Firebeard.1746
-
Posts
676 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Firebeard.1746
-
-
> @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:
> Put it this way a good dev will cost 65-100k+ a year, then there's test, pm, design, analysts, marketing, devops, support etc. Who exactly is going to pay for this if there is no monetisation?
Basically this. Bellevue where anet is you're looking at 100k for even lower level devs because of cost of living. They're actually not doing so hot judging by their quarterly income vs. The amount of staff they have. Also higher level devs hit between 130-150k in Bellevue. So yeah they're probably barely maintaining their business when you factor in senior and leadership positions.
-
> @"zealex.9410" said:
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > > > This is why they had to lay off 1/3rd of their staff.
> > > > > No. They had to lay off 1/3 of their staff because they decided to use the money GW2 earned for them, not to further improve the game and thus make sure people will continue playing (and paying), but on some unrelated stuff that didn't pay off.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't what the ncsoft ceo said. It falls in line with what i said:
> > > >
> > > > Songyee Yoon, the CEO of Korean publisher NCSoft West, which owns ArenaNet, e-mailed employees this afternoon with the news. “Our live game business revenue is declining as our franchises age, delays in development on PC and mobile have created further drains against our revenue projects, while our operating costs in the west have increased,” she wrote. “Where we are is not sustainable, and is not going to set us up for future success.”
> > > I see nothing in this that conflicts with what i said. the problem is, as i said, that "delays in development on PC and mobile have created further drains against our revenue projects". For Arenanet, the delays in development (on PC and mobile) he mentions is about those undisclosed projects they were doing. The revenue against which this was a drain is GW2. So, exactly what i said earlier - they decided to develop other projects at a cost to gw2, and those other projects didn't pay off and ended up being only a revenue drain. Thus, layoffs.
> > >
> >
> > Then by that logic what you're saying doesn't conflict with what i'm saying. They still needed money but didn't have it. If anyone enjoys their brand, they should be willing to support them.
>
> True, but i like less and less what my brand is becoming due to ever mkre agressive monetisation and ever less ingame support for modes i enjoy. Im supporting my brand by not supporting what they are trying to turn it into.
See above post.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > Then by that logic what you're saying doesn't conflict with what i'm saying. They still needed money but didn't have it. If anyone enjoys their brand, they should be willing to support them.
> That's not what you said. You said the layoffs happened because ungrateful players were against aggressive monetization. I said, that layoffs happened because Anet tried to finance other projects at a cost to GW2 (and those projects turned out to be unsuccesful).
>
> And no, if anyone enjoys their brand, they should be willing to prevent Anet from destroying it. They should _not_ support them on their way towards the cliff ahead.
>
>
It's exactly what I said:
"The reality is this: a one-time transaction is not enough to keep the lights on if you want more content and the servers kept on."
I'm not saying players against aggressive monetization are the problem. I'm saying players unwilling to support anet after the initial purchase are.
And tbh, this is a solid upgrade for anyone not using arcdps templates. That's hardly agressive given they're giving that much for free, i for one, am happy at the prospect of more storage space
Why were they doing those other projects? Maybe gw2 wasn't giving enough?
-
> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:
> > @"SLOTH.5231" said:
> > Seeing there is some negativity in regards to this I wanted to start a thread to show my appreciation for the free templates.
> >
> > I also look forward to purchasing more slots for my character to support this great game people love to hate ?
>
> When ArenaNet added build templates to GW1, there was no limit, no slots. Just a file that gets put in your /Guild Wars folder on your computer. Each build was a file, and you could have as many of them as you want, or even make folders in that folder for organization. The limit is literally the size of your hard drive.
>
> When ArenaNet added build templates to GW2, they monetized the everliving kitten out of it by splitting it in two and creating limits to how many builds you could save without buying more.
>
> I'm glad they've finally added it. But holy kitten this just goes to show how drastically the philosophy of ArenaNet has changed since their manifesto video for GW2, let alone from 2008. It makes me _glad_ that they've stopped development on GW1, because if they didn't it would be just as horrible at this point, I feel.
In all fairness, it's an added feature for people not running arcdps. It's extra storage space and more ways to save your builds
I wish they would come forward and say it's okay for arcdps to keep its templates as is. I assume people with money would still eventually switch over as there's probably more integration between the two types of templates and it'd be a really easy way to manage builds with the extra storage.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > This is why they had to lay off 1/3rd of their staff.
> > > No. They had to lay off 1/3 of their staff because they decided to use the money GW2 earned for them, not to further improve the game and thus make sure people will continue playing (and paying), but on some unrelated stuff that didn't pay off.
> >
> > This isn't what the ncsoft ceo said. It falls in line with what i said:
> >
> > Songyee Yoon, the CEO of Korean publisher NCSoft West, which owns ArenaNet, e-mailed employees this afternoon with the news. “Our live game business revenue is declining as our franchises age, delays in development on PC and mobile have created further drains against our revenue projects, while our operating costs in the west have increased,” she wrote. “Where we are is not sustainable, and is not going to set us up for future success.”
> I see nothing in this that conflicts with what i said. the problem is, as i said, that "delays in development on PC and mobile have created further drains against our revenue projects". For Arenanet, the delays in development (on PC and mobile) he mentions is about those undisclosed projects they were doing. The revenue against which this was a drain is GW2. So, exactly what i said earlier - they decided to develop other projects at a cost to gw2, and those other projects didn't pay off and ended up being only a revenue drain. Thus, layoffs.
>
Then by that logic what you're saying doesn't conflict with what i'm saying. They still needed money but didn't have it. If anyone enjoys their brand, they should be willing to support them.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > This is why they had to lay off 1/3rd of their staff.
> No. They had to lay off 1/3 of their staff because they decided to use the money GW2 earned for them, not to further improve the game and thus make sure people will continue playing (and paying), but on some unrelated stuff that didn't pay off.
This isn't what the ncsoft ceo said. It falls in line with what i said:
Songyee Yoon, the CEO of Korean publisher NCSoft West, which owns ArenaNet, e-mailed employees this afternoon with the news. “Our live game business revenue is declining as our franchises age, delays in development on PC and mobile have created further drains against our revenue projects, while our operating costs in the west have increased,” she wrote. “Where we are is not sustainable, and is not going to set us up for future success.”
-
> @"Substance E.4852" said:
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > @"Substance E.4852" said:
> > > You can swap out your class build at any time in standard WoW
> > >
> > > You can swap skill/attribute points in ESO for in game currency
> > >
> > > You can literally change your character's entire class at any time in FF14
> > >
> > > Not sure where this "Most" you speak of is coming from
> >
> > All of those are sub based games. Your QoL in ESO is terribad without craft bags, which is why I quit. In addition to gatcha style cosmetics.
>
> You get $15 worth of cash shop fun bux with your sub and GW2 also has "gatcha style cosmetics" my dude
>
> try harder
>
> And seriously, get out of here with this "ew sub fees" kitten
> Paying $15+ a month because you "choose to" isnt better than a compulsory $15 flat fee just because your favorite game does the former
It's still compulsory nonetheless. I don't see how you're disproving my main point. Also the sub is the most expensive way to buy cash shop rewards, there's usually sales that are 40-50% off crowns at least once a year, so you're still getting ripped off. Also the last time i played eso the only mounts you could directly buy were horribly dull. Like you could still buy the princess monoke jackal if you wanted. So at least as far as my experience goes, you're still underplaying Bethesda's greed, that would have only been a gatcha mount in ESO.
And yes, opting to pay is better than not, i was spending more than a sub fees' worth on cash shop in eso, which is why i was so angry about craft bags. Right now, i'm paying 20 a month at anet. I haven't even decided what i'm spending it on yet, but at least i get to choose instead of having what I get forced on me. Anet is kitten compared to Bethesda's tactics. If we voluntarily throw more cash at anet they don't have to actively think about how to milk us so they can spend dev resources on actually making the game good.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:
> > Those are definitely not average player amounts. The average player is fine with 1 or two builds per character.
> Yes, the average player is fine with 1 build per character. They also _won't use the build templates_. Because they _won't_ be using more than one build.
> Build templates were never meant for average players - they were meant for exactly the kind of players like me. And i can tell you my numbers are very tame compared to those that really do care about their builds.
>
> > @"kharmin.7683" said:
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > So yeah, why are you whining about free storage space?
> > > Because he will be losing Arcdps template functionality for this.
> > >
> >
> > Do we know this for certain? Sure, it makes sense that they would ban it in favor of their official, monetized option, but we don't really know that yet, right?
> That was part of the agreement between delta and Anet - arc templates were to be available only until Anet will release their own version. After that delta has to shut them down.
>
Honestly i would appreciate them keeping arcdps running normally, just for the people who had tons of inventory space as this is a downgrade, but for everyone else this is a solid boost, it's extra storage space, completely free with the option to buy more. Right now the glass is both half full and half empty from my perspective.
If that makes you want to leave so be it, but this is nothing like ESO's craft bags. I realized i couldn't play anymore unless I was subbed (or half my time was inventory management). I've seen far worse as far as monetization goes.
But i think anet should allow arcdps to continue what it's doing as what anet has is superior by virtue of the gear storage alone. Then no one has lost anything.
But if you leave i recommend a sub based game, but even then mtx is still a thing. Both FFXIV and Wow have cash shops.
And WoW has been kind of sucky this expansion and i noticed the cash shop mounts are way better than in game ones. So you may still be disappointed. And note that sub based games aren't happy with your sub: investors always want to see profits go up, a steady paying customer isn't what capitalism actually wants. It wants more customers or those customers paying more. GoG might be your best bet. But even GoG is having issues keeping the lights on.
-
> @"Substance E.4852" said:
> You can swap out your class build at any time in standard WoW
>
> You can swap skill/attribute points in ESO for in game currency
>
> You can literally change your character's entire class at any time in FF14
>
> Not sure where this "Most" you speak of is coming from
All of those are sub based games. Your QoL in ESO is terribad without craft bags, which is why I quit. In addition to gatcha style cosmetics.
-
Well i think keeping arcdps templates in the game would be reasonable.
-
> @"Saniyah.1984" said:
> These defend agressive monetisation topics should stop :(
> Selling equipment storage slots, sure?
> But build template is probably like a text file? why do we have to bought templates too??
> Double monetisation would only get worse if you defend or allow it
> Please don't encourage them to become activision/blizard 2.0 :(
This is why they had to lay off 1/3rd of their staff. They give us a bunch of free inventory slots, with the option to buy more and the player base screams aggressive monetization. If this was BDO, even the base thing would have been paid content.
The reality is this: a one-time transaction is not enough to keep the lights on if you want more content and the servers kept on.
-
> @"Dante.1763" said:
> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > Aren't strikes supposed to prepare players for raids?
> >
> > Proper use of the LFG system seems like a good start in that case.
>
> If they are meant for that, they fail so far, given people are soloing them. We three manned it last night. its hella easy to just ignore the mechanics.
Not only that but the public option existing pretty much negates the idea that they're about using the lfg system. Like if we're supposed to learn to lfg it, we should only be allowed to join them as squads
-
This is WAY more generous than any B2P/F2P game I've ever played:
**Items you add to Equipment Templates will no longer take up space in your character’s inventory,** and you can reuse them across each of that character’s Equipment Templates. Items stored in this fashion will display a link icon in the upper corner and additional tooltip information listing all the Equipment Templates you’ve used them in.
They launched a feature that not only gives storage space, but you're given a baseline amount **completely free**
The only thing I would argue, given the implementation, is that there should be infinite (or like 10) trait/spec/utility builds.
-
> @"C Cspace Cowboy.5903" said:
> Why is it that every content update PvE has gotten since PoF has been free, but every update WvW has gotten has been monetized?
>
> Warclaw mount? Skins. Gliders? Skins. Nothing else. Nothing.
>
> How many updates has PvE gotten for free since PoF? Seven living world episodes. Seven new maps. How many fractals? How many Raids?
>
> The one FREE thing that WvW users use, build templates from Arcdps, and yall are taking it and monetizing it, and shutting down our free version.
>
> GG Anet.
>
> Not another penny.
Depends. If it actually removes the items from your inventory so it acts like extra storage space, I'm fine with it, if not, then it's WTF?
Edit: It sounds like it's extra storage space. I actually do think the trait/skill tabs should be free, but I don't think this is a big deal. They're essentially giving you a bunch of free storage space, arcdps didn't do that:
**Items you add to Equipment Templates will no longer take up space in your character’s inventory,** and you can reuse them across each of that character’s Equipment Templates. Items stored in this fashion will display a link icon in the upper corner and additional tooltip information listing all the Equipment Templates you’ve used them in.
So yeah, why are you whining about free storage space?
-
> @"Tony.8659" said:
> As the title says, this to me is just annoying. That's reason I only did this once, that and the boss is a joke. Anet remove the puzzle but make the boss more difficult to fight. That is my suggestion.
Even with the telepad this is just an annoying gate on actually doing the content. I'm probably better than average at Jps but i find them hideously annoying.
-
> @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:
> It really easy to find groups from LFG, so easy that public one is basically useless. However we have onr so it might aswell have a queue system.
Basically this. The public option just doesn't mean anything because a
everyone is using the LFG tool. It was my go to after a failed public option, it's not like i don't know the tool is there and didn't use it, it's that the public option is basically useless and a waste of time.
-
The chaos storm changes are still "lolwut?" For me. Gg staff bar break.
-
> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:
> I will cosign this with the seal of approval. Best videos to watch are from the mighty teapot. He is very thorough with his explanation and has a wonderful british accent that makes you feel smarter by listening to him.
Did he quit?
-
?? Am I just supposed to wait around hoping people show up?
-
At first I didn't really like the HoT veteran glider, but after I dyed it, it kind of grew on me. It has a lot of texture detail.
-
> @"Fortus.6175" said:
> > @"rwolf.9571" said:
> > > @"Fortus.6175" said:
> > > > @"rwolf.9571" said:
> > > > Anybody else now getting around +/- 16 mmr per match as the new norm, rather than the more stable 11-13?
> > > > Guess match volatility is only going to get worse as the population nosedives into oblivion.
> > >
> > > Consider yourself lucky then:
> > >
> > > I would LOVE it if I were to get the same amount of points in loses and wins.
> > > Notice that even though most loses we would get above 250 points, I would still lose -20 rating.... I dont even want to imagine what it would look like otherwise ( i have had games where I lost -28).
> > > In my case is lose 15-20, win 8-13:
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At some point I stopped taking so many screenshots because my screenshot folder was starting to get uncomfortably large.
> >
> > Well I reckon P1/P2 is the new "elite" player range with this low pop. Thus more carry volatility of a person that was of P3 or L1 of previous seasons. I usually stroll into P1 fairly easily previous seasons. But I'm hard stuck between G2/G3 this season before I gave up.
>
> Hmm, at least based on my rank, I have always hovered on the 1500-1550 or so, for the past 4 or so seasons, so as far as I can tell the population has remained the same based on the "shift" of the ranks. There is also a possibility that the population playing now is not the same you played agaisnt when you were rating higher; for example, if there was an outflow of people with lower skills than you, but there was an equal inflow of better players, it could also somewhat explain this anomaly. Without actual data from Anet, all we can do is guess. I honestly hope we had access to more data, clarity is something I rejoice on, and being in the dark is pretty frustrating when I'm trying to make sense of whats going on.
I'm just going to stress using meta builds. I used to a run mirage build i enjoyed, was having terrible luck with it (20-40% win rate depending on season), found a build on meta battle, ran with it and my rank/win rate shot up.
The performance of individual professions is so varied that you really shouldn't dedicate to a main, and never queue as what you're actually playing as people like to switch to hard counters in the beginning of the match before it starts. The good news is sPvP has really no barrier to entry, so just roll a different character if you don't have one that's meta.
Really even if you don't plan playing what you're queuing as, the matchmaker should force you to choose what you're playing and associated build when you queue so it can try to even out the matches. This has already been said but anet i don't think is listening, but i really hope the pvp team takes a good look at some of the holes in the current system. Fixing the matchmaker would be a necessary step in revitalizing this game mode.
-
> @"rwolf.9571" said:
> Anybody else now getting around +/- 16 mmr per match as the new norm, rather than the more stable 11-13?
> Guess match volatility is only going to get worse as the population nosedives into oblivion.
It seems to depend match to match for me. I had a really bad loss streak at the beginning of the season, but then a huge win streak. It feels like the mmr has dr the higher my rank climbs. I think my rank may be stabilizing as i've had a few losses lately.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > And you ignore the other parts of your rotation and fail to compare it to other classes doing similar things, while also failing to answer my question about which class is harder
> > > >
> > >
> > > I do not. If you consider pressing phantasms on cd, pressing F1 or F3, occasionally delaying Shield 4, Sword 2 or delaying a signet for aegis share hard, you and I have different definitions of hard.
> > >
> > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > > Which evidence? I see no theorycrafting in this thread. I see someone throw out random numbers which are clearly based on incorrect rotation and/or bad gameplay which can easily be disproved at the golem.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right in one point. There is no reason to once continue this conversation. I'm not the one having issues with raids in this game. Far be it for me to help or lecture someone who wants to figure everything else by themselves. Hopefully said person doesn't come complaining again about how hard raids in this game are.
> > > >
> > > > Lol and you have no evidence for anything you say. Here it is.
> > > >
> > > > was going to use the snow crows rotation but it looks incomplete. It doesn't actually cover 70s from CS to CS
> > > >
> > > > assuming the rotation is 70s from CS to CS (that's what 50% alacrity turns it into), keeping full quickness/alacrity on party members focusing on just shared boons:
> > > > x = boon duration multiplier (it's 1 + BD %)
> > > >
> > > > 3 (number of casts) * 2 (duration) x(tides of time) + 5 (number of casts in 70s window) * 5 (base duration) x (WoR/WoA) + 3s * 5 (SOI, doesn't scale with BD) = 70s
> > > > 6x + 25x + 15 = 70
> > > > 31x + 15 = 70
> > > > 31x = 55
> > > > x = 1.774...
> > > >
> > > > BD = 77.4%
> > > >
> > >
> > > and for the bazillionth time, SC is for an optimal setup with 2 chronos. Now add 5 more SoI from the other chrono and your 15 seconds SoI duration go to 30. Now assume that there is nearly no boss with damage phases of above 1 minute for pro groups, and you can drop even below the 50% bd for more damage on chronos.
> > >
> > > Inexperienced groups and chronos should be taking as much bd as possible to cover for mistakes and longer damage phases. tim has a calculator up on the mesmer forums which does the exact math too btw.
> > >
> > > I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove. Except that you are able to work basic functions and solve for x.
> >
> > Wow we're in circles again. Looks like you missed the memo about the chronos I've worked with sucking that I mentioned earlier (to someone else) (in addition to me flat out telling you I don't want to rely on someone else). Hahahahaha you seriously don't listen do you? There seriously needs to be a forum "block" function where you can't read someone posts if they block you and they can't read yours.
>
> So take as much bd as possible, what have I been stating over and over this thread?
>
> It's not only for you, it's for the group and covers potetmntially a bad offchrono or players not standing in wells.
I'm glad we finally agree and we've converged.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > And you ignore the other parts of your rotation and fail to compare it to other classes doing similar things, while also failing to answer my question about which class is harder
> >
>
> I do not. If you consider pressing phantasms on cd, pressing F1 or F3, occasionally delaying Shield 4, Sword 2 or delaying a signet for aegis share hard, you and I have different definitions of hard.
>
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > Which evidence? I see no theorycrafting in this thread. I see someone throw out random numbers which are clearly based on incorrect rotation and/or bad gameplay which can easily be disproved at the golem.
> > >
> > > You are right in one point. There is no reason to once continue this conversation. I'm not the one having issues with raids in this game. Far be it for me to help or lecture someone who wants to figure everything else by themselves. Hopefully said person doesn't come complaining again about how hard raids in this game are.
> >
> > Lol and you have no evidence for anything you say. Here it is.
> >
> > was going to use the snow crows rotation but it looks incomplete. It doesn't actually cover 70s from CS to CS
> >
> > assuming the rotation is 70s from CS to CS (that's what 50% alacrity turns it into), keeping full quickness/alacrity on party members focusing on just shared boons:
> > x = boon duration multiplier (it's 1 + BD %)
> >
> > 3 (number of casts) * 2 (duration) x(tides of time) + 5 (number of casts in 70s window) * 5 (base duration) x (WoR/WoA) + 3s * 5 (SOI, doesn't scale with BD) = 70s
> > 6x + 25x + 15 = 70
> > 31x + 15 = 70
> > 31x = 55
> > x = 1.774...
> >
> > BD = 77.4%
> >
>
> and for the bazillionth time, SC is for an optimal setup with 2 chronos. Now add 5 more SoI from the other chrono and your 15 seconds SoI duration go to 30. Now assume that there is nearly no boss with damage phases of above 1 minute for pro groups, and you can drop even below the 50% bd for more damage on chronos.
>
> Inexperienced groups and chronos should be taking as much bd as possible to cover for mistakes and longer damage phases. tim has a calculator up on the mesmer forums which does the exact math too btw.
>
> I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove. Except that you are able to work basic functions and solve for x.
Wow we're in circles again. Looks like you missed the memo about the chronos I've worked with sucking that I mentioned earlier (to someone else) (in addition to me flat out telling you I don't want to rely on someone else). Hahahahaha you seriously don't listen do you? There seriously needs to be a forum "block" function where you can't read someone posts if they block you and they can't read yours.
And you're still off topic? why don't you respond to OP about how to increase raid involvement instead of picking on someone who's justifying their choice in stats when building a raid set? That's how this started O and I'm glad you're finally agreeing with me that learners should be stacking more BD because everyone was looking at me like I was crazy before.
Thanks for the FREE build templates ANET!!
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @"rabenpriester.7129" said:
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:
> > > Put it this way a good dev will cost 65-100k+ a year, then there's test, pm, design, analysts, marketing, devops, support etc. Who exactly is going to pay for this if there is no monetisation?
> >
> > Basically this. Bellevue where anet is you're looking at 100k for even lower level devs because of cost of living. They're actually not doing so hot judging by their quarterly income vs. The amount of staff they have. Also higher level devs hit between 130-150k in Bellevue. So yeah they're probably barely maintaining their business when you factor in senior and leadership positions.
>
> > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:
> > > Put it this way a good dev will cost 65-100k+ a year, then there's test, pm, design, analysts, marketing, devops, support etc. Who exactly is going to pay for this if there is no monetisation?
> >
> > Basically this. Bellevue where anet is you're looking at 100k for even lower level devs because of cost of living. They're actually not doing so hot judging by their quarterly income vs. The amount of staff they have. Also higher level devs hit between 130-150k in Bellevue. So yeah they're probably barely maintaining their business when you factor in senior and leadership positions.
>
> If you think anet pays that much you should read some glassdoor reviews.
Are they old reviews? This means they're paying below average for the area. Yikes. Bellevue is expensive. Those poor devs. Literally.