally good advice.
  6. The first mistake is to assume that a hotjoin system solves any of the issues. It does not. The issue lies not with creating a group of random players for the content. The issue lies with getting a random group of players able to "solve" the encounter. It always has. THIS is what needs solving. The grouping then follows suite. The common suggestion to thus:"make your own group" is not as encouragement to solve the former issue. It is given to make people try their approach and realize IT DOESN'T WORK. You not wanting to lead a raid group is akin to saying:"I don't want to understand why stuff doesn't work." Fine, then join a guild where someone else does it for you. Players leaving your squad is literally them telling you:"We don't believe in your group composition or ability to lead us to success." What makes you believe this won't happen with an automated system? On the contrary, with an automated system your group would get filled constantly, have experienced players leave continously, leaving only inexperienced players to fail repeatedly. As to "why not change the game to fit an automated system"? That's akin to saying: Let's dumb down the encounters so an automated system can make the groups.
  7. I didn't say the game is not doing well. I said the game WAS not doing well. It's doing better now, both from what we can see revenue wise as well as what is being communicated. That's a slight difference. You are correct, something different needs to be done. That's exactly what some are complaining about here: disagreeing with how different things are not as they used to be. and you should. What I disagree with is the nostalgia and demands to return to worse performing monetization and content cycles. The constant whiining about cost and price, while the game remains some of the cheapest entertainment amongst its peers by far. The complaints about reused assets alone were hilarious. I guess most players never bothered to research how many game reuse assets. Some of the most popular recent games at that are full of reused assets left and right (look at Elden Ring and how much of that game is literal copy paste from earlier Fromsoft titles).
  8. That's pretty much the epitome of pr speak. The claim that season 5 was to follow season 4 was about as safe as the fact that season 5 was not called season 5. No studio is going to come out the gate and tell you:"oh by the way, nothing coming any longer." But sure, they "announced season 5 mid season 4", delivered it delayed, called it a different name and had to make an entire prologue episode because they forgot to add one with the end of season 4. Almost seems as though they said they're making season 5, then were forced to followup on that, but maybe for different reasons than actually committing to it. The IBS we got has in no way to be reflective of what was planned when your "season 5 announcement" happened. For all we know it could have been similar to the 2nd half of IBS, some poor content cut together to somehow pass time. Which would be as close to ending the game as can be without actually ending it.
  9. Season 4 ended early 2019. IBS was announced: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Icebrood_Saga_announcement August of 2019. You really should not make things up which are easily researched on just the wiki. Even worse when they relate to events which completely tanked (the IBS event was a disaster) and have thus an extra memorable element. IBS released 4.5-5 months after the end of Season 4, and exactly 6 months after the layoffs. There was no excuse for the delay, gjven any living world eposode prior was on a 2-3 month schedule, even with PoF inbetween. There was no expansion in the works, there was no big other work being done. It was literally 6-6.5 months after the layoffs, 4-4.5 months after the last episode and it lasted exactly half a year before it had the plug pulled. Try again troll. Edit: oh and in case you do decide to do some basic research: the layoffs happened in February of 2019, right as season 4 ended. Also easily found online. Oh and FYI: we know that the layoffs actually increased the amount of people working on GW2, since the layoffs cut other projects. Which means that you are now looking at a delayed licing world episode WITH more workforce actually available. Finaly: we know from disgruntled ex-employees that season 4 was meant as a sort of finale. Now these infos always should be taken with a grain of salt given the source, but here the timeline works out.
  10. Are you an active player? Are you generating revenue? Would you be the target customer the studio should develop for today purely based on your spending? Answer those questions honestly, then ask yourself if your approch makes sense from a business perspective.
  11. Easy, if you bothered to read the NCSoft quarterly reports, the actions taken by NCSoft, the actions taken by the developers, the statements made by the developers, etc. You'd know where the game was at and headed. Reminder: season 4 was supposed to be the end for the game (the epilogue and ending was a dead give away. Aurene is literally flying off into a sunset and there was no preview, cliffhanger or trailer after that), which is when Anet had a huge round of layoffs. Which is when the idea of an ongoing Living World system was pitched (IBS, none of which was in any way ready btw. The wait for episode 1 of IBS is LITERALLY the time they need to produce 1 episode which tells us they had nothing prepared) which is where NCSoft stepped in and demanded an expansion be made (EoD, while also injecting NCSoft West with around 130 million dollars, money which hasn't amortized yet btw though it's likely not only for GW2 and Arenanet). Which leads us to the current mini expansion model, which does away with completely free living world episodes. There is more stuff, like huge developer burnout (which is often mentioned in recent communication but which we knew was the case as far back as season 1), the constant shift in development cycles and design, etc. It's a simple connect the dots.
  12. Sure it matters, because humans are inherently disagreeable with change. The question if the change is justified or not makes a large difference when actually faced with reality. What you recall or not is insignificant What does matter is that no MMORPGs remained active if it was not meeting a certain minimum standard of revenue/profit. In fact, almost no business does. Sure, that's one way of putting it. Another would be: different attempts to make ends meet. This very thread seems to disprove this. How many inactive players are frequenting these forums do you think? Seems a lot of veteran players which shouldn't care are lingering. We can obviously on speculate on this. Are you even active in the game right now? The revenue and financials speak their own language, and there at least to what we could see and what developers have claimed, the game is trending up. Again, not in any way reflected in what has been said from an official side. This is you assuming and wishful thinking to make your point seems reasonable. Sure it does, because your entire position is summarized as: before was better than now. You have yet to provide ANY suggestions or ideas how to adapt the games business model or development which would support otherwise.
  13. Not much you can do. As far as has been communicated, customer support does not have the ability to remove unlocked items from the armory/achievement system. At least not easy enough for them to do regularly. What they can do is remove items and reimburse the materials, which in case of legendary items which automatically get added to the armory (any account bound item will) is not possible. The issue with legendary WvW armor is based in a change they made years ago. Originally the Mistforged Triumphant pieces had a WvW rank requirement starting at rank 1,500 and progressing to 2,000 for the chest eventually. The regular triumphant armor was the non rank requirement versions as to not lock legendary armor behind rank 2,000. This was changed to requiring rank 500 for whatever reason.
  14. True, though if I was to list the grievances players have been enraged about right now, a lot would seem petty and unreasonable. Again subjective, but compared to an industry standard today, which too has shifted significantly, very unreasonable. Also true, the games focus has shifted, once again. Notice how this has happened multiple times by now, always as a result to player behavior and revenue. I also disagree here, if restoration requires shedding veteran players which did/do not interact with the game or had insignificant interactions with the game is necessary, I say go for it. I'm all for the changes which encourage playing the game. Your position seems to assume that the game was doing fine before, which it did not. It might have been fine for some individuals, but overall the game was not in a good spot. Which puts this claim a bit in perspective.
  15. True, and not all changes will be favored by all players. Simple reality is: as montization and revenue gains importance to the company , it will be an issue for some players. Why? Because everybody wants their kitten to be free, but the bill has to get payed. As to conficting philosophy: true. Everybody gets to decide if the changes are to their liking or not all the time. I for one would rather have sensible adjustments to the initial philosophy, if that is the price of continued development.
  • Create New...