Ben K.6238

Looks like I have a screenshot from June 2012.  A number of servers were cut for launch, including all of those. The alliance of guilds on Jaya Bluffs went to HoD, stayed there for just over a month after release, then bailed in October after getting bored of the WvW mode.

The aspects in which it stands out are the feel of the combat system and the quality of the mounts.

This is going to wind up being like commuter traffic, with the roads full of vehicles with 4 empty seats.

> @"DoomNexus.5324" said: > I'm wondering since LS1.. I HATE that my payments indirectly (or directly) support Anet making Living Stories. I'm not interested in the chapters at all and the only reason I may buy some would be if the map had an enjoyable farm. > Also, why would you not monetize actual content?! By that logic they'd have to give away expansions for free as well imho. > I mean.. if they earn enough money from the gem store then why lock bigger content updates behind paywalls and exclude the "poorer players" on the important stuff? And if they don't earn enough money then why give away dlc-like content updates for free?.. Pretty inconsistent if you ask me but on the other hand Anet has always been inconsistent af so nothing new I guess... > > Look at ESO for example, they pump out WAY more content without flooding their cash shop as much and I'm preeetty confident it's because they monetize their dlcs and Anet doesn't. > Also.. More money doesn't hurt, at least I don't think NCSoft would complain if Anet had more profit.. So even IF they made enough from the gem shop there is still nothing wrong that they want to get paid for actual content they developed.. That would be as if McDonalds gave away burgers and drinks for free but sell a bag and straw for 10 and 15€. > Players who don't own Living Stories also don't miss out on anything important anyway imo. Even having them for open world farming is not that important, it's just nice to have an alternative to Silverwastes (Because who the kitten cares about the story anyway, it's boring af..) > > Would highly appreciate a reasonable price tag on living story episodes ngl. > > But I think the reason why they don't monetize the LS episodes is because they know exactly that it's not worth a lot and by forcing every player to own them, fanbois can defend Anet by saying "we get free content updates regularly, why do you complain?!". There are many games that do not monetize the core gameplay - free-to-play games have been a thing for a while now. By removing the barrier to entry, the potential is there to increase the number of active players, who may then make discretionary purchases that they wouldn't make if they weren't playing. Some go P2W to make money, others don't. But for GW2 there'll be something similar going on: it's better for ANet's bottom line to get a lot of players into each new episode than a smaller number who are paying for each release. I'd bet it's somewhat related to the ESO thing, in that their episodes aren't really worth buying every 2-3 months, whereas the ESO ones are - sort of. ESO's release cadence means if you're interested in story content but not dungeons, you only get two updates you might be interested in per year. It means you don't have to pay for content that frequently, but it also comes at a high risk of dropping out of the game entirely - I certainly did, given I'm not interested in their Skyrim chapters and I've been finding their "expansions" disappointingly small in geographical scale lately. GW2 gets a free pass from me for all that, because they don't charge for whatever content they put out. I'm likely to continue playing, and thus contribute to a more active world for everyone else, even if the latest episode is not the sort of thing I'd pay a cent for. They probably make more money out of me for outfit and mount skins than they ever could off LS episodes anyway.

I like the sound of more resource-based gameplay to an extent, in that you would always have a number of ways to contribute and there would be some strategy in getting the balance right. WvW is dead to me as a gamemode, so I'm not coming back for tinkering around the edges. It would need a replacement or alternative to the core mechanic to revive my interest. I'm pretty sure that's not a realistic thing to expect from ANet these days, but another company might manage to pull it off one day.

I don't usually play WvW at all these days.

> @"Steve The Cynic.3217" said: > > @"DeanBB.4268" said: > > "open dune field all good deserts have" > > > > That's just your view. I live in Phoenix, Arizona, and I think the variety of desert climates presented in PoF is good. To me, endless dunes would not be a realistic representation. > > +1 for this. > > The late Mrs Cynic lived all across the US Desert Southwest in her youth, and she had much to say on the subject of deserts and what they look like (and above all that this or that Western was not *filmed* where the setting supposedly happened because the desert in SoCal doesn't look like the desert in New Mexico or west Texas). They're going to look different between continents as well. For the Sahara and Arabian deserts, endless dunes actually is a realistic representation because parts of them are exactly that. For the Atacama, Gobi and Australian deserts such dunes would be much rarer or entirely absent.

I'd still like to see a lion that isn't... whatever that thing is in PoF. I preferred the GW1 versions.