Mercenary System Curiosity

[SoulGuardian.6203]

16 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

...again, the only reason I went in that direction was because your whole previous post tried to argue it's a single player game

Wrong.

I never once suggested nor implied  the game is a single player.

I'm simply arguing the point that I agree with having mercs.

 

Quote

 

 

as long as it doesn't specifically tell you with words that you're supposed to play with the players.

But that's your entire argument.

Is it not?

 

Quote

 

 

But the intention of the game and the content available within it is clear.

You just contradicted your last quoted statement.

But I disagree.

When you intergrate solo-able content in an mmo.

No. It's not clear.

Quote

There is plenty of soloable content in the game for those times then. Everything doesn't need to be homogenized. Everything doesn't need to be soloable, especially in an mmorpg.

Right.

But that does not explain why you so strongly disagree with mercs.

 

Quote

Yes -and so do you, pick the content you play accodringly to your expectations. I don't see what's wrong with that approach.

 

Nothing at all.

Never said it was.

 

If you read the whole of my last post, you'd see that there are very good reasons why someone would want to/prefer to play Guild Wars 2 solo

Edited September 30, 2021 by SoulGuardian.6203

[Salvatore.3749]

3 minutes ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

But if your mercs only work in instanced content to begin with, but don't work (well) in any of the more complex instances, isn't it a waste of development resources to even implement it? It's not like we're talking about a 5-minute dev project here.

True. I understand that point 100%.

I actually said players should pay for it so ANET has the financial resources for it. 

[SoulGuardian.6203]

21 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Have you tried asking in https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/forum/25-players-helping-players/

Thanks kharmin.

I'll try that.

[Cyndercat.7615]

Just now, Salvatore.3749 said:

True. I understand that point 100%.

I actually said players should pay for it so ANET has the financial resources for it. 

Well if its just for personal story there isnt much issue with implementing them aside from the dev time which will be significant but crowdfunding isnt going to happen in a large businesses like ncsoft, too much liability. It ultimately comes down to if its worth having heros only for story instances and some dungeons.

 

Btw any dungeons that could be completed with heros are soloable. Ive soloed most, but I do use meta builds which you dont seem to like. 

[Obtena.7952]

The value such a thing seems pretty low to me. Clearly, we don't need it ... so unless it changes how people play (I don't see how it would since we aren't on a role-based character system) I can't imagine it would have much value to players. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Obtena.7952]

1 minute ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

How would you make this system work?

I don't think it makes sense to force people into a theoretical discussion about how something they don't want or see the value in would work. 

Having a NPC companion in this game is a low value proposition, no matter how it would work. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Salvatore.3749]

9 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

The value such a thing seems pretty low to me. Clearly, we don't need it ... so unless it changes how people play (I don't see how it would since we aren't on a role-based character system) I can't imagine it would have much value to players. 

True! I mean, I asked this out of curiosity, and didn't expect so much heat lol.

You do have a good point, the value itself may not be entirely worth it. That's been at the back of my mind because the AI controls and UI would need to be flawless. We may benefit from it in certain situations, but it may not be a super huge OP benefit. It would  benefit players for certain instant content only and I think that may not be a good product to offer overall. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[Salvatore.3749]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I don't think it makes sense to force people into a theoretical discussion about how something they don't want or see the value in would work. 

That's the point of the question.

I don't want to give away the answer as to why I asked that until he responds. 

[Obtena.7952]

5 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

That's the point of the question.

I don't want to give away the answer as to why I asked that until he responds. 

That doesn't really make sense. You asked him what he thinks ... so you don't have the answer to 'give away' ... unless telling people what and how to think is something you do to 'discuss' things with people. 

Frankly, SWTOR does the NPC companion thing really well and I would like to see that if there was, but that's not really relevant here. If the game isn't designed for it, no companion implementation will really make much sense IMO. It's just a REALLY complex and random way to give people more DPS, skills or effects. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Salvatore.3749]

13 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

That doesn't really make sense. You asked him what he thinks ... so you don't have the answer to 'give away' ... unless telling people what and how to think is something you do to 'discuss' things with people. 

 

It does, it's not clear on purpose. 

I'll give it away, it's a trap. He made a claim that I made lies about him wanting to keep the current gameplay system as is, and how he does not want the hero system to work. Even though he has clearly advocated against making the system work or implementing it. Then he said I was running and didn't want to have a discussion. When I thought this was a discussion. Essentially, he's trapped in proving me right, that he doesn't want to see changes in this game, or he has to come up with how the system could work.

It's not telling him how to think, it was him proving my point about his thoughts not wanting this system to work. Which he keeps trying to have me prove to him how it could work. It's a weird circle. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[Cyndercat.7615]

9 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

It does, it's not clear on purpose. 

I'll give it away, it's a trap. He made a claim that I made lies about him not wanting the system to work when he has clearly advocated against making the system work. Then he said I was running and didn't want to have a discussion. When I thought this was a discussion. Essentially, he's trapped in proving me right, that he doesn't want to see changes in this game, or he has to come up with how the system could work.

It's not telling him how to think, it was him proving my point about his thoughts not wanting this system to work. Which he keeps trying to have me prove to him how it could work. It's a weird circle. 

I mean I dont want to see the changes either but its because they literally dont work in most instances. So the main reason people want them, to do group content alone isnt going to happen. That means the only real benefit is cosmetic and abit fun but I think that could be achieved in other ways better. 

[Astralporing.1957]

31 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

Let's have a discussion, I'll call you out:

How would you make this system work?

That's the issue. I don't see how it's possible to make this system work. Not while still have it reasonably balanced anyway, because i consider a situation when 4 of your "mercenaries" carry you through group content regardless of your personal skill as an example of system not working right.

And i tell you this from the position of someone that really loved GW1 hero system.

[Salvatore.3749]

Just now, zombyturtle.5980 said:

I mean I dont want to see the changes either but its because they literally dont work in most instances. So the main reason people want them, to do group content alone isnt going to happen. That means the only real benefit is cosmetic and abit fun but I think that could be achieved in other ways better. 

Well, the mercenaries wouldn't have the same AI as the NPCs. That would suck if they did. 

But, I think it would be cool for soloing dungeons, LW, doing story mode, etc. Honestly, I don't think it would ever get implemented because ANET is clearly trying to get more people to play together, but it's just not perfect right now.  Even though GW2 is starting to pick up, it's only due to the upcoming expansion.

Also, look at the EoD expansion's group play mechanics: group skiffs, specializations that have healing offensive abilities, large aoes with combo fields, group fishing, group mounts, etc. The devs are clearly trying to get more players to play together because they know something is not quite right with how some PvE content is played. 

As for changes, sometimes change is needed and good. Look at PvP, it took them years to implement new maps and smaller teams. GW was a hardcore pvp gamer scene and GW2 was supposed to intensify that. The developers were hardcore pvpers too. They took forever to implement a decent reward system. As for WvW, it has operated off the same maps since launch with the exception of one new map after POF's release. Clearly, the group play needs some adjustments, but it's almost as if once we get a good groove in group play, we get some nasty nerfs for god knows why.

I took a 3 year hiatus for my career, came back to no ricochet on my thief, 300 second cooldowns, and 1 month of retaliation's existence. Runes of Vampirism were changed multiple times. Mender Amulet was removed from PvP. Rev got hit hard with some nerfs. Poor warriors are nearly banner slaves now. And only ele got a boost when I came back. 

All I'm saying is that ANET knows something is not right within the community group play and they know there is a meta-only requirement for certain content. I think they are trying to correct it. But, the group play may not work for everyone.

 If you really ask yourself, what happens after EoD, what happens when ANET moves to another game, what would then be left for those who are die hard GW2 fans? Do they move on or do we get a hero system similar to that of GW1? 

[Salvatore.3749]

7 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

That's the issue. I don't see how it's possible to make this system work. Not while still have it reasonably balanced anyway, because i consider a situation when 4 of your "mercenaries" carry you through group content regardless of your personal skill as an example of system not working right.

And i tell you this from the position of someone that really loved GW1 hero system.

I never thought heroes carried me through group content in GW1, but they were needed to do some content.

However, I agree with you, how do you make it work without crazy powercreep? Right, the champion bosses of the core game die easily. How do you prevent the mercenaries from benefiting from this powercreep to a point where they do carry players? Especially, if the commands were so easy to use and a skillful player was good enough to rely on the controls. 

However, is that a bad thing if someone makes the decision to give their mercenaries all legendary/ascended gear and solely rely on them for PvE instanced content. I guess it comes down to, how does the way someone else plays the game differently really impacts you in a negative way?

I totally get it if you don't like the thought of someone else playing solo with AI. It seems like you are not alone and want more people to play together. 

I think at the core of this whole thread is that not every player can be pleased, and that's because GW2 has become so massive. 

[Sigmoid.7082]

27 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

Essentially, he's trapped in proving me right, that he doesn't want to see changes in this game, or he has to come up with how the system could work.

It's not telling him how to think, it was him proving my point about his thoughts not wanting this system to work. Which he keeps trying to have me prove to him how it could work. It's a weird circle. 

Not really. There's a difference between not wanting to see changes in a game overall and not wanting to see a change someone else has proposed since you don't think it is worth the dev time or would work. Same with not wanting something to work and coming to the opinion of I don't see this working for [insert valid reason here]. Its quite asinine to think you have someone trapped based on this. What kind of argument or rebuttal is "well you just don't want it to work or talk about how we can make it work" to "I don't see think working"..

 

Honestly, I don't think anyone is trapped here but you. You've kind of talked yourself into a corner since when asked how it would work, you hand wave some things, and then we quizzed on specific scenarios that you say you / people would want to use it, that it wouldn't work at all...kind of turns the entire idea into a non-starter. Why put time into building something when its not going to work for the use case you're trying to present it for?

 

Also its also fairly naïve to think "well they can charge for it to get the dev resource" since thats not how giving money to a large business generally works. 

[Cyndercat.7615]

6 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

Well, the mercenaries wouldn't have the same AI as the NPCs. That would suck if they did. 

But, I think it would be cool for soloing dungeons, LW, doing story mode, etc. Honestly, I don't think it would ever get implemented because ANET is clearly trying to get more people to play together, but it's just not perfect right now.  Even though GW2 is starting to pick up, it's only due to the upcoming expansion.

Also, look at the EoD expansion's group play mechanics: group skiffs, specializations that have healing offensive abilities, large aoes with combo fields, group fishing, group mounts, etc. The devs are clearly trying to get more players to play together because they know something is not quite right with how some PvE content is played. 

As for changes, sometimes change is needed and good. Look at PvP, it took them years to implement new maps and smaller teams. GW was a hardcore pvp gamer scene and GW2 was supposed to intensify that. The developers were hardcore pvpers too. They took forever to implement a decent reward system. As for WvW, it has operated off the same maps since launch with the exception of one new map after POF's release. Clearly, the group play needs some adjustments, but it's almost as if once we get a good groove in group play, we get some nasty nerfs for god knows why.

I took a 3 year hiatus for my career, came back to no ricochet on my thief, 300 second cooldowns, and 1 month of retaliation's existence. Runes of Vampirism were changed multiple times. Mender Amulet was removed from PvP. Rev got hit hard with some nerfs. Poor warriors are nearly banner slaves now. And only ele got a boost when I came back. 

All I'm saying is that ANET knows something is not right within the community group play and they know there is a meta-only requirement for certain content. I think they are trying to correct it. But, the group play may not work for everyone.

 If you really ask yourself, what happens after EoD, what happens when ANET moves to another game, what would then be left for those who are die hard GW2 fans? Do they move on or do we get a hero system similar to that of GW1? 

Theres no meta only requirement for anything. Nothing stops you from forming your own groups with no requirements. Community wants it because certain buffs and damage coefficients are overpowered, thats all, and running without these buffs can double the time it takes to complete content. The solution is not to remove group play altogether but to balance these traits and buffs. That and create a proper tutorial so peopel can actually learn game mechanics and improve, and not have terrible non -cohesive builds. Anet wont do that though because its a ton of work and the system is too old to do a full rework.

[Salvatore.3749]

25 minutes ago, Sigmoid.7082 said:

Not really. There's a difference between not wanting to see changes in a game overall and not wanting to see a change someone else has proposed since you don't think it is worth the dev time or would work. Same with not wanting something to work and coming to the opinion of I don't see this working for [insert valid reason here]. Its quite asinine to think you have someone trapped based on this. What kind of argument or rebuttal is "well you just don't want it to work or talk about how we can make it work" to "I don't see think working"..

Honestly, I don't think anyone is trapped here but you. You've kind of talked yourself into a corner since when asked how it would work, you hand wave some things, and then we quizzed on specific scenarios that you say you / people would want to use it, that it wouldn't work at all...kind of turns the entire idea into a non-starter. Why put time into building something when its not going to work for the use case you're trying to present it for?

Also its also fairly naïve to think "well they can charge for it to get the dev resource" since thats not how giving money to a large business generally works. 

Lol. I'm definitely not trapped in this because I have no stake in this system's implementation. 

It's the type of argument that gets people to talk about things and see things differently. He also said I made up lies about his stance on the ideas or the current system, so I was address that. 

Like I've said, I don't really care if this system is implemented or not. It would be cool if it was, but I wouldn't be upset if it never is. It looks like some people would like it though.

As I've said it before, I have no stake in this at all as a hardcore pvper/wvwer. This topic stemmed from my curiosity and I bounced out ideas. I took some heat for it because some people don't like change at all. Yeah, people have quizzed me on things and I have responded with what I think could work.

Isn't it funny that the same people who quizzed me on how I think it could work didn't like my responses to how I think it could work or what it could be used for? Do you not find that odd at all? It's clear we can't all agree and that's fine.

It's not naive, it's reality. If there is a market for it, then market just needs to be profitable for them to make it. The devs could charge for it, and it just depends on whether market will pay for it. How business works is whether people will pay for your product or service and whether you can deliver the product or service well. That's how large SaaS businesses work. 

[Cyninja.2954]

2 hours ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

1. To people who want to form parties, it makes it worse for them. But, for people who don't want to be forced to work with others, it's better for them. 

That alone is already reason enough to stop any further debate. You are free to make an argument about how this game should throw overboard any last idea of it being a MMORPG and cater to only solo players

Quote

1. Through this logic, your in the 10% and you want to see more players working together? 90% of the players don't want to work together and this content would benefit 90% of the player population. 

That is not how logic works. I never said that this game caters with 90% to only loners. I said that 90% of the content CAN be soloed, many players chose not to and group or enjoy the presence of others.

Your own claim was that around 15% of players in MMORPGs are loners. The fact that this game has a disproportionate amount of content which does cater to such a small player percentage does not mean it has to completely shift to serve this demographic.

Quote

1.  True. I stated that heroes would not replace players in high level content. 

Define higher level content. Given content difficulty in this game is very subjective.

Also players already have issues with getting skilled enough for higher level content. You see no issue or problems with removing incentives to player lower level content (especially true since heroes would act very differently than players and would at best facilitate incorrect or different player patterns)?

Quote

1. Okay, so you liked the social interaction and thought the hero mechanic knocked it down. 

No, I LOVED the heroes given I single player played that game. I felt bad for all the players who did enjoy the social aspects of the game and were robbed of them eventually.

I enjoy the social aspects in GW2, limited they may be, and do not want to be robbed of them in this game.

Quote

1. In 2020, the dev team gave GW1 new weapons. They also have had bug fixes and other things. There was a new hidden weapon discovered in the far shiverpeaks. There are now iron man challenges.  A huge community of players still interacting. Yeah, from a development standpoint, they outsourced the development to an outside company that handles small things from time to time. It may not have new content so far, but it's still alive. 

Please. The game is dead for all intents and purposes as far as revenue is concerned or ANY serious type of development an ongoing MMORPG, or any live service game, might need.

Quote

1. Good question, to give people time and freedom to play the game differently. To control their party outcomes in certain instanced content and play it in a new light. It would also help ArenaNet financially. 

 

 

I don't go tell CS:Go players that their game needs to change. Why not make it more MMORPG like and add leveling?

I don't go and tell LoL players that their game needs to change. Why not add loss of gear similar to shooters?

I don't go and tell single player game players that their game suddenly needs a multiplayer component which messes with their story progression.

Why is it that you think that shifting a MMORPG more towards solo players would go over that well? GW1 is the best example that from a social standpoint, heroes are a terrible idea.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[Salvatore.3749]

29 minutes ago, zombyturtle.5980 said:

1.  Community wants it because certain buffs and damage coefficients are overpowered, thats all, and running without these buffs can double the time it takes to complete content.
2. The solution is not to remove group play altogether but to balance these traits and buffs. That and create a proper tutorial so peopel can actually learn game mechanics and improve, and not have terrible non -cohesive builds. Anet wont do that though because its a ton of work and the system is too old to do a full rework.

1. I talked about the time sink earlier in the thread and that's why I said the system would be a nice to have, but it's impractical to implement because the AI can't replace players,

2. Agreed. Never said to remove group play. But, there definitely needs to be a balance. Unfortunately, you're right and they lack resources to do so. 

[Salvatore.3749]

32 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

1. That alone is already reason enough to stop any further debate. You are free to make an argument about how this game should throw overboard any last idea of it being a MMORPG and cater to only solo players
2. That is not how logic works. I never said that this game caters with 90% to only loners. I said that 90% of the content CAN be soloed, many players chose not to and group or enjoy the presence of others.
3. Your own claim was that around 15% of players in MMORPGs are loners. The fact that this game has a disproportionate amount of content which does cater to such a small player percentage does not mean it has to completely shift to serve this demographic.
4. Define higher level content. Given content difficulty in this game is very subjective.
5. Also players already have issues with getting skilled enough for higher level content. You see no issue or problems with removing incentives to player lower level content (especially true since heroes would act very differently than players and would at best facilitate incorrect or different player patterns)?
6. No, I LOVED the heroes given I single player played that game. I felt bad for all the players who did enjoy the social aspects of the game and were robbed of them eventually. I enjoy the social aspects in GW2, limited they may be, and do not want to be robbed of them in this game.
7. Please. The game is dead for all intents and purposes as far as revenue is concerned or ANY serious type of development an ongoing MMORPG, or any live service game, might need.
8. I don't go tell CS:Go players that their game needs to change. Why not make it more MMORPG like and add leveling? I don't go and tell LoL players that their game needs to change. Why not add loss of gear similar to shooters? I don't go and tell single player game players that their game suddenly needs a multiplayer component which messes with their story progression. Why is it that you think that shifting a MMORPG more towards solo players would go over that well? GW1 is the best example that from a social standpoint, heroes are a terrible idea.

1. Eh, I don't know, is it though? I am not making an argument on how this game change affects the entire gameplay mechanics. Actually, I'm far from that in the sense that it would allow for some more creative gameplay for people who want to pursue the mercenary mechanic. 
2. I know, that's why I said "this logic" because it's not how logic works. 
3. The claim from the video from 2008 or 2011  some time frame 10 years ago, that number has probably changed. 
4. T4 fractals, raids, strikes, and anything with 1 shot kills. 
5. Not for low level content. I don't see the issue at all. I'm gathering that your saying this would make players less skilled. Correct?
6. Fair. I can see that being something to where people who are slightly more extroverted in game will feel robbed of social interaction. 
7. For revenue, yes it is. It's still alive for the community though. 
8. I still think it would be fun for the people who want to play the game at a different pace, don't have the time to commit to the game fully, and want a little more freedom and control over how the play game. That's all. Honestly, GW1, GW2, Megaman/Castlevania/Metroid, and Monster Hunter have been the only games I have ever really stuck with so I understand your view, I wouldn't want someone making massive changes to those franchises as it could be unsettling. Although, I didn't think a mercenary system implementation was a big issue because it wouldn't change open world, pvp, wvw, or remotely impact raids, strikes, or fractals, at all. Yeah, it would pave the way for less social interaction, but I didn't think that was a big deal either. 

To each their own, I've said my piece. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Salvatore.3749

[Salvatore.3749]

To sum up everyone's reasons for not implementing this system:

1. People want social interactions regardless if there are several players who don't want to be forced into social interaction.
2. People would become unskilled because they would rely on the heroes too much early game as a new profession (since this was suggested as a lvl 80 requirement w/ 1 completed core campaign). 
3. This would be a technical nightmare if implemented wrong
4. It would be an even worse gameplay nightmare if implemented right because the mercenaries would be OP due to power creep. 
5. Don't want the game to change.
6. Don't think it would be good value.
7. Buying mats and crafting more ascended and legendary gear.
8. High level content isn't possible with mercenaries/heroes.

To sum up everyone's reasons for implementing this system:

1. Time & freedom
2. Cosmetics
3. Different gameplay style
4. Added fun to current gameplay.
5. New fun in LW, Dungeons, and story missions
6. Replaying low level instanced content 
7. Completing dungeons faster
8. Completing achievements faster
9. Having control over the party and knowledge of how the party will work.
10. Never having to find a group.
11. Buying mats and crafting more ascended and legendary gear.

If I missed anything, let me know!

Thanks for everyone's opinion!

[Astralporing.1957]

51 minutes ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

I never thought heroes carried me through group content in GW1, but they were needed to do some content.

They weren't needed - all content was actually easier with a group of decent human players. The reason why it might have seemed heroes benefitted groups (well, apart from allowing soloing content) was because a number of players you might have ended up grouped with were not decent.

Besides, like i said, due to differences in game mechanics, the hero idea still worked in GW1. GW2 however is a different game, one that much more strongly emphasizes elements at which GW1 heroes were not good at.

 

One of the issues is that AI has no skill level. It either can do something, or cannot, but there are basically no degrees in between. So, for hero-style NPCs, thing are either trivially easy, or next to impossible. That means, in a heavy mechanic-dependent encounter, NPCs are always doing the mechanics, or always failing them (well, almost always, barring some edge cases). And there's no real way around that. I mean, sure, you can program an AI to fail dodge timing (or make them late in moving out of AoEs) a third of the time, but would having your dungeon experience depend on whether the AI will roll the critical checks right or not be fun? I don't think so.

 

GW1 heroes, outside of basic dps/heal requirements, failed at basically any other mechanic that could not be solved by stationary flagging them to a certain spot (and sometimes failed even that flagging part). They didn't even move out of aoes or kite enemies, and could not go around simple body blocks. Nor could they cooperate with each other.

That did not make them useless in GW1, but in GW2 it would have done exactly that.

[Salvatore.3749]

3 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

They weren't needed - all content was actually easier with a group of decent human players. The reason why it might have seemed heroes benefitted groups (well, apart from allowing soloing content) was because a number of players you might have ended up grouped with were not decent.

Besides, like i said, due to differences in game mechanics, the hero idea still worked in GW1. GW2 however is a different game, one that much more strongly emphasizes elements at which GW1 heroes were not good at.

 

One of the issues is that AI has no skill level. It either can do something, or cannot, but there are basically no degrees in between. So, for hero-style NPCs, thing are either trivially easy, or next to impossible. That means, in a heavy mechanic-dependent encounter, NPCs are always doing the mechanics, or always failing them (well, almost always, barring some edge cases). And there's no real way around that. I mean, sure, you can program an AI to fail dodge timing (or make them late in moving out of AoEs) a third of the time, but would having your dungeon experience depend on whether the AI will roll the critical checks right or not be fun? I don't think so.

 

GW1 heroes, outside of basic dps/heal requirements, failed at basically any other mechanic that could not be solved by stationary flagging them to a certain spot (and sometimes failed even that flagging part). They didn't even move out of aoes or kite enemies, and could not go around simple body blocks. Nor could they cooperate with each other.

That did not make them useless in GW1, but in GW2 it would have done exactly that.

They really were not needed so long as you had decent players and you are absolutely right. In that game, there really wasn't a meta since almost all builds were viable so long as you could work with the groups. 

Out of curiosity, did you ever use the paragon spirit way hero group? That was insane, you were literally invincible within earshot with all the shouts lol. 

And by the way, you made a good point, there were some crazy flaws that I totally would not want to see come to GW2 if this system was implemented. The paragon shoutway builds were the best way to mitigate the aoe damage. 

[mungozen.2379]

1 hour ago, Salvatore.3749 said:

Lol. I'm definitely not trapped in this because I have no stake in this system's implementation. 

It's the type of argument that gets people to talk about things and see things differently. He also said I made up lies about his stance on the ideas or the current system, so I was address that. 

Like I've said, I don't really care if this system is implemented or not. It would be cool if it was, but I wouldn't be upset if it never is. It looks like some people would like it though.

As I've said it before, I have no stake in this at all as a hardcore pvper/wvwer. This topic stemmed from my curiosity and I bounced out ideas. I took some heat for it because some people don't like change at all. Yeah, people have quizzed me on things and I have responded with what I think could work.

Isn't it funny that the same people who quizzed me on how I think it could work didn't like my responses to how I think it could work or what it could be used for? Do you not find that odd at all? It's clear we can't all agree and that's fine.

It's not naive, it's reality. If there is a market for it, then market just needs to be profitable for them to make it. The devs could charge for it, and it just depends on whether market will pay for it. How business works is whether people will pay for your product or service and whether you can deliver the product or service well. That's how large SaaS businesses work. 

I think you took some heat because while people responding to you were talking about the topic, you started talking about them. Categorizing someone like ‘you don’t want/like change’ is your opinion if the person hasn’t implicitly stated so.  And no one here us stated they do not like change. 
 

It appears that most of your assertions in this thread that start with ‘You don’t…’ are assumptions and interpretations but also, do not forward the conversation constructively.  Many times people have provided detailed and specific responses to you and it appears you have ignored the bulk of the replies in favor of a quick response, sometimes attached with your opinion of that poster.  
 

if you really are interested in this topic, stop talking about the other posters and focus on the system you want implemented. Characterizing another person incorrectly is akin to trolling and you aren’t trying to troll people here now are you????

[Salvatore.3749]

13 minutes ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

I think you took some heat because while people responding to you were talking about the topic, you started talking about them. Categorizing someone like ‘you don’t want/like change’ is your opinion if the person hasn’t implicitly stated so.  And no one here us stated they do not like change. 
 

It appears that most of your assertions in this thread that start with ‘You don’t…’ are assumptions and interpretations but also, do not forward the conversation constructively.  Many times people have provided detailed and specific responses to you and it appears you have ignored the bulk of the replies in favor of a quick response, sometimes attached with your opinion of that poster.  
 

if you really are interested in this topic, stop talking about the other posters and focus on the system you want implemented. Characterizing another person incorrectly is akin to trolling and you aren’t trying to troll people here now are you????

Thank you for that feedback. Seriously, I wasn't trying to be offensive, but I totally get it. 

I'm not trying to troll anyone at all. 

Also, I think I gave all the thoughts on this topic that I had and people kept asking for more from me.  

Regardless, I got plenty of feedback from people as to why it wouldn't work. It seems like there is a huge divide in who wants this system and who doesn't.