Leo G.4501

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Ol Nik.2518" said:

> > I agree with those who say that DPS meters on their own do not ruin the enjoyment of playing the game. People who use them to put others down are to blame. I also agree that DPS meters can be useful and can help players to improve. However, I also think that, unfortunately, DPS meters promote one and only one playstyle: the one based on hitting as hard and as fast as humanly possible. While it is a fine approach for many players, especially young and agile, it may not work very well for others.

> They really don't. That playstyle has been here before. Remember "zerk or gtfo" mentality of the early game days? That was actually _worse_.

>

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > People still latch onto arbitrary criteria. The difference actually is, who is right and who is wrong. Taking into account the OP's absurd example, those "toxic individuals" you're singling out aren't *actually* wrong in considerations of base level of understanding and group composition and at best you can dismiss them as "toxic" but that doesn't actually do anything to change the dynamic between the groups. It's separating them on an arbitrary criteria of moral nit-pickery as elitists.

> And how do you expect people to be objectively "right" or "wrong" about social behaviour? Because the issue was never the dps (note, btw, that "high" and "low" dps is also not really all that objective division). It was whether someone was a kitten or not. And that is always going to be quite subjective and arbitrary.

>

> So, people "latch to arbitrary criteria", because the issues discussed do not have non-arbitrary ones.

>

> Which you'd know if you only noticed, that your own arguments are arbitrary as well.

>

Like I said, my post isn't an argument, it's an observation.

It's not about being objectively right or wrong, it's who has more of a footing to make an argument for their position.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> "Right and wrong" don't enter into it most of the time. People are going to disagree and sometimes there are multiple appropriate ways of tackling content.

>

Perhaps "right and wrong" has a bad connotation. "Correct and Incorrect" *do* enter into discussions quite often. People can disagree all day, but when you're in a debate or argument, you're trying to convince others of your position and being correct is crucial regardless of what principle you decide to adhere to.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > It's separating them on an arbitrary criteria of moral nit-pickery as elitists.

> I don't think labeling people as nit-pickers or elitists helps.

But many people resorted to that very argument in this thread. But then you're taking that quote out of the context of the post. I'm not arguing which side has the moral high ground or the better principle of intent but rather when you tip the scales of information to one side, you're inherently favoring the individuals that need those things to push their agenda whether that is ambiguity or hard parsed data. It's not an argument, it's an observation. How it affects the community of an MMO is my point.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Again, being factually correct largely doesn't matter. People can be "right" and still express it in a way that makes things worse. And people can be wrong in a way that might result in a conversation that leads all party members to a better place.

>

Probably the worst statement you've said so far, probably because it's drawing lines in the sand based on moral principle. Because you can still be factually correct and present it so in a manner that is more helpful than being factually incorrect and leads to a wild spread of misinformation. There is no black/white and you try to express that there isn't...by presenting a black and white counter argument?

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > it's much easier to shut down one side

> If your goal is to "shut down one side."

>

Your goal doesn't have to be shutting someone down. You can do so by simply presenting relevant information.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Except ... the point is that the OP was blaming the DPS meter (the tool you claim is useful for shutting down an argument), whereas the fundamental issue was the person who used the DPS meter was a jerk about it.

>

> The OP's argument, as stated in the title, is:

> >> Damage Meters ruin enjoyment of content

> And they used a single, specific bad experience to back up that claim.

>

> It's a claim that lacks rhetorical merit, in part because it extrapolates from one example (out of tens of thousands of counter examples), i.e. it wasn't in any way a typical example of how DPS meters are used. It was a typical example in how a minority of people choose to communicate; the DPS meter is a red herring.

Unfortunately, I'm not the OP nor did I quote the OP but I did make a post on the topic. You can make an argument against the OP for the example he presented but it's markedly futile to hold their argument against others who aren't using said argument. That being said, I do have a tendency of playing Devil's Advocate in forum discussions primarily because I tend to look at arguments from both (or multiple) sides rather than just taking the side I likely agree with and running with it.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> That happens whenever passionate people have trouble handling disagreements. It's not new to GW2 this month or when the first DPS meter appeared. It's not new to MMOs. It's not even new to RPG-style gaming. (For some people, half of playing pen & paper D&D was the arguments, which might or might not have been healthy.)

>

> The difference is that in the past, without meters, people latched on to arbitrary criteria. And, as in the OP's specific example, toxic individuals sometimes lose sight of the goals and lose their skritt over whether their party colleagues were doing things the "right way." Instead of yelling about DPS, they'd yell about stacking might or whether you should or should not stealth through this corridor.

>

People still latch onto arbitrary criteria. The difference actually is, who is right and who is wrong. Taking into account the OP's absurd example, those "toxic individuals" you're singling out aren't *actually* wrong in considerations of base level of understanding and group composition and at best you can dismiss them as "toxic" but that doesn't actually do anything to change the dynamic between the groups. It's separating them on an arbitrary criteria of moral nit-pickery as elitists.

I never said that these disagreements didn't exist before, it's just now you draw a more solid line in the sand of who is factually right and who is choosing a position on principles that are personal. What I was trying to describe before is when the game involved is more ambiguous, so are those sides and the lines between them. Of course, heated discussions will happen regardless, but it's much easier to shut down one side when there are numbers to back them up or the only thing you've got to counter is "Pft...those people are just being toxic". It's honestly the most laughable way I could imagine dismissing an argument considering how often the word toxic pops up in online conversation.

I'm sure this debate has happened countless times in the past but I am unaware because the subject holds no interest to me but I once did hold a fascination about the veil of ambiguity and what it does to the community. That being, if more and more of the core mechanics are hidden away, how it affects player choice and interest.

I'm sure there are plenty of players who enjoy the game more because damage meters and transparency of the mechanics but then there are those that enjoy discovery, experimentation and collaboration with regards to figuring out how the cogs work behind the scenes. Personally, I would always just read in intrigue when players put forward numbers and hypothesis but didn't participate but it always felt....I dunno, healthy? There would, of course, be players that blindly latch onto the theories and numbers despite them not being correct (wrong people are gonna be wrong lol) but because there wasn't a concrete factor to it, this kept the amount of such players in check (some might use those theories but remain skeptical and unsure).

So to GW2. Replace hypothesis or theory with numbers. Exchange experimentation with parsing. Compare those who blindly latched onto ambiguous number tests to those that blindly latch onto out-of-context maxed builds.

I'm not picking sides or saying one situation was better, rather looking at the relationship between the hardcore number crunchers, the early adopter groups that follow those numbers, those that don't and the many players that float between the groups. Just like the numbers and mechanics being more concrete, so are the groups and so is the intent behind those groups. You then get this atmosphere where you've got people at each other's throats, being forced to BROADCAST how non-hardcore pro-casual a group is, heated discussions of who is right and who is in the wrong. etc etc.

Long aside concluded, I think much of the game's ambiguity has shifted toward drops/drop rates which is the most boring thing in the world lol.

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> > @"flog.3485" said:

> > At this point, Anet is better off trying to add combat tonics in the game and allow players to earn skins for these combat tonics.

>

> You mean earn another combat tonic right? since they are onesies just like outfits.

But outfits aren't onesies. You can color outfits, for one. You can also turn off the helm for outfits, for two. And your character shows up under that outfit, for three.

> @"Dragana.1497" said:

> I prefer them paying attention and fleshing out the existing playable races before they add new ones. Kitten knows they need it.

I think that's a viable perspective but these races don't exist in a vacuum. Fleshing out the playable races requires fleshing out the world as a whole as well as their interactions within it. Frankly, having just more insight on the other races and interactions with the main races could help facilitate some of the desire for lore without the need to make them playable. Regardless, it's not an either or game with this. You could add a new race, for example, AND flesh out the existing ones in the same implemented content.

> @"hugo.4705" said:

> Will say it again. MAKE THEM AS COMBAT TONICS all done, I enjoy a lot the endless kodan tonic.

I'll add to that: MAKE SOME TONICS CUSTOMIZABLE.

On top of that, improvements need to be made to tonics in general for that to be an "all done" solution.

> @"Rauderi.8706" said:

> As much as I want playable Tengu...

> Even with an instant-80 that skips the main story...

>

> There would still need to be Season 2/HoT/3/PoF/4 and beyond voice acting. Or a lock-out on being able to select those story chapters. They would still have to voice dungeons. And re-fit everything from Charr to Tengu.

>

If I were implementing a new race, there would indeed be a lock-out of the previous story chapters. There would be a 2-4 chapter "[new race] Personal Story" that would explain this. It'd be an introductory story + racial lore + alternate perspective of current events that would then mesh with the main story toward the end. It's already been established that most people don't need to retrace the old stories because the dialog cannot be skipped so there's really no need to rehash it for the new race to fit into it.

This would have the negative effect of not being able to complete certain achievements using that character but if it's advertised as such, this shouldn't be a negative that directly affects the implementation.

> @"Rauderi.8706" said:

> It really sucks to admit, but just shaving off some story won't be enough to justify all the persistent costs: 8-12 new voice actors (region x m/f), more time spent on armor sets when they're already slow to produce.

>

I feel this is a hole Anet dug themselves in. The hilarious thing is people still criticize the voiced dialog pretty harshly anyway and it is costing them a chunk of their budget regardless. I'm actually thinking they didn't know the metric ton of additional work they were volunteering for initially and had to start back-tracking in other areas to make up for their goal of all voice acting lines.

The funny thing is, voice-overs (or at least 100% VO) isn't a requirement for a game to be renowned or prestigious. Even Square-Enix knew giving voice to your character would present problems and chose a different work-around and it is the highest ranked modern MMO on the market.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Unfortunately, posts like the original one here keep coming up in which folks ignore cost & effort issues (including ones that ANet has highlighted).

Posts like the original one? Perhaps you want to read the OP?

I just did and I a don't see where they "ignore cost and effort". Is merely "here's a way to monetize a new race slot".

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

>Worsehen people want to gut the core of an idea to get a watered down version of ... something, without realizing that even then it's still not necessarily "affordable." Reducing spending is good; eliminating core concepts at the same time makes the cost:benefit analysis worse, not better :(

Perhaps from your perspective. From mine, this is a public forum meant to discuss things related to the game. I don't see any harm discussing an idea to adding races if the alternative is nothing. In the situation of the decision of eating something plain and bland or going to sleep hungry, I don't see a problem with considering rationing what we have and budgeting to get anything at all to eat.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > And when the alleged offender states that the request and permission were given via Discord voice chat?

> > @"Linken.6345" said:

> > Screenshot and send in to anet.

> How is it that someone screenshots Discord voice chat?

>

What? You don't know how to take pictures of audio lol

I think they could add more permission and restriction options but the error in this situation is the human factor. You can make a system as fail-safe and impenetrable as possible but if a human opens the entry wide open, would more security accomplish anything?

But yeah, perhaps adding more permissions options like requiring a confirmation from multiple present leaders so long as said leaders have continued to log in in the past 2 weeks or something. But to reiterate, there are inherently means around these measures because they've been designed that way.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> I crafted a reply to your earlier response because I think there have been some misunderstandings about my point of view and about ANet's.

> But rather than go back & forth (as we have a history of doing)...

>

> With the assumption that ANet has a vested interest in maintaining civility in /map and the forums, at a standard that is probably stricter than your own, what policy would you want them to enact? What sort of enforcement standard?

>

My post was in context of the OP. Outside of direct violations of the ToS, it's easier to police yourself and your groups rather than everyone else. If someone's being offensive, they will likely be reported, preferably by the individuals that are being offended, but it's far less of a headache to just disable /map or leave LA. There doesn't need to be any change in enforcement standards on Anet's part unless someone wants to make the case there is an oversight in their standards.

Call me cynical, but this sounds a lot like "People are saying things I don't like. Won't someone come along and police everyone so I don't have to do anything myself?"

It's the same thing with RPers using emotes and then people complaining to high heaven for some other chat channel to segregate those that don't use emotes like you want them to. At some point, you gotta accept that the reason chat channels exists is so people can *communicate*, even if it's about subjects you don't want to hear. What's the point of having a mouth if someone else is just going to puppet it for me?

> @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said:

> Skrittlock. :^)

You know, I'd be forced to come back and play if there were a situation where the consciousness of a skritt and Rytlock got swapped for a while and for the whole chapter, we'd get to experience the hijinks...and when they got swapped back, that'd be the official introduction of a Skritt into the party of main characters.

> @"Cerioth.7062" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > There are several factors:

> > 1. Teeth. Most depictions of him have prominent visible teeth from both the upper and lower jaw. The image in question seems to focus on the under-bite. This can have various effects on the overall composition, primarily here, making him look less vicious.

> > 2. Colors. Perhaps he's getting a bit old and showing some grey but this feels rather contrasting to the softness of his expression and eyes. But normally, Rytlock is quite chocolately. Also, his nose is pink which feels a bit off considering pink nose and paw pads are usually an attribute of younger creatures while older mature adult animals tend to discolour, looking more black or brown. Some older lions and cats can have pink noses but it's usually the center while the edges discolour to brown/black. Also, not sure about the eyes. They don't feel right. Aren't they suppose to be yellow? I suppose it's possible for eyes to change color due to magic.

> > 3. Whiskers. Are whiskers a thing for Charr? I don't recall if I've put whiskers on my Charr...it's been a while. They're cute. But I don't think that's what Rytlock would be going for. I'm sure Logan would appreciate them though.

> >

> > It's fine though. It's merely an artistic interpretation of Rytlock. I've seen more accurate versions but this one is cute.

>

> Charr do have whiskers, but not this promiennt. They are not shown ingame (probably due to how complex they would be to render) but you can see the whisker spots in their face, which suggests they do have them. I expect them to be like cat whiskers.

Hm, I wonder if adding a few whiskers from his brow would give him a more mature look then.

There are several factors:

1. Teeth. Most depictions of him have prominent visible teeth from both the upper and lower jaw. The image in question seems to focus on the under-bite. This can have various effects on the overall composition, primarily here, making him look less vicious.

2. Colors. Perhaps he's getting a bit old and showing some grey but this feels rather contrasting to the softness of his expression and eyes. But normally, Rytlock is quite chocolately. Also, his nose is pink which feels a bit off considering pink nose and paw pads are usually an attribute of younger creatures while older mature adult animals tend to discolour, looking more black or brown. Some older lions and cats can have pink noses but it's usually the center while the edges discolour to brown/black. Also, not sure about the eyes. They don't feel right. Aren't they suppose to be yellow? I suppose it's possible for eyes to change color due to magic.

3. Whiskers. Are whiskers a thing for Charr? I don't recall if I've put whiskers on my Charr...it's been a while. They're cute. But I don't think that's what Rytlock would be going for. I'm sure Logan would appreciate them though.

It's fine though. It's merely an artistic interpretation of Rytlock. I've seen more accurate versions but this one is cute.

> @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> Bad idea. Better to keep it simple with more meaningful choices, instead of a thousand little bits. The deeper talent system in WoW got removed for the same reason with the simpler talent choices. Which this is alike.

>

> Much easier to keep track off and adjust when you need a trait flipped without needing a degree in math.

>

> Fluidity is good as we have it now, excessive complexity is not and fluidity gets lost.

Agreed. Most players didn't like the new trait system at all when we swapped over but I was indifferent. I started to like the traits a bit better when they made some of the Grandmaster's worth something. There are still GMs that aren't worth crap but it was worse back then. People would just avoid GM traits most of the time and just double up on the lower tiers.

OP, your idea is to reverse-balance the impact of an ability with its cost. The current system is simply the opposite. While your idea might give you a semblance of build freedom, it's merely a phantasm where useless builds masquerade as viable alternatives when in reality, you introduce more "meta" builds that make other builds *less* viable. Soon, trait usefulness will be tied to combining them with other traits and it's less a cost per trait and more a cost per build.

I don't see a problem with adding sinks into the game. The question is, what purpose would those sinks be used for?

I don't think they're going to change crafting much besides just adding more bloat to it. Best I can come up with is adding advanced levels to crafting (annotated by a +X next to levels) that simply make your crafting more efficient (i.e. chance for expending fewer materials) and make gaining those level exceptionally expensive and using lots of materials. It would serve no purpose but to give players some sort of superficial placebo of advancement but could get people to burn more materials.

I wouldn't look to make certain materials more valuable, just give more ways to burn them (besides vendoring them). That's all.

And then there's my story: My first MMO was FFXI and it was...interesting. Played it for 2 years and the friends I made in it were what kept me going. The things that pushed me away from it were the fact that FFXI is a friggen slog (from travel, to leveling, to gearing...even just the story quests offered no hand-holding) but mostly that as we matured through the game, getting higher level jobs, it required more gil and better equipment and thus more time and investment to go further. Those friends, while still nice, started devoting all their time toward BCNMs, NM camping, farming and other activities to get more stuff...that and the only means to solo at the time was stripped away (changing how mobs despawn meant Beastmaster could no longer solo things worth good EXP). So I went to the other game I had been told about by one of my in-game friends...City of Heroes.

Long story short, be glad you still HAVE Guild Wars 1 to enjoy. I've actually gone back and dabbled in FFXI here and there, what kept me in it has moved on to other games. I wish I could do the same with City of Heroes. My pantheon of heroes and rogue's gallery of villains was what kept me in it and I only needed my imagination, the game's foundation and the community to bounce ideas off of and be inspired by their creations. It was a fun ride.

> @"Raiden The Beast.3016" said:

> > @"Duck Hunt.8027" said:

> > Arena net do not do like blizzard keep guildwars on PC.

> > Thank you!

>

> You have phone, right? ©

> Im a pro Diablo Immortal, I have a phone.

Wouldn't be a bad April Fools gag for Anet to post a leak for Gw3. Just sayin.

Curious, did you choose core Rev, Herald or Renegade?

BOOOOOring.

I thought this would be a thread posting new ideas, not just parallel versions of existing runes.

~closes eyes and conducts the symphony of asuran groans and screams~

> @"phs.6089" said:

> You have phone, right? ©

I know, right?

Can I have an Aegis designed shield skin?