Cuks.8241
-
Posts
2,507 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Cuks.8241
-
-
On 6/11/2023 at 10:10 PM, jul.7602 said:
Balance is a narrow term describing the mathematical probability of defeating your enemy conditioned on some set of variables. When that probability approaches such that probably of defeating your opponent is the same for any set of build, you can say that the combat is perfectly balanced, conditioned on the choice of build.
Sure that is balance. But that is also a very bad game design at least for rpgs. Because that pretty much means player made builds are irrelevant and might as well completely remove them.
No, not all builds should be balanced. There should be good builds and bad builds and up to players to figure out what is good and what is bad and synergies between builds. And there should be a large enough available variability to suit different play styles.
As for your solutions. I think they are bad for the game. It's just dumbing down the game and makes roles in a squad less distinguished and make different CC type abilities more homogenised. I'm fine with fine tuning stability and CC sources and/or spreading out stability sources in a squad (Spb frontliner with better stability source). But just giving everyone anti cc kit without any investment? Nah. Most if not all classes can already build heavily in anti CC. But the beauty of cooperative playing is in role specialization and not homogenisation. Homogenisation just takes away another skill factor. Group composition, communication and coordinated play is skill and it feels very satisfying when your group is well coordinated. Even the little things feel very satisfying when you get 30 people to move, dodge, bomb, blast... at the same time.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:
Why not? There's already some massive splits between how mechanics work in PvE and PvP modes, we can easily add skill speed and cooldowns on top of that.
Most SPvP builds already do not have access to both those boons at a decent upkeep. Some do not have access to any of those boons at all. So, i'd not worry about it too much. WvW boonballs would get affected, but weakening those a bit would not necessarily be a bad thing, don't you think?
I wouldnt split the baseline tempo between pvp and pve modes. At least as far as quickness is concerned. We already have lots of CD splits so alac is not really an issue.
It would just feel bad for pvp compared to pve. I think its also important that the base feel is consistent.
I dont think it would be the end of the world for pvp if these 2 would be baseline. Yeah balance would suffer initialy, but that can be fixed over time. Much easier than other solutions and it wouldnt make your char worse compared to pve.
-
5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:
Might alone is around 30% dps increase. Fury adds 25 to 30% (depending on build) crit chance, which on power dps is about 60-70% dps increase. Considering those are multiplicative, not cumulative, those two boons already add over 100% dps increase. And then you factor in alacrity and quickness (with, again, multiplicative effects)...
Yes, it is around +200%
Keep in mind defensive boons are actually even crazier although harder to quantify. But at least there is still skill factor involved for some of them not just mash 1 or 2 buttons for 100% upkeep.
Also alac is just as effective defensive boon as it is offensive. The value here is completely insane.
If we compare this to the strongest offensive group buff in WOW. Bloodlust/Heroism give 30% haste for 40 seconds but you can't reapply it to a target for 10 MINUTES. So 7% uptime (more if the fight takes less than 10 minutes). This spell had a lot of controversy and nerfs in the past for how strong and essential it is.
In gw2 every boon is completely crazy compared to that. 33% dmg reduction, 25% CD reduction, 25% critical chance... All the boons are completely out of hand in this game.
-
1
-
1
-
-
There is nothing positive these 2 boons bring to the game. Only a long list of bads and headaches for all.
If they want the combat to be more fluid this is fine, I agree, but boons are not the way to do it.
-
12
-
-
I wont judge the change until its out, I think it has the potential to be good and give even more versatility to qdps Herald. It would sucks if it would be reduced to AA build with upkeeps but we dont know how hard it will be to keep quick up.
BUT if this means the boon share range is reduced, this is a huge nerf for me. That 600 range is the best feature of Herald qdps and something I think should be baseline for all boon shares.
-
5
-
-
I am not sure how this would work. How long would the camera stay locked? This makes sense if you use it for a really fast 180° to couple it with a backward movement/leap ability to shoot it forward instead of backward. But if you use it for fast turning you want the camera to turn with you.
-
Your suggestion would make it worse for many applications. It would be nice if it would cancel with the second press of a button though. But in the end its just skill issue. The more you play, the better you will judge the animation locks, ranges of skills and it becomes natural.
-
For me it hid the infusions after relog. Didnt test specific ones.
I hope its intended and not a bug.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Ashantara.8731 said:
I just tested it with a friend. Infusions are still visible, as I stated earlier. The claim they can be turned off now is false.
Besides, there are other, more urgent things, that should be toggleable: jade-bot minis and sounds, the Cyberscale's sounds, Virtuoso daggers, etc. 😉 Infusions are actually fine -- there are very few players who use 18 Queen Bee infusions or run around as a Hulk double and annoy the heck out of everyone. 😄
Hmm it seemed to work for me yesterday but had to relog. Unless I just happen to meet only players without infusions.
-
Now we know why there's no open world pvp. Those pvp players would mess up all the events.
-
2 minutes ago, Doggie.3184 said:
Hides legendary projectiles too, I don't mind seeing the cute Charr next to me's flying cats in Dragon Bash.
I did say it'd probably "be like FFXIV's or less" and it is in fact less than FFXIV's 😛
Can I get some on/off hotkeys?
I should be grateful for this (and I really am) but Anet can we also hide legendary projectiles on ourselves? I dont like how they overwrite class unique animations.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
If this is true (havent logged in yet), this is the best update since I've started playing.
edit: I changed my mind because I have some infusions in my bank I will never use anyway and the price will drop now.
Edit2: Its still probably the best.
-
9
-
2
-
9
-
3
-
1
-
-
I also dislike this new friendly aoe circles. A dot would be just fine, allthough it bothers me the least on Vindi dodge. They are also incosistent. We got them on Spectre, Vindi, Ele dagger lightning 5 maybe some more. Why? No clue. Its not like we have a ton non ground targeted aoe or cleave abilities and we always did just fine.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Nah, a little bit of drama is fine and theres always some tension when there is competition.
Its the same in sports and dealing with oponents on the mental level is part of it.
Players that take it to far, beyond the match probably have some personal issues so just pitty them.
-
18 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:
Do you really believe, that Anet maintains a real inventory of gems (that could run empty in theory) and that you get the gems you buy with gold come from this inventory? And that the gems someone uses to buy gold (or BL skins or whatever) are added to this inventory?
Do you then also believe that Anet maintains a real inventory of every BL-skin in the Gemshop that you can buy in the Gemshop? And if you buy a BL-skin in the Gemshop you get one item from Anets Gemshop inventory of this BL-skin? Like with real physical items, i.e. when you buy a pair of shoes in RL?
Why would Anet want to create the overhead of maintaining such a system when there is a software solution with less overhead and less development costs that looks exactly the same to the outside, because these are all virtual items and destroying/consuming/creating them costs nothing internally?
So, if you buy gems with gold I don't think you get gems that someone else bought with real money sometime before. You simply get a gem number credited to your account and the gold number is debited from your account. So at this moment gems are virtually created and gold is deleted/consumed. That's also how a gold sink works.
I don't really know how the system works. I think its highly likely the prices are regulated by Anet. But not necessarily and there is also a component of supply/demand in there. Because the price fluctuates based on the demand. https://www.gw2tp.com/gems You can see how much the price changed over the years.
You can also play with the number of gems/gold you will buy and the price per gem (or gold) changes. I never did this actually (so am not 100% sure) but saw some guides. Which means not every gem/gold on the market has the same price at a given time.
The author of this video seem to think it is a pure unregulated exchange between players. But hes probably only assuming.
-
On 5/30/2023 at 3:31 PM, kharmin.7683 said:
Exactly so. This mechanic has in no way affected the materials that I have stored up because I'm simply not engaging with it.
Same for me. I avoid pretty much anything involving research notes.
Ive made the bare minimum bot upgrading and crafted one or 2 of those serpent weapons because those are really nice.
I have everything for a few gen3 legies and intended to further upgrade bot but just cant get myself to do it because of rn.
-
2
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:
I'm not finding excuses for Anet. Why should I?
I'm not looking for excuses, I just don't share your (kind of) strange point of view with this. Is that so hard to grasp that there are other valid opinions?
Yes, they are. And when Anet communicated their final monetization of this convenience feature, I had a strong feeling, that it was over the top and greedy. Just my opinion. At the time there were even internal discussions at Anet, that these should be free as a feature of IBS.
No. That's really far fetched. And next you will want to tell that skins are P2W because they have a visual advantage? Or extra character slots? lol
I actually fully agree with most of your opinions and had the same premise at the start of this discussion. I am completely fine with gw2's monetisation and would not play the game otherwise.
But I still think the game is pay2win and as long as they are selling power (lets forget about QOL here because those are borderline) it will be for me. I don't see any reason not calling it like that just because its more user friendly than some other game which is again more user friendly than some third game...
I would not say skins in this game are p2w. The impact is to low. But in some fast fps games skins can be p2w and often the competitive scene will run standard model for everyone for that reason.
-
1
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:
Hold on ... the question here is what is the revenue that Anet make when someone converts gold to gems? I don't care where those gems come from because we know that they are infinitely available to purchase with RL money. People obtaining gems with gold can only result in a decrease in Anet revenues because the only other alternative to get gems is to spend RL money on them.
1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:No, people converting gold into gems does NOT make Anet revenue, PERIOD. The fact that the gold/gem trade exists must result in at BEST, no impact on revenue or at WORST, some negative impact on revenue. The BEST situation is that no one gets gems from gold and 100% of the gems people obtain are from RL money purchases. It's only down from there.
There simply isn't a mechanism where Anet takes gems to some place to get money for them, just like there isn't one for engagement.
42 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:We shouldn't deal in rhetorical questions with these deniers. Anet is most definitely maintaining some kind of control on the volume of gems available for conversion to maintain the attractiveness of the RL money gem purchasing. No one with any business acumen would allow such a critical and easy to eliminate risk to exist if that risk means having to answer to angry investors because of a significant drop in revenue (and consequently, value of the company).
I think the problem here is that no one really wants to acknowledge GW2 is a business and it's designed to get money. So if people can 'invent' sources of revenue that aren't dipping into people's RL money, then it's easy for them to justify why Anet shouldn't be so 'greedy' by providing things for us to buy with RL money. It's all very dishonest.
There is no contradiction here I guess. You think this would hold water in a board meeting?
-
2
-
-
Just now, Obtena.7952 said:
Yes, that's completely possible that a feature doesn't make them money and impacts their revenues critically. That's not a contradiction in any way.
Define 'indirect' revenue? How is any money generated for Anet for a transaction between players where no money is involved and where there is missed opportunity for Anet to sell gems?
We already went through this. I gave some examples, even you gave one.
As far as direct/indirect. Direct would be something like a tax on each transaction. Indirect is basically any other money gain that is impacted by the feature. And I am not economist, neither fluent enough in English especially when it come to economics so these might not be the correct terms.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:
Because gem to gold conversion has the potential to impact revenues in a negative way. There is no contradiction there with the fact that conversion doesn't make Anet money.
So it's a feature that can "critically" impact revenue but doesn't make them any money. And you don't see any contradiction here? Shaky. And I think it was quite clearly implied by several posters here we are talking about indirect revenue.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:
We shouldn't deal in rhetorical questions with these deniers. Anet is most definitely maintaining some kind of control on the volume of gems available for conversion to maintain the attractiveness of the RL money gem purchasing. No one with any business acumen would allow such a critical and easy to eliminate risk to exist if that risk means having to answer to angry investors because of a significant drop in revenue (and consequently, value of the company).
Why would they answer to investors and why would their revenue suffer if you claim they dont make any money from it? Actually according to you they are losing money on this so making the feature unattractive would benefit the investors.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:
No, the hurdle, as you call it, is so small and without any real (dis-)advantage, that there is no real "win" you would "pay" for.
I reached level 80 with full ascended gear a lof of years ago and never wanted or needed gear with better stats than ascended or a higher level than 80. And stat-wise there are no better stats than ascended and no higher level than 80, so I have max BiS gear since then and reached the ceiling stat wise.
Did I needed or wanted other things since then? of course. I have three sets of legy armor, legy trinkets and few legy weapons. Do they give me any advantage over other players? No, they are just cosmetics and convenience.
Did I buy Hot, PoF and EoD? Of course. Are they P2W (pay to win)? No. They are B2P (buy to play).
Thats all fine and well and true. Also saying you were full ascended years ago doesn't tell how long it took you. And for some years is acceptable, for some it's days. Also stat wise ascended tier is only one portion of bis, you also need the correct stats and these can also change over time.
I'm completely fine with the monetisation system the game has, for me it's fair. But I dont understand why there is a need to find every possible excuse for Anet. The game offers the option to buy power with cash and you can wrap it in as many excuses as you want that's still an option and until it will be there, the game is pay2win.
Hey they are even selling equipment and build templates. Those could actually be considered as additional power in some wvw scenarios. Ability to adapt to the enemy with a press of button before the engagement starts can be huge. But I guess this will be nitpicked again because its just another small thing with barely any advantage (until it is).
-
4
-
-
Just now, vesica tempestas.1563 said:
if you want an example of Pay to Win
Is ArcheAge Pay-to-Win?
Yes, ArcheAge is considered to be pay-to-win. The game has a Cash Shop that sells items that give players significant advantages over other players.
These advantages can make the game much less enjoyable for non-paying players. ArcheAge Unchained is less pay-to-win, but it is still possible to indirectly buy power in the game.
So basically GW2. You can buy power and you can also get significant QOL advantages.
Thank you.
-
7
-
-
3 minutes ago, vesica tempestas.1563 said:
again, Pay to Win is an established term, this is not it.
Show me your established term please. For me pay2win is easy. Ability to buy power with credit card.
-
6
-
Why do we rarely see changes reflective of what players are actually asking for?
in Professions
Posted
In general the last thing I want is for the devs to listen to the players for balance. Most players fall into biased or just plain bad (to be clear I dont exclude myself from these groups). Just read class forums. And most vocal are usually the worst.
That doesnt mean they should not read proposals especially when it comes to game flavour, gameplay style. There are good proposal somewhere in all the cesspool.
Ive been playing different multiplayer games for over 25 years and without exception all the forums were mostly biased QQ and balance was always "the worst" even if the game was regarded as one of the better balanced.