Cyninja.2954

Yeah sorry, was early 😅. I corrected the name. Ty

Oh dear god. Did you bother to read how the gem-gold conversion works in the link you provided? Every single gem bought with gold was bought previously and placed in the exchange by another player (except for the ones gained via ap rewards as mentioned). It's 2 pools where the relationship to how much is in each one defines the conversion rate. That is THE entire design behind the exchange and via creating demand for gems, the system is fueled. For more, read the comment from the games economist John Smith while he was still in charge of the games economy above by Inculpatus cedo.9234. Here let me quote his statement, in case you fail to read it: To be clear. The exchange has a supply of both Gems and Gold. When you trade to the exchange you influence the supply of each. The exchange rate is relative to current supply of each. The price changes geometrically as one pool empties creating a better exchange rate for the low supplied currency. For this reason it's VERY difficult for the exchange to run out of currency. As conversion ratios change, so does trading in both directions, but, that still means every single gem in the exchange was put there before by someone (in this case another player) and the only thing preventing the exchange to "dry up" is that exchange rates would go insanely high as the gem pool declines. So once again: clueless. As to the rest of your comment, given 90% of it was gloating about how you are correct about gem.gold conversion, I'm going to skip commenting on it given how you were basically wrong on everything. Well except maybe this: Oh the sweet sweet irony, and that's pretty much why your "educated guess" is about as serious as, well seeing a unicorn graze in a meadow.

True, I am also pretty sure the next game will be far more friendly in regards to performance of players. Maybe even with a trinity. Now how well that meshes with the existing player base which enjoys the current system, that is up for debate. Seems you are making an argument that GW3 should aim at pleasing a larger audience, while competing with other titles in the segment more directly. Risky but who knows, maybe it will work. After all, in 3-5 years WoW and FF14 will have aged too, even with their vastly larger budgets. Not saying that might not work, just pointing to the argument of "existing player base will move on" seems weaker when you change the things some might be enjoying about this game. That is a very superficial and low skill evaluation of this games combat system, but your point still stands: you do not enjoy this games combat, that's a fair criticism. Obviously you might enjoy a different type of combat system more. There is no guarantee you will enjoy GW3s combat, but at least it is a dice roll instead of disliking it (which is the case for GW2) There is obviously also the possibility of you disliking the combat system in GW3, or the content it provides. I've mentioned in the past: I'm pretty sure GW3 will be far more PvE focused than GW2 (which was being developed off of GW1 competitive hype). Hold on, you are lumping a lot of things together trying to make an argument larger than it is. One after the other: 1.What GW2 (also GW1) has succeed is horizontal progresion - TRUE 2. no predatory money system - I would agree, I am sure some others would not. I'll still go with TRUE, even if the monetization system has become progressively more expensive 3. cosmetic/wardrobe system - a thing in GW2, not GW1. Also monetized versus competitor systems like WoWs or FF14s 4. general feeling of fighting a huge boss in open world - again GW2 and not GW1. This might be the goal again with GW3, but we can't be sure (I'd assume it will be but again, this was not the case with GW1) 5. completionism - TRUE, for those interested in this both games offer a ton to work towards. Most of this was added during both games lifespan though and not available at release 6. mount system - again GW2 and not GW1, TRUE and so successful that other companies are copying the best parts 7. The only good thing that gw2 combat has is fluidity - one could argue that this is a result of the overall design of the combat system, which you were all to happy to criticize earlier. Seems to me you want it both ways as argument. I will yield that both GW1 and GW2 has fun combat systems so one can hope for GW3 to be similar Looking at your points, you seem to want (and thus imagine) a very specific niche case scenario where GW3 will provide everything you enjoyed while "fixing" everything you disliked. Now who is to say that will not be the case. Seems to me that is a TON of assumptions and as mentioned a VERY niche scenario. The reality will most likely be: you will enjoy some thing about GW3, while you will not enjoy other things. The question thus only becomes: will you enjoy more about the game versus what GW2 has to offer.

So your argument is that GW3 will not be a MMORPG? Because those have been around for a while. Also you are simplifying the development of cars. They did not just summon in out of thin air. The theory and work behind getting them to work took years and was well established by the time they replaced horse/carriage.

Define superior. Superior graphics? Sure. Superior performance? Probably. Superior game play? How would one know? Superior experience? Again, how would one know? What is your measure and definition of superior here? With cars and carriages this was pretty clear. To summarize: Why would I assume GW3 would be superior overall? What basis is there to suspect that given the current and past market trends, this has seldom or never been the case? I could speculate and assume it will be, but that is certainly not established in this segment of the market. EDIT: Case in point: New World is the FAR superior game to GW2 in some areas. Is it the superior game overall? Now go replace New World with GW3 in those statements/questions.

Your assumption fails on the simple premise that horse and carriage were far inferior to cars. We have a market where new MMORPGs are often inferior to established games. That's without getting into difference of software versus hardware upgrade ability. Your comparison thus falls very flat. Thanks for playing.

Just to put stat infusions (agony + stat, which would be required for fractals) into perspective cost wise: - you need a total of 20 infusions to max out a build (6 armor, 4 weapons, 2 back, 2 accessoires, 6 rings) - at around 50g per infusion (pretty much the cheapest you can go) that's still a minimum of 1,000 gold - the 90 stat points acquired provide a performance increase of around 1-2% - for any content which does not require agony resistance (that's EVERYTHING besides fractals) WvW stat infusions do the exact same thing, while costing a fraction There are a ton of things which make more sense to get than agony stat infusions for players, even veteran players.

Their track record of what, 2 games? Their track record of monetization development in GW2? You being oblivious does not erase the already present monetization increases which have both taken place between the first and second title, as well as within GW2s lifespan. EDIT: and just to reinvigorate your memory: we went from character slots, transmutation charges, rez orbs, bag slots (initial bag slot cap was 8, so 4 more. Now it's 14, most recently increased with SotO) and booster on release to: - bank slots (first added Feb 2013) of 8, to by now 17 - massive amounts of cosmetic items of differing design - booster packs of differing design (Starter Pack, Weekly Pack, Living World Pack, etc.) - way point unlocks and character boosts - build and equipment templates (and similar to bag slots, increasing amount) - glider skins, mount skins, boat skins. Most of which are gem store only - free on login living world content, to now mini epxansions - and more (just open the gem store and look at the divers selection of items which are on sale) and a lot of designs which encourage or promote spending money on the game. Less than other games and this game remains one of the cheapest MMORPGs in the market, but it HAS developed and increased monetization (and monetization practices) since launch. Is that the track record your are referring to? GW2 sold well. How long ago was the launch? Side questions: if GW2 was doing "so well", why is a GW3 being developed? Fun fact: no they can't (besides the minor amount of gems acquired via achievement milestones). You ignoring that those gems are being purchased by another player than the one acquiring the item from the gem store does not negate that fact. Gems in this game are generated via purchase of those gems with real money, always. Once again an issue where you seem unclear on HOW money is being generated for the studio or how ingame systems obfuscate (even if beneficial to some players, aka shuffling the purchase to wealthier players) how they promote the generation of revenue (in this case gem sales). They did didn't they? Oh yeah they are also making a ton more $ per player than before. Staying with the same game type: the WoW of today generates a TON more money per player than the WoW of old. Once again, there is a huge difference between Blizzard and Arenanet or NCSoft and Activision, and that gap can and will be bridged. I've already mentioned how Areannets owning company has done so in other titles. You expecting something based on wishful thinking or assumptions which ignore financial realities is on you. I figured I'd keep it short as well as some of the issues where already mentioned in this post and have to do with how the current game content is being released, and not expecting a change in that direction. As to saying a lot: you are, most of it lacking substance or grounding in current day reality. The gem comment being your latest example of lacking understanding.

Unless you have an exact break down of what the revenue streams behind those other items were compared to keys, you can not know how good or bad the argument is. Name a few items which were previously not available before the Wizard Vault. Then consider how much those items usually might be in relation to the revenue stream for Arenanet. Now consider what Black Lion Keys are for the revenue stream. Obviously important enough that the developers decided to limited key farming way way back. If you want to have something implemented which REDUCES the revenue for the studio, your best (and almost only) bet that the idea gets taken seriously is to offer some trade in return. Either explain how this change benefits the developers, or give ideas how it can be implemented in a way that there is an incentive for the change.

Have you spent more than 1 minute on considering what a limitless boon range would mean for content in this game )or make it range X, what ever you are considering, which according your reasoning seems to be at least 1,200 units or more)? I mean besides your assumption that it would "solve" the stacking issue? I mean what other parts of the combat would be affected, how would balance have to change for classes (most predominantly melee vs ranged for example). Would you even still get taken along on your quickness scrapper (not an unrealistic question, there are ranged quick dps which might outperform your class no?). Have you considered other game modes like WvW? (let's be honest, I could mention Spvp but we know the 5 people that play it are not being considered either way) Seems like you are throwing out an idea without any proper thought process behind it. Consider writing out a proper suggestion, consider how much work it would take to implement, consider if the game after is more fun than now, and maybe there might be some merit to your idea.

This seems pretty spot on.

Easy fix: - setup participation requirements for each 25% phase - setup participation requirements for prevents, something like get credit for 2-3 of them The requirements don't even have to by high, literally just do 1-2k damage per phase or so. Anything which while being afk would not happen. Knowing the developers though, this would like result in the elementalist class getting deleted by accident.😆

You are not wrong, but it is important to distinguish between how target caps and boons affect stacking. Both result in a specific damage increase, just to different targets. Simplified: - Increasing target cap produces more damage overall because more targets are hit. Aka now instead of getting 5x1000 damage, you are getting 10x1000 damage (numbers meant for showcasing an example, not as actual ingame values) It only reduces stacking until defenders are sufficient to out damage sustain, at which point exchanging blows while sieging changes. Everything before that point remains the same Boons still increase incentive to stack because of their nature and the multiplicative effect they have. Promots more important alpha strikes, aka first engage becomes more important and snowballing off of that becomes easier - reducing boon duration first and foremost reduces the multiplicative power increase boons provide. Both offensive as well defensive. The damage to an enemy group increases, but not via amount of players hit, but relative damage dealt to lower amount of players. Aka now instead of doing 5x1000 damage (or 10x1000 damage as previously) you will do 5x2000 damage. You are now more incentivised to stay on stack as to better share damage to group. - increasing boon removal options (aka counter play) Very similar to boon reduction, but with the added element of having to be built around and properly executed. Targets stripped of boons are punished twice over: first by being stripped of their defensive boons leads to more damage taken, and second by taking higher damage from enemy group which will have more offsneive boons up . This has the potential to create "kill zones" even in a balance setting where boons are highly effective. What is the downside to the boon removal approach? Well all of its benefits are also its detriments: - requires dedicated boon removers - requires skillful play, both targeting as well as managing an extra resource - creates "kill zones" where slower players will be butchered Different approaches will affect the boom meta in different ways. In general a mixed approach would be best in my opinion, while I do favor the counter play approach. Important also to note: many players enjoy stacking, they merely do not enjoy the stale nature of stacking without counter-play.

Not to scare anyone, but strait from the wiki: - https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mastery Now assuming: - a player is level 80 and has the mastery system unlocked (any expansion mission will do) - is constantly able to acquire experience which progresses any master track (this becomes relevant once a certain area is completed in regards to all masteries related) - is acquiring around 1 million experience per hour (rather high, requires booster and completion of high experience yielding events/content) - is not at any time limited or locked out of advancing masteries due to lack of mastery points It would take said individual approximately 200 hours to attain max mastery rank.A more realistic assumption here is 400 - 800 hours for more natural play or players which are not maximizing their experience gain, etc. This might seem like a huge investment, and it is, but contrary to other games, this progression is account wide and 1 time only. So while this might seem daunting at first, it is something which comes by naturally if one enjoys and sticks with the game. Another thing to note is:: of those 536 mastery ranks, only 1/4 or at best 1/3 will have a significant impact on the games experience, most notably the mastery related to character movement (aka gliding and mounts) as well as the Pact Commander mastery for the auto loot. There is also no "rush" in getting to max mastery rank. The pace at which new masteries are added is akin to around 20 million experience per year (Soto most recently added around 27 million experience worth of additional mastery ranks).

Have you selected an active legend? You need to select 2 active legends near where other classes have their special class mechanic skills. So to summarize: 1. you need to have herald sloted as trait-line (only works in slot 3) 2. you need to select herald as active legend 3. if skills are still not shown, try manually selecting them on the appropriate slots.