FrizzFreston.5290

> @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > Or, more likely, because you can create additional characters to use for a new profession(aka class).

>

> And start everything from scratch again?....all story line, all living stories....urgh

No one forces you to do the storyline... you can just ignore it if you dont want to do it again.

And if you switch profession into another weightclass alot of gear would be useless.

> @"Sealbit.7961" said:

> The whole banning of accounts that we hear of in increasing frequency is just a **band-aid** reaction to a poorly-thought out promotion. Please take time to think things through.

FTFY.

Exploiting an exploitable issue has always been bannable. ArenaNet is in their full right to deny access to multiple newly created accounts that have been created through this.

Big online game promotes relatively local tea chain. Whole gameworld downloads otherwise unpopular app to get in on the ingame rewards. ... What could go wrong... xD

> @"Majic.4801" said:

> A Claw Island guild hall would be great, but only if it comes with a complimentary claw.

The island is the claw.

Considering how much other text there is in the game changing these kind of things are simply low priority over new features with new text Im guessing.

Lots of things could be easy as a stand alone change.

Why should this specific wording need to be changed back prioritized over some other minor mistake in a new items text.

Ofcourse I have to wonder why it was worth changing miniatures into minis in the first place. There must be some more important incosistencies than that.

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> At the very least they should have made a poll about this, or better let us choose

You're underestimating how much effort a poll is. That seems like way too much effort for a mere title.

What I think they should've done is more that they could've used both titles, miniature collector left where it was, and mini collector for the 2nd or 3rd set.

I don't see why something should be changed that has been a reward for 6 years either.

If anything, the event would need to be changed if it supposedly can't be a requirement.

The idea to use bounties seems boring to me, I rather have the other PoF meta events as requirement.

> @"lokh.2695" said:

> 2) "We will go from LS4 to LS5" - I'm worried that this is reason for concern. Not that I want to complain about free episodic content going on for at least another year, far from that. But it feels like they're not planing on releasing an expansion in 2019. We know nothing at this point, so it's not worth panicing over it.

>

I thought the opposite, maybe their gemstore stuff is making enough money that they are able to do two seasons back to back.

Totally agree on your third point though. Personal home instance, after putting in so much personal time and effort into our guilds guildhall makes it a bit meh okay.

I prefer progressing such thing together. Already sort of share my GFs homeinstance this way by co-financing it. Definitely not a hide myself in my instance kind of person (anymore).

I don't SEE the problem.

Hm.. interesting. Sounds like rebuilding the commandcenter in nightfall.

> @"Karaha.3290" said:

> > @"ChronosCosmos.9450" said:

> > What I miss about Guild Wars was the exploration aspect of the game. If we do get an expansion like Cantha, it would be fun to explore the map with everyone without mounts. However don't completely exclude them. Just limit them until map completion for the specific instance please! Just a thought. After revisiting GW1 yesterday, I really miss the journal rather than destination aspect of the game. In GW1 everything was far away and you would have to play hours to get to a destination but it was enjoyable. Thank you for your consideration!

>

> But why punish everyone for your personal opinion? I'm sure there are many ppl who would be just frustrated about those restrictions. I would.

> Nobody forces you to use mount, you are free to explore everything without them, even without any gamewide restriction.

> This way you can explore everythin how you want and let all other players to explore things like they want.

> Why isn't that enough?

Because no one likes playing a game where you have to discipline yourself to play with a handicap. in order to enjoy the game to the fullest.

There are already no-mount areas in maps, but no one is telling Anet that they just want to punish people.

These kind of suggestions arent made to suggest to punish other players, but to request a certain design which creates, from the suggestors viewpoint, a certain experience which they believe is enjoyable.

I wouldn't mind some more AP for some collections. But I can do without as well.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"evilsofa.7296" said:

> > > > The only "problem" I see mounts causing is motivating devs to make bigger, taller areas. I don't view that as a problem; I view that as a benefit.

> > > They do not really make bigger areas. They do _less waypoints_. And that **is** a problem.

> > > It doesn't encourage you to explore. It forces you to use mounts to skip all that space as fast as possible.

> > >

> > > I don't really care if you temporarily block mounts for the next expac areas or not - but if you do, be sure to return to the original waypoint density (or just return to it regardless of mounts).

> > >

> >

> > I dunno, i would say it the waypoint density depends on ways of travelling in each map. There are many more travelmethods in LW3 maps, which in turn have less waypoints because of it.

> >

> > I would rather have good content where its spaced out between waypoints in a way that makes sense and helps

> > the experience of that map.

> >

> > I hope there isnt such a thing as "original waypoint density" tbh.

>

> If, to keep the original ease of travel, you do need to use those new ways of travelling, then those stop being optional and start becoming a requirement. I'd rather see mounts being optional, not required. Same with other means of travel.

>

> (because, seriously, if you need to nerf something in order to make something else needed, why introduce that something else in the first place?)

To create a different experience.

Some areas are harder to traverse than others, so I don't think keeping the same ease of travel is ever a thing. If everything has the same ease of travel that would become boring.

So far every new mode of travel has become pretty much required in their original areas to get around already.

I cant imagine how many more waypoints would HoT maps would have if their transport ways would be optional.

I personally don't see the attraction of WvW maps.

I think that PoF lately did delve exactly into what OP describes. With lots of detail inside a city/huge temple/ dungeon vs outside of those.

But maybe I misunderstand it, because WvW isnt that interesting an environment for me in those regards. Yeah they have some sneaky entrances with some minor sewer where you jump down a well and are somewhere else, but.. idk the areas in PvE do this alot better than WvW.

But yeah PoF i feel has the better content in that regards. (not counting bounties there btw)

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"evilsofa.7296" said:

> > The only "problem" I see mounts causing is motivating devs to make bigger, taller areas. I don't view that as a problem; I view that as a benefit.

> They do not really make bigger areas. They do _less waypoints_. And that **is** a problem.

> It doesn't encourage you to explore. It forces you to use mounts to skip all that space as fast as possible.

>

> I don't really care if you temporarily block mounts for the next expac areas or not - but if you do, be sure to return to the original waypoint density (or just return to it regardless of mounts).

>

I dunno, i would say it the waypoint density depends on ways of travelling in each map. There are many more travelmethods in LW3 maps, which in turn have less waypoints because of it.

I would rather have good content where its spaced out between waypoints in a way that makes sense and helps

the experience of that map.

I hope there isnt such a thing as "original waypoint density" tbh.

> @"ChronosCosmos.9450" said:

> Just want to point something out, the idea isn't meant to force players to play a certain way. When I posted the subject I did not realize at that moment that it was going to force people who enjoy their mounts to play a certain way. With that being said, an idea will be subjected to criticism whether good or bad and I understand that. However keep in mind that it is just an idea. No one is trying to intentionally force others to play how they want. There are some people who also agree with the idea. For those who disagree, it is understandable. I just wanted to see if there were more players who enjoyed the exploration. Thank you to the people who have the same opinion. For those who oppose the idea, I understand.

Yeah, rarely a suggestion is about forcing other players how they want, and more about the idea.

The problem is that when a player suggests a game design idea it gets received as if that player wants to force other players to play a certain way, but when a developer changes it (if implemented right) it gets accepted it alot easier, as they have been "forcing players to play a certain way" all along. Ofcourse, forcing to play a certain way is really just game design, But people would need to take a few steps back to see that picture, before they just see what they like, or not like.

I wouldn't really mind going into a zone where mounts aren't allowed personally. I mean, I was actually disappointed that you can still use mounts in the casino, while the signs clearly state that mounts aren't allowed. In the future it could be that something is scaring the mounts, so you can't ride them or whatever. The no mount zones around JPs are not really a nice way to go about it though. But locking out features is definitely one way to keep it interesting, rather than needing to add mounts because the game needs to be balanced around them now. I think limiting players in the ever growing amount of features is the only way to keep a game refreshing.

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"phs.6089" said:

> > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> >

> > > ArenaNet is not a charity in the end and people should stop freaking out over that simple reality.

> >

> > No one talks of charity. The subjects is. Why only HoT owners can use Guild enhancements? OK, core went F2P, they locked enhancements beyond the HoT. But atm there are people with PoF only that can't access those. If enhancements going to be locked beyond HoT to sell old product is not a good move. It calls a cheap move, low blow in our places. HoT itself have so many sell points. Story, lore, maps and best of all stat combinations and elit specs that have became vital for game mods and there is no alternative, to commander, trailbazer, viper etc.

> > It's a god kitten guild buff that, if Im forced divide my guild members by the expacs they have, kitten with that guild kitten.

>

> No one talks of charity and yet he wonders why a feature was moved from the free part of the game to the paid part and comes to the conclusion it's greed. That's a step too far for me. And indeed if wanting to make money with a business (and not in an EA way) is called greed, then people do expect charity.

>

> And I get that not everybody has the same amount of money but if 40-50 bucks for a game with 2 expansions is too prohibitive, then I'm not sure what to say. That is pretty much expecting charity at that point from my point of view.

>

What he meant is: It was moved from one paid version (core), to another (HoT). The free to play version has their own section.

Core has both a free2play version and the original Buy2Play version.

On top of that, other paying customers who didnt get HoT but PoF only, for whatever reason, dont have access either.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> I'm not sure about your poll choices here. Heart of Thorns is about exploration, Path of Fire is about roaming around, there is very little to explore. Heart of Thorns rewards explorers as they find creative ways to get to spots that might be hard without specific masteries. It rewards actual exploration. Meanwhile, only the Desolation has enough passages, multiple ways to reach a destination and a design that favors exploration and experimentation. Oh and the "snowy" part of Desert Highlands, especially the dwarven ruin, that was fun to EXPLORE. The rest of Path of Fire is barren desert, where is the exploration in that?

>

> Heart of Thorns is an explorer's "dream", it challenges you to find new places and new ways to reach certain places. Path of Fire for the most part does not reward exploration at all. Combined with the limited number of events at weird places and the lack of incentive to even do that, there is very little exploration involved in the second expansion.

Hot is more about finding your way, PoF is more about finding things along the way.

You can consider both as exploring really.

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > @"phs.6089" said:

> > I'll bump this topic with new information. Please consider following the link to GW2 support page before you assume something.

> > According to Arena.NET any account but F2P has no restriction to Guild Enhancements Access. Which is somehow not true.

> > https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/230165307-Guild-Wars-2-Account-Types-Free-Core-HoT-PoF

>

> Could be an error in posted information. Would not be the first time. You might consider contacting the CS Team.

>

> Good luck.

That, or its something they intended to do but couldnt/didnt make true (yet).

I mean, I personally am not

affected, but at least it should be fairly easy to change the table. Ingame might be harder. I think its still rather unfortunate that a (usually considered to be) core game feature or at least something that has parts in multiple expansions is only technically part of one. It doesnt make sense.

I think... the feature wasnt designed modular enough, so that the or a future guild team doesnt exist or is, at least for guild expanding features, basically on hold. I suppose that is mostly speculation but still.

I think the best thing we can hope for is that they may fix/change it some day.

I admire the detail you put in there, although ofcourse feel i have to point out it would be upto Anet what the actual features would be. But yeah, I definitely wouldnt mind more guild features like that.

I still would consider all the world bosses (maybe more) eligible for the guild event starter consumable. Some more control guilds get over certain events on a relatively cheap cost would definitely improve a great deal, not just for rewards, but also achievements for example. Waiting for some schedule to run the event is imo very cumbersome.

Ofcourse limits would be needed to be in place, so that instance or map stability isnt at risk. Although I have obviously no clue how that exactly works, we know they only have certain resources per map instance... At least, we know what happened to the Kourna release when the map suddenly was bigger.

Even Open world has balance.

I mean, ideally they should all talk with eachother, but at some point putting everything in one big group wont be useful anymore.

I am also interested in why the rewards team is part of the group. (ofcourse name wise it now fits)

I feel personally, from the outside looking in, the rewards team might fit better with the marketting/gemstore team. But what do I know.

I never understood this focus on balance. What does balance matter if theres no (new) content to play.

I prefer PoF where exploration is more sandboxy. When everything revolves around a single meta the routine of things becomes too obvious for me and where theres no other meaningful story driven events.

I never really felt that this meta was hard at all. Just not worth replaying over and over so there's less meta dogs for the meta sheep to follow.

Either way, I don't mind some harder but also well designed meta events. The problem with this meta is that it has not much design beyond the balance of the event. (I mean, it's just fighting enemies in random order, then fight some breakbars and some bosses and then fight some more bosses. )

> @"Celsith.2753" said:

> I bought a lot of these and wouldn't have an issue with them now having the option to choose a specific skin for a higher price. Whenever you make a purchase of any kind you should be aware it may be marked down or the offer changed in some way later.

Yeah this. I think if anything it would be positive to adapt retroactively, rather than causing community drama.

If they want to decide otherwise they can always communicate it if they think it would otherwise cause drama.

I think the most harmful dramas were when ArenaNet just did and didnt communicate (much). Explaining what youre doing and why will always be met with more reason than not.