Leo G.4501

New races. That would cement me back in the game for a while. I haven't played in over a year. Nothing really holding me back in the game, just doing a lot of other stuff and when I have time, I'll play something like a pokemon or a mobile game for a bit. When I do have time, there are other games on my plate.

But if they want me to skip that other stuff, put in Tengu or Kodan campaigns. I'll have so much backlog content to play through...

> @"Dante.1763" said:

> > @"Vlad Morbius.1759" said:

> > > @"Cerioth.7062" said:

> > > Have there been any story lines, dialogue, events, random little details, skills, sound effects or something else that made you feel discomfort or disgust?

> > >

> > > What comes to my mind is this piece of dialogue:

> > >

> > > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: We can cover this land in fire. We shall see the citadels alight!

> > > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: All shall bow. All shall have the truth burned into them.

> > > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: We shall rise and cleanse this world of the weak and unfaithful.

> > > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: Oh, woman playing soldier. We have a space in the breeding farms for your insolence. Surrender and atone!

> > > Legionnaire Vesta Scorchpath: Not now. Not ever. Besides, we have a message for you.

> > > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: Speak before I burn your tongues away.

> >

> > Political correctness gone overboard. I'm sorry but if you're offended by anything in a video game you need to step back and get help. I'm sick and tired of every want to be PC warrior screwing with my life and my fun because they spend their time trying to find something to complain about. This game is rated, if you didn't want to see or experience these things then maybe you should have read up about it, and if you're a long time player; shame on you for attention grabbing!

>

> Its funny, cause nowhere in that post does they say the word offended.

>

> You can be disgusted by the thought of something without being offended by it, its not a bad thing either. In my RP sessions ive seen or done things that have made me feel disgusted or angry, its -normal- to feel things when exposed to ideas that -are- awful. Breeding farms? JFC if it was found somebody was running one in real life id be disgusted!! Offended though? No.

>

>

Loosely related words. While neither "disgust" or "offend" are used to define or describe the other, they share other synonyms like annoy, displease, anger.

> @"Vlad Morbius.1759" said:

> > @"Cerioth.7062" said:

> > Have there been any story lines, dialogue, events, random little details, skills, sound effects or something else that made you feel discomfort or disgust?

> >

> > What comes to my mind is this piece of dialogue:

> >

> > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: We can cover this land in fire. We shall see the citadels alight!

> > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: All shall bow. All shall have the truth burned into them.

> > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: We shall rise and cleanse this world of the weak and unfaithful.

> > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: Oh, woman playing soldier. We have a space in the breeding farms for your insolence. Surrender and atone!

> > Legionnaire Vesta Scorchpath: Not now. Not ever. Besides, we have a message for you.

> > Champion Drakin Cinderspire: Speak before I burn your tongues away.

>

> Political correctness gone overboard. I'm sorry but if you're offended by anything in a video game you need to step back and get help. I'm sick and tired of every want to be PC warrior screwing with my life and my fun because they spend their time trying to find something to complain about. This game is rated, if you didn't want to see or experience these things then maybe you should have read up about it, and if you're a long time player; shame on you for attention grabbing!

Agreed. But I can forgive people that just want to vent online on a forum. It's all water off a duck's back.

My problem is when people pretending to be offended by something not meant to offend (like a video game) will virtue signal and pander to the whims and emotions of the pearl clutching online justice brigade but turn a blind eye to their hypocritical virtues that cause actual harm. Something like the OP's post would be happening right now irl and their virtues would facilitate it because we should accept every lie, crook and thief that invades our homes unimpeded.

Get some panty-streamers playing GW2 and there you go.

Let's just be thankful that no one here is in the industry pitching game ideas. So barren of creativity lol

What's the status on NCSoft's mobile ports of their other MMOs?

At worst, you might see some kind of new mobile western MMO or mobile port in the future and THAT might be the undoing of GW2.

I can see where the OP is coming from, although a lot of his points are rubbish (but then the opposing arguments aren't all that great either). All in all, the build system itself is itself. It's not the same as other games and thus one should have different expectations and allow unique compromises for the build system to breath.

I think ulimately, the game has power creeped to a dangerous degree and trimming every now and then here and there won't fix it, just delay it a bit. You've got to the point that progression of a character has stagnated but they keep releasing more content down the line when, in actuality, they should be pushing players to build MANY characters rather than grinding the same ones. And before you interject with how many dozens of characters you've got, I'll retort with most progress in this game is account wide thus your character numbers are moot. You don't have to make more characters to have what you have and that is the fundamental problem, IMO, with GW2: it promotes grinding and character progress but the character goes nowhere. The story is now just long, drawn out, contrived and top-heavy when it should be wide, deep, approachable and promote exploration. You should have to make several characters just to get exposure to a fraction of the overall world's situation...

Mechanics wise, a power-creep culling would at least give some means of growth, even if temporary, if the game wants to focus on a single protagonist type narrative (and just for overall build diversity). Specifically, boons and conditions are just spammed which creates an arms race of needing abilities to cleanse and the ability for said cleansable conditions to compete with power. Einlanzer was mentioning breaking up active mitigation tools to rely on defensive stats to boost them up but the same needs to happen for offensive stats, i.e. things like Fury potency should be tied to a stat, condis should have a degree of effectiveness (i.e. chance of proccing) bases on stats, and crit chance seriously needs to not be cappable without team assistance.

Problem is, no one wants their game nerfed. This is understandable. It's why I just accept the game for what it is but discussions on prospecting changes and their effect and purpose are always interesting.

The question was "Do you want more mounts in the future?" not "Should there be more mounts in the future?". I don't want more mounts. Got tired of mounts when they added another new one after griffin. I'd be more excited for new races, new weapons or new stances to wield weapons.

> @"Kabuki Theatre.9752" said:

> > @"Airdive.2613" said:

> > > @"Kabuki Theatre.9752" said:

> > > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > Three words: "fly-over zones". You play WoW, so you know what that term means, and why GW2 should avoid it like the plague.

> > >

> > > Please explain to me in plain words,

> > > how a bird,

> > > behaving exactly like a real bird,

> > > is somehow artificial?

> >

> > If we're talking pure realism, real birds aren't even used as mounts.

> > Personally, I have no idea if they can fly at all with a noticeable additional load (a rider) on their back.

>

> Actual predator birds have been known to carry up to 150% of their weight in their talons.

> It is not a far stretch at all to imagine they could carry the same weight on their backs.

> My question still remains:

>

> Please explain to me in plain words,

> how a bird,

> behaving exactly like a real bird,

> is somehow artificial?

>

>

> And why is GW2 so very reluctant to replicate that?

>

>

Are you sure about that?

I wouldn't call it "carrying up", more like guided descent. Even if a large bird carried up weight into the air, they likely did so with a maneuver that required building up speed first. Frankly, arguing realism is foolish to begin with when you're talking about a video game. Why not take off your outrage cap and ask yourself, if you were making a game, what considerations you'd need to make to facilitate 100% flight and what it'd do to the core of your game.

Not saying flight is a death knell for an MMO, it's just different games have different vibes and goals. I bet the individuals that derided the idea of mounts in GW2 are chuckling to themselves thinking, "yup, there's your slippery slope. enjoy the ride as your game loses all mystery or sense of scale".

As I live and breathe...

A suggestion to improve outfits that I didn't post myself?

I think it's probably better if options to hide an outfit's parts be contextual. I'm sure they have to design the outfit initially for parts to be turned off. The more parts that can be hidden, the more work involved. I think it's definitely a good thing to improve these options over time and push the envelope.

> @"ChronosCosmos.9450" said:

> > @"Jojo.6140" said:

> > That would go against the whole game-philosophy in the open-world. It was always that way that people dont get rewarded for their individual performance, but for participating and tagging along. Would be a really bad move to push people into more damage-oriented playstyle/builds who doesnt want it but would have to in order to get the rewards.

> >

> > Apart from that, it would also be a problem for support and healing roles, as others have already mentioned.

> >

> > But what id like to know: Why does it bother you that some people are just standing there auto-attacking or whatever? Its not that they steal your loot or have otherwise a bad impact on your experience, do they?

> It bothers me because everyone else is putting in effort to do the event while they leech and afk in an event that is meant for group play. They're being lazy and leechign off of everyone else. It's similar if I were to ask you to pay for my mortgage while you live somewhere else.

>

The answer to the thread is "Because it's fun".

You're obviously not having fun so stop doing the events then. If you're mainly in it for the loot, perhaps you should consider that you're not playing for the right reasons and reassess the whole of the circumstances.

> @"Ben K.6238" said:

> Human character problems again. Ah well.

's called Human Privilege :p

> @"Weindrasi.3805" said:

> To those who argue that because it's a world full of magic, we should have even more revealing armor: I offer this counterargument:

> I'm a female who deals with imagery of sexualized women in real life every day, in every place. From burger advertising to cars and so on, sex sells. And near-naked female bodies that have been photo-altered to impossible perfection sell best.

> As a woman, that is SO discouraging.

I always found it interesting that something like a sexy beautiful woman on a poster is arousing to a man but discouraging to a woman and a poster of a fit sculpted gym-rat guy is encouraging to a man and intimidating to a woman. Of course, hashtagNotAll, but it's very telling how these types of stereotypes are *reinforced* despite them being stereotypes like many others that are actively destructive AND perpetuated on half-truths. I mean, yes, guys get attracted by very attractive females BUT guys also don't seek out only highly attractive women. So impossible beauty standards...that women hold themselves to but blame men for sexualizing these women? Or can we understand that people like to look at beautiful things (even fantasize about them) but know their reality isn't going to be that standard of beauty?

> @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> The main line story of the Expansions DO have the Commander squarely as the main character, but they have to be pitted against an antagonist that can't be easily be defused by the stories main pillars.... namely Cooperation, Diplomacy, Empathy, Humility, and Hope. Antithetical to these are Revenge, Greed, Mistrust, Malice and Arrogance...... IE all the things that are usually used to create conflict in the first place. Theres a reason people have noted that the Commander's behavior is randomly regressive between during HOT and S3, because the personal conflicts had been resolved at the end of the Personal story. All of Season 1 functioned on the other Characters- particularity the Villains. The Commander was just along for the Ride for most of them. Which also explains why S2 and HOT was told in a smaller scale, and S3 through POF and S4 having to keep the focus small, but expand the world around it.

Why can't we be pitted against an antagonist that is more easily defused? I think that's one of the issues people are actually having is that the resolutions are just points along the way to the final goal rather than situations that are basically stories with an introduction, conflict, rising action and ending in resolution. But I suppose it's not strictly the storyteller at fault...

"But what about the elder dragons!?!"

Storyteller: But there's also the effect these changes have on religion or politics or the personal views of one of your friends regarding a dictator taking pow-

"But the DRAGONS!"

Storyteller: What about a story involving characters who sacrificed a lot for the Pact but seemingly pushed aside as the struggle marches fo-

"But what about STEVEEEE!"

> @"Palador.2170" said:

> You get the point, right? The Commander isn't the only outstanding character, they're just the one the main story focuses on. And as for the bad guys, most of the non-dragon villains are just as much a single person as we are in the end. They might have a lot of people backing them up, but so do we. And they might have a lot of magical power, but the Commander also builds that up over time.

It's a lot of tell and not show though. I actually liked how PoF handled some of these issues though by giving us more background to certain characters that was previously hidden. I've never been focused on how the story messed up but rather what they can do to change things.

> @"MrPhantasia.5924" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > I will give the OP credit: they asked for a more equal implementation so that either gender can wear either armor look.

> >

> > It's a wide step from asking for female armor sets to have more coverage and more cleavage and more practicality and more decorative all at the same time...I mean, at what point do these people feel we've reached equality?

>

> What do you mean by *these people*

Those who advocate for *more equality*.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but in my opinion, I think the problem is the world of Tyria and the world threatening plot.

That is, the main character seems to be the only one making headway into changing such a catastrophic world changing event. In a world of magic and realms and spirits and other crazy stuff, where are the people building arcs to escape? Where are the ones worshiping these elder dragons as gods and pushing to surrender civilization to them? The splinter groups with their own methods of fighting this menace or the spiritualists using their knowledge to heal the world?

Now I'm sure you could point to some examples of those in GW2 but it's less than supplemental. Those dragon corrupted factions never do anything or make any moves. The threat is absolute and nothing can escape. There is no alternatives thus no depth and no adventure. Everything is a straight road and your player character has the keys and in the driver's seat.

So I could see why people think the PC is a Mary Sue. I'm of the opinion that every main character ends up being some form or fashion of a Mary Sue, for some fraction of their story at least. It just so happens that the fraction might be a bit thicker for the LW story and it's the only story really elaborated on.

I will give the OP credit: they asked for a more equal implementation so that either gender can wear either armor look.

It's a wide step from asking for female armor sets to have more coverage and more cleavage and more practicality and more decorative all at the same time...I mean, at what point do these people feel we've reached equality?

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Well, in which reality is getting two good things not better than only one?

> The topic being discussed isn't _whether_ more is good. The statement made was that "the reality is that ANet should do both." That's not the reality we live in, both in terms of scope of work and whether anyone "should" do anything.

>

What reality is it not better to have 2 good things rather than one? In my reality, and I'm sure in your reality, it IS better.

But then I think you fail to understand *why* that statesmen reflects reality. Because it is stated as something that is desired and not from the fiscal executive office's perspective.

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > When you start the bickering of "we shouldn't get that because of resources and other projects" you make it an either/or argument that we can't actually back (either side) because it's not our choice.

> I make no claim about what we should or shouldn't get; the other poster wrote that (and for some reason, you seem to want to defend that). My point is that there is no "should," except that ANet should make a game that will help them stay in business, if they want to remain in the business of selling games.

>

Not defend. Promote discussion.

I think you're projecting a narrative on someone using the term "should" leading to a misunderstanding of the goal of the discussion. The customer "should" express things they want to buy so that someone might capitalize on that. Discussions on why things should or should not be made can be fun but less so when the argument is made by posters pretending to be the mouthpieces of the devs. It prompts reiteration of talking points and repetitive retreading the same old ideas.

But I'm just trying to help and get people talking. I've got heroes and villains to make.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > As I've said many times: I'm all for Cantha... I just want to go someplace else first.

> >

> > Then just say that lol.

> I did.

>

> >

> > At the end of the day, it's not like we get the say in the decision one way or the other so why bother bickering?

> I didn't respond to people saying they want to go to Cantha first. I responded to someone saying that "the reality is" that ANet should do both.

>

Well, in which reality is getting two good things not better than only one?

When you start the bickering of "we shouldn't get that because of resources and other projects" you make it an either/or argument that we can't actually back (either side) because it's not our choice. Are you picking up what I'm putting down?

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > I love the responses that are in the vein of "i'd rather see a new area" as if they're mutually exclusive.

> They are. Or at least, they are mutually exclusive within any sort of reasonable time horizon that does the region justice. Specifically, we spent 2 years in the Heart of Maguuma (more, if you consider that LS2 is basically covering that area, just a tad east). By the time LS5 launches, it will have been 2 years in the Crystal Desert. Do you think any region should get less?

Pro tip: if you have to add a bunch of qualifiers and exclusions to your statements, you're probably attempting to make an absolute argument when you shouldn't be.

What you meant to say is you agree with the quoted statements but you have contrary arguments about other aspects such as timelines and content schedules.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > Here's the reality - we should get both Cantha AND original areas through upcoming expansion/LW content.

> The reality is what a game studio can afford to do, not what the fans want. "Should" has nothing to do with it.

Hmm, who here is directing a factual argument based on reality thus requiring evidence and who is stating an opinion? Last I checked, the "should" verb denoted an opinionated obligation or criticism. Not saying you can't criticize someone's opinion but if your argument is "Open your EYES! Reality says Anet can't afford it!" I'd say prove it. Or at the very least state that you'd rather they spend money/resources on something else.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> As I've said many times: I'm all for Cantha... I just want to go someplace else first.

Then just say that lol.

Maybe I've just argued too much on the internet with people touting their opinions and misusing statements that I just get caught up on stuff like this. True question: why couldn't you just say that "I just want to go to someplace else first" rather than trying to shoot something down to prop up your statement? At the end of the day, it's not like we get the say in the decision one way or the other so why bother bickering?

If someone is going to post an idea on the forum, they need to sell it why it's a cool idea. That's it. How much it would cost? How much time? ect? Unless the discussion is specifically about making a suggestion easier to implement or more robust of a feature, that's not really my lane.

> @"Nazferatwo.1764" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > not in this lifetime

>

> we keep this attitude, we will prolly not see it. wheres your motivation ?

It's the whole counter culture to the hype culture. You have these gamers that hype up anything and everything to an absurd degree which then leads to disappointment as things never live up to the hype. This then spawns these "negative nancies" that do the opposite and expect the worse (takes the form of "we'll get nothing" and "nothing will ever be balanced" or some such) so that when things do happen and stuff is added, no matter how minor, they can still feel good about their chosen game.

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > So you'd be locking the core profession into a trait line and only 2 other options available?

>

> What is thte point of leaving it as it is, when no one is happy with it? Yes, that would be my suggestion: basically no more core professions with three minor trait lines but with two minor and one elite, like the others. They would keep their core names, but function similarly.

If I were making a suggestion, I'd advocate for an Elite Spec "trait slot". Make it the 3rd one. Using the 3rd slot for a traitline would function like the current Elite specs with several differences:

1. This could have the option of having an Elite Spec trait line as a non-elite spec option.

2. Every trait line becomes an elite spec if put in the 3rd trait line which grants it special mechanics.

3. Would require, basically 2 versions of each line. That might sound daunting but you can easily cut down the work by only altering the passive traits and grandmasters.

Basically, the 2nd version of an elite spec line would look similar but with its unique mechanic stripped off and the 2nd version of a core line would be an upgraded version of the original with a mechanic that modifies the profession.

> @"Nazferatwo.1764" said:

> after war eternal, i would say i want more GW2... and i want to see cantha happen, with Tengu as playable race.

A new playable race would definitely get me back to playing GW2 as I just enjoyed playing most aspects of the game for the joy of playing...

...but in the meantime, I HAVE MY CITY OF HEROES BACK!

So I can wait :astonished:

So you'd be locking the core profession into a trait line and only 2 other options available?

What happens when the core spec doesn't use this new trait line?