Daddicus.6128
-
Posts
1,429 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Daddicus.6128
-
-
> @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:
> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > > Now for the idea itself, it's a horrid one. It punishes veteran players by forcing them to play more of things that they do not like for no reason. They made it so you get 10 AP for 3 dailies because players complained that the old system had too much grind, and now you want to make it even worse than it was back then? That's like making steps backwards and going back to how it was before that change. If you want players to go and do their dailies, then make the dailies themselves rewarding and varied enough.
> >
> > How can adding more ability to get AP rewards (for dailies) possibly be worse than what we have now, which is zero?
> >
> > Veteran players are already being punished at the rate of 100% (for dailies). While I think the cap itself is absurd, it exists. This idea at least allows some progression due to dailies, vs. none right now.
> >
>
> Daily achievement points are for veteran players to show how long they've been active with the game, they are the closest we have as a veteran reward. With your system of making it progressively harder to get achievement points from them, by requiring more dailies done each day, they transform from "veteran rewards" to "veteran rewards for players without a life". This is a horrid idea and punishes veteran players instead of helping them
>
> You should also think of the cap itself as a reward, meaning once a veteran players reaches the daily cap they don't have to deal with dailies anymore, that's a huge reward on its own. With a cap, missing a daily here and there means it will take you just that longer to reach the cap, but you will reach it eventually. With your system, there will come a point where you can no longer progress, the difference will be, others will be able to progress. Some players able to progress while others are stuck is far worse than nobody being able to progress anymore.
You are comparing my idea to the ideal. (Ideal, IMO, is no cap whatsoever.) I would be (and have been) a huge fan of completely removing the cap.
My idea assumes that they don't want to fully remove the cap, but also that they're not completely convinced that a hard cap is the right solution to whatever problem they're trying to fix with the cap.
-
> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:
> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:
> > > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:
> > > > @"Daddicus.6128" said:
> > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > > > > Now for the idea itself, it's a horrid one. It punishes veteran players by forcing them to play more of things that they do not like for no reason. They made it so you get 10 AP for 3 dailies because players complained that the old system had too much grind, and now you want to make it even worse than it was back then? That's like making steps backwards and going back to how it was before that change. If you want players to go and do their dailies, then make the dailies themselves rewarding and varied enough.
> > > >
> > > > How can adding more ability to get AP rewards (for dailies) possibly be worse than what we have now, which is zero?
> > > >
> > > > Veteran players are already being punished at the rate of 100% (for dailies). While I think the cap itself is absurd, it exists. This idea at least allows some progression due to dailies, vs. none right now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because it literally makes a push for endlessly completing your dailies to obtain the teeny tiniest amount of AP so that you feel like you're progressing, but in fact you're just circlejerking dailies for no apparent reason.
> >
> > My push is to eliminate the cap, but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears at ANet. This ides is a sort of compromise, and addition to diminishing returns. I'm assuming that because they refuse to comment, they can't support the cap in any coherent way. This idea allows them to at least pay lip-service to their veteran players.
>
> to some veteran players incredibly vocal about it*
>
> I personally don't really see daily AP as relevant at all, and would rather see AP more in everything else. Why would anyone want to do more of the same dailies, instead of being send out to do a much greater variety of tasks. Like adding 1 AP for every weapon you collect in a weapon collection, rather than 1 AP at 6 weapons 1 AP at 12 weapons and one at 16 weapons (or whatever it is). That would make much more sense than the 1 AP for each random item pick up in some random map location.
>
> The whole idea of daily AP cap being a problem being fixed by making it not a cap is just a horrible idea. And more incentive on a lot of other tasks that already give AP, just not in the weak way they are now. It could provide people with the feeling they aren't actually stuck as they can obtain some AP every day, without feeling they have to do just dailies every day. Easier to obtain AP in smaller increments would go long ways.
>
> I really don't see more AP on dailies so that people can do more dailies (yay?) for AP as favourable. To me it's the same as the cap on slayer achievements. I could kill many more mobs of some of these categories, without obtaining AP, but it doesn't bother me, because it's just incredibly repetitive and boring. Just like dailies.
I see your point, but I don't agree with the premise, so we'll have to just disagree.
-
> @"MarkoNS.3261" said:
> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:
> > > @"MarkoNS.3261" said:
> > > > @"Daddicus.6128" said:
> > > > In https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/23795/pve-dailies#latest, Dashiva had an excellent idea:
> > > > >
> > > > >> @"Dashiva.6149" said:
> > > > >> I am fine with the normal dailies as it is. Plenty of options and usually varied and easy enough. I am however quite bored with the repetitive map-specific dailies in the LW-maps.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have been wondering lately if the pve-dailies should be split up between "expansions":
> > > > >>
> > > > >> * 4 Core dailies
> > > > >> * 4 LS2 dailies
> > > > >> * 4 HoT dailies
> > > > >> * 4 LS3 dailies
> > > > >> * 4 PoF dailies
> > > > >> * 4 LS4 dailies
> > > > >>
> > > > >> and so on.
> > > >
> > > > > I LOVE this idea! It makes great sense, and the only downside is the length of the list. It should be not only trivial to code, but actually easier and less error-prone than the current system (which has to compare specific daily types across expansions).
> > > >
> > > > This thread assumes two things. First, that something like Dashiva's idea gets implemented, and second that the daily achievement point (AP) cap is not a good thing. If you disagree with either premise, please either ignore this thread or avoid commenting on these premises. All other posters: please ignore arguments against either of these two conditions, so the thread doesn't get derailed.
> > > >
> > > > My idea is that instead of a hard cap, daily APs be made successively harder to obtain, and/or have lesser value at completion.
> > > >
> > > > Previously, I and many others have suggested using diminishing returns. But, with 24 dailies (Dashiva's idea) to choose from, ANet could, instead of (or, in addition to) the diminishing returns, raise the requirement for further daily APs.
> > > >
> > > > For example, at 5,000 AP, players would need 4 dailies per day, and obtain only 9 APs for completing them. After 10,000, 5 a day and 8 APs per day. Etc, eventually coming down to needing something like 10-15 dailies completed, and only getting 1 AP per day for the effort.
> > > >
> > > > NOTE: The exact numbers in the example above is for illustration only.
> > > >
> > > > 2nd NOTE: It's possible that PvP and WvW dailies might need reworking as a result of this idea. But, because I barely play WvW and never PvP, I can't comment intelligently on that.
> > >
> > > this is a horrible idea and will make a slow thing even more slower.
> >
> > How, exactly? It takes zero progress (the current mode, after 15,000 AP), and allows at least some progress. Zero progress compared to some progress cannot possibly be slower.
>
> if you mean it stats after 15k cap yeah then why not but still it exploits the people who want ap the most, the top people on leaderboards would start foaming from the mouth to do all the dailies xd.
That's why I started my example at 5000 AP, but the more I think about it, that's not fair. It would penalize active players between 5000 and 15000. Instead, it should start at 15k, where we get nothing now, so no change happens to people under 15k. Then, it should drop to 5-8 per day, while at the same time requiring maybe 5-8 dailies be completed.
It kind of depends on ANet's philosophy on the cap. They haven't told us why, and frankly the reasons speculators have stated are untenable.
So, my whole idea is based upon ANet having good reason for the cap. I don't think they do, or at least not a good ENOUGH reason. Hence, diminishing returns/greater difficulty.
-
> @"MarkoNS.3261" said:
> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:
> > In https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/23795/pve-dailies#latest, Dashiva had an excellent idea:
> > >
> > >> @"Dashiva.6149" said:
> > >> I am fine with the normal dailies as it is. Plenty of options and usually varied and easy enough. I am however quite bored with the repetitive map-specific dailies in the LW-maps.
> > >>
> > >> I have been wondering lately if the pve-dailies should be split up between "expansions":
> > >>
> > >> * 4 Core dailies
> > >> * 4 LS2 dailies
> > >> * 4 HoT dailies
> > >> * 4 LS3 dailies
> > >> * 4 PoF dailies
> > >> * 4 LS4 dailies
> > >>
> > >> and so on.
> >
> > > I LOVE this idea! It makes great sense, and the only downside is the length of the list. It should be not only trivial to code, but actually easier and less error-prone than the current system (which has to compare specific daily types across expansions).
> >
> > This thread assumes two things. First, that something like Dashiva's idea gets implemented, and second that the daily achievement point (AP) cap is not a good thing. If you disagree with either premise, please either ignore this thread or avoid commenting on these premises. All other posters: please ignore arguments against either of these two conditions, so the thread doesn't get derailed.
> >
> > My idea is that instead of a hard cap, daily APs be made successively harder to obtain, and/or have lesser value at completion.
> >
> > Previously, I and many others have suggested using diminishing returns. But, with 24 dailies (Dashiva's idea) to choose from, ANet could, instead of (or, in addition to) the diminishing returns, raise the requirement for further daily APs.
> >
> > For example, at 5,000 AP, players would need 4 dailies per day, and obtain only 9 APs for completing them. After 10,000, 5 a day and 8 APs per day. Etc, eventually coming down to needing something like 10-15 dailies completed, and only getting 1 AP per day for the effort.
> >
> > NOTE: The exact numbers in the example above is for illustration only.
> >
> > 2nd NOTE: It's possible that PvP and WvW dailies might need reworking as a result of this idea. But, because I barely play WvW and never PvP, I can't comment intelligently on that.
>
> this is a horrible idea and will make a slow thing even more slower.
How, exactly? It takes zero progress (the current mode, after 15,000 AP), and allows at least some progress. Zero progress compared to some progress cannot possibly be slower.
-
> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:
> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:
> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > > Now for the idea itself, it's a horrid one. It punishes veteran players by forcing them to play more of things that they do not like for no reason. They made it so you get 10 AP for 3 dailies because players complained that the old system had too much grind, and now you want to make it even worse than it was back then? That's like making steps backwards and going back to how it was before that change. If you want players to go and do their dailies, then make the dailies themselves rewarding and varied enough.
> >
> > How can adding more ability to get AP rewards (for dailies) possibly be worse than what we have now, which is zero?
> >
> > Veteran players are already being punished at the rate of 100% (for dailies). While I think the cap itself is absurd, it exists. This idea at least allows some progression due to dailies, vs. none right now.
> >
>
> Because it literally makes a push for endlessly completing your dailies to obtain the teeny tiniest amount of AP so that you feel like you're progressing, but in fact you're just circlejerking dailies for no apparent reason.
My push is to eliminate the cap, but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears at ANet. This ides is a sort of compromise, and addition to diminishing returns. I'm assuming that because they refuse to comment, they can't support the cap in any coherent way. This idea allows them to at least pay lip-service to their veteran players.
-
> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:
> It's about time they do something to inform people about the cap in-game. It's been years now, and posts like these pop up ever so often because it's completely unclear what's happening.
Oh, what's happening is perfectly clear. It's WHY it's happening that is the problem.
And, yes, you are exactly correct. I simply cannot understand why ANet will not speak to this subject.
-
> @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:
> I won't partake, but I also won't disparage those who will. That all said, I'm finding the increase in gem-sale items tied with achievements rather . . . suspect.
I'm convinced it's tied to the dailies AP cap (and other caps). They're using it to increase revenue via AP selling.
It's actually something I don't care about one way or the other. As long as it's not buying better abilities in-game, it's just money. ANet needs micro-transactions to survive.
But, caps are a terrible way to do it.
-
> @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> Now for the idea itself, it's a horrid one. It punishes veteran players by forcing them to play more of things that they do not like for no reason. They made it so you get 10 AP for 3 dailies because players complained that the old system had too much grind, and now you want to make it even worse than it was back then? That's like making steps backwards and going back to how it was before that change. If you want players to go and do their dailies, then make the dailies themselves rewarding and varied enough.
How can adding more ability to get AP rewards (for dailies) possibly be worse than what we have now, which is zero?
Veteran players are already being punished at the rate of 100% (for dailies). While I think the cap itself is absurd, it exists. This idea at least allows some progression due to dailies, vs. none right now.
-
> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:
> FYI [sonder the Seller's](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sonder_the_Seller) vendor display is updated to include the conversion from flakes to diamonds. (The list hasn't yet been updated on the wiki.)
Yes, it's on the fifth tab on the left, in case OP missed it.
-
> @"Ayakaru.6583" said:
> I feel really sad now I opened 20 chests this weekened with the 10K+2scr deal :(
Yeah, and I wish I had waiting to complete my goal of 30 characters through all the missions (i.e. getting the keys at the end of level 10's missions). But, I'm afraid it's water under the bridge.
Now, my only consideration is whether it is worth buying keys (I use real money), now that the value has gone up.
-
> @"Fiontar.4695" said:
> > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:
> > > @"Fiontar.4695" said:
> > > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:
> > > > > @"Fiontar.4695" said:
> > > > > The idea was admirable, but the costs are ridiculously outrageous. Adding insult to injury, these take up a guaranteed slot and the mini takes up a guaranteed slot, so you only get two rolls at something on the actual random loot table.
> > > >
> > > > Not true, you can get up to 5 items now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I opened my freebee. Statue takes a slot, mini takes a slot, only two slots for rolls on the loot table. Explain how you get five.
> > You get five the same way you've been getting four for a while now.
> >
> > You have a chance at getting an uncommon extra item. You had 2 slots from roll and one chance for uncommon.
> > 2 guaranteed + 2 rolls + 1 chance for extra uncommon roll
>
> Actually, these are worse than I realized. Thank you for making me read the fine print.
>
> Each chest offers a guaranteed black lion statue, a guaranteed mini jackal, two random commons and a (slim) chance at a single role on the loot table for items of greater rarity than common! This is horrible!
>
> So let's see, the gold standard is Overwatch loot boxes. You get four full rolls at the full loot table and, yes, you can get very luck and end up with four rares or super rares from a single chest. On the loot table is random currency awards that let you buy any item from the loot table directly. In my experience, you can typically buy a rare of your choice for every ~ $30-$40 spent. On top of a fair loot table and the rewards you get from your actual rolls.
>
> Then we have BLCs, that are probably among the least fair in any western game. They can do much better and make more money by being more fair and reasonable with their customers.
>
You may not think it has value, but it absolutely is better than what it was. The new item is the only change, and it's in its own brand-new slot. There is no downside vs. the past offerings. (The mini would have come anyhow. The mini is in the "seasonal" slot, which has been there for a year or so. It changes when festivals come and go.)
-
> @"Dashiva.6149" said:
> For the record, I didn't take AP into account when making that suggestion as that is not something I pay attention to at all ingame.
Oh, very true. Sorry; I didn't mean to appear to put words in your mouth.
Your idea (if implemented) allows for the triggering of my idea, for at least a discussion. (Additionally, ANet would have to decide that the cap is in some ways negative as well. Players have beaten that idea to a pulp on the forums, but ANet has never commented.)
--> And, personally, I think your idea is more solid than my push to get rid of the cap. <--
-
> @"Rauderi.8706" said:
> Perhaps, but then the AP-chasers would whine again that all they do is chase dailies, which is how we ended up with 3-for-10AP (which they still complain about) and the AP cap in the first place.
>
> I certainly like the idea of splitting dailies up a lot more to provide more options. :+1:
> It might do more to drive me into the Living Story zones, because right now I don't make the time for them anymore.
>
> Diminishing returns on AP wouldn't be so bad. Hit a certain cap, and it unlocks a different daily track. But I'd only accept that if it were the AP reward and not the gold/etc that also come with finishing the daily set.
Definitely agree that this idea would ONLY apply to APs. If they wanted to discuss changing the other rewards, I think it should be a completely separate discussion.
-
Cool!
Now all we need is a sale on keys, and I'll be able to spend some money from my new job. :)
-
BL Statuette is real? It's not just an idea?
-
In https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/23795/pve-dailies#latest, Dashiva had an excellent idea:
>
>> @"Dashiva.6149" said:
>> I am fine with the normal dailies as it is. Plenty of options and usually varied and easy enough. I am however quite bored with the repetitive map-specific dailies in the LW-maps.
>>
>> I have been wondering lately if the pve-dailies should be split up between "expansions":
>>
>> * 4 Core dailies
>> * 4 LS2 dailies
>> * 4 HoT dailies
>> * 4 LS3 dailies
>> * 4 PoF dailies
>> * 4 LS4 dailies
>>
>> and so on.
> I LOVE this idea! It makes great sense, and the only downside is the length of the list. It should be not only trivial to code, but actually easier and less error-prone than the current system (which has to compare specific daily types across expansions).
This thread assumes two things. First, that something like Dashiva's idea gets implemented, and second that the daily achievement point (AP) cap is not a good thing. If you disagree with either premise, please either ignore this thread or avoid commenting on these premises. All other posters: please ignore arguments against either of these two conditions, so the thread doesn't get derailed.
My idea is that instead of a hard cap, daily APs be made successively harder to obtain, and/or have lesser value at completion.
Previously, I and many others have suggested using diminishing returns. But, with 24 dailies (Dashiva's idea) to choose from, ANet could, instead of (or, in addition to) the diminishing returns, raise the requirement for further daily APs.
For example, at 5,000 AP, players would need 4 dailies per day, and obtain only 9 APs for completing them. After 10,000, 5 a day and 8 APs per day. Etc, eventually coming down to needing something like 10-15 dailies completed, and only getting 1 AP per day for the effort.
NOTE: The exact numbers in the example above is for illustration only.
2nd NOTE: It's possible that PvP and WvW dailies might need reworking as a result of this idea. But, because I barely play WvW and never PvP, I can't comment intelligently on that.
-
> @"Dashiva.6149" said:
> I am fine with the normal dailies as it is. Plenty of options and usually varied and easy enough. I am however quite bored with the repetitive map-specific dailies in the LW-maps.
>
> I have been wondering lately if the pve-dailies should be split up between "expansions":
>
> * 4 Core dailies
> * 4 LS2 dailies
> * 4 HoT dailies
> * 4 LS3 dailies
> * 4 PoF dailies
> * 4 LS4 dailies
>
> and so on.
I LOVE this idea! It makes great sense, and the only downside is the length of the list. It should be not only trivial to code, but actually easier and less error-prone than the current system (which has to compare specific daily types across expansions).
-
Forgot one huge downside to Wintersday: the thievery of our higher-tier snowflakes. Those who followed the direction ANet gave us under the old system (exchange for higher-tiered snowflakes) were deprived of thousands of new snowflakes.
-
I liked:
* The addition of two levels of difficulty to the JP.
* Some of the achievements seem to have reset. (They ALL should, every year, IMO.)
* Two levels of the race event (runners and mounted).
* Overall tone was good.
I didn't like:
* Small amount of achievement points available. With dailies capped, it will take forever to get radiant armor finished. IMO, at least festivals shouldn't limit that, since they come about only infrequently.
* Missing vendor for snowflakes, recipes, and such after the event. (Although, I understand that this is a quirk of fate, and will be fixed later. I just wanted to bring it up so it isn't forgotten.)
* Nothing really new (except the race and easier JPs).
-
> @"YuckaMountain.3786" said:
> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:
> > > @"Umut.5471" said:
> > > They can just remove those old "impossible" orders from the database.
> >
> > That's not as easy as it sounds. It's a database, and thus has tentacles all over the place. "Removing" one record affects other records, frequently in ways that are not easily predicted.
>
> Which is why I posted my idea of adding some kind of "death time" for the auctions in general so that there could not be one year+ sales/bids that no one can fulfill. What I mean, if user cannot sell or buy the item in let's say in 1 year then perhaps user never get transaction done.
That's a good idea, but there's a problem: to close out the transaction fairly, they have to return the money to the buyer. But, apparently they have trouble doing that (they've stated there are technical issues).
It's a good idea, but it's not straightforward (for them). Databases tend to be created with a plan initially, but then additions and subtractions of code happen over time, and each change makes it that much harder to keep the whole database working properly.
-
OK, that will work. Thanks!
-
Wintersday closed quite suddenly, and without any official warning. So, many people may be stuck with wintery items but no place to use them.
Speculation was that Sonda the Seller would have flakes added, but that didn't happen. Can we at least get the ability to buy snow diamonds during the rest of the year? If you're feeling generous, the recipes would be useful, too.
I can't really see any downside to this. Can others?
-
> @"Umut.5471" said:
> They can just remove those old "impossible" orders from the database.
That's not as easy as it sounds. It's a database, and thus has tentacles all over the place. "Removing" one record affects other records, frequently in ways that are not easily predicted.
-
> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:
> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:
> > Say, there is one thing they could do without refunding any money: Put a lower limit on buy prices that show in the table (and in the price, if you're searching from outside an actual order).
> >
> > In other words, for a major rune that sells for 1s 8c, don't allow any price less than 1s 28c to show up in the list or search results. They might still be there, but they don't SHOW, which is just as good as actually removing them (from the viewer's perspective).
>
> That also takes additional coding (and thus isn't free). For something that doesn't affect all that many items, it seems like more trouble than it's worth.
Agreed. Whether it is worth it or not is another conversation (probably done internally at ANet). But, ideas can't hurt.
Daily AP cap (again, but new idea)
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @"DarcShriek.5829" said:
> Why stop with raising the daily cap. Let's raise the caps of all the achievements, especially the salvaging achievement. Why do people only want the daily cap raised?
No argument here. But, it's probably not going to happen. (But, I still would like ANet to explain WHY the caps exist.)