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.

January 10, 2005. I believe this fountain is still in Lion's Arch in GW2, but it's long since underwater.


This is not a feature that would benefit GW2 significantly - the trading post is safer and more convenient, with the exception of extremely high-value items. The only games that need this feature are the ones that heavily lean on scarcity of items, and they have it instead of a trading post like BLTC. They're also much more vulnerable to scamming.

> @"Timbersword.9014" said:

> Lighter necro, but I'll bite in this case:

> A horse mount's special feature would be that it could carry multiple riders. It wouldn't have a long jump or super jump. It wouldn't be able to hop through sand portals, fly, or glide over water. It would just move faster than on foot travel, still feel "heavy" like our mounts do turning and getting going, and it's engage would be a simple stampede manuever, but it would be able to carry two riders (or more?) Great for someone hauling around a friend (or a lover, *growl*) that hasn't or can't unlock mounts yet, assuming the horse isn't made universally available regardless of X-pack.

A mount that can carry two riders is going to have to carry two charr. Horses don't seem like a good choice for that.

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> > @"Greattyphoon.3120" said:

> > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > @"Greattyphoon.3120" said:

> > > > So just one? Why use 'they' if there is only one? (sorry, not native English speaker here)

> > >

> > > Yes, there is just one Jormag. They is often used in English to refer to people without distinguishing between genders (for example when you don't know what gender the person you are referring to may be). So as an example, I would say over the internet about someone who's gender I don't know, they like GW2, instead of he/she likes GW2.

> >

> > Ah okay I think I might understand. When I learned English, I was told "they" is always plural, and neutral singular was "it". But thank you for the explanation. Why not use "it" since Jormag is a dragon is also confusing to me. But thank you.

>

> There's many reasons.

>

> The most common one, is when speaking, a native English speaker will typically use "they" in the scenario, as it rolls off the tongue more naturally.

>

> Another reason is that "it" can come across as impersonal or offensive when talking about a living thing.

>

> It's one of the many silly quirks of the English language. But yes, both "it" and "they" can be used when talking about a singular entity and in fact can be used interchangeably in such a fashion and still be correct. Even if only "they" is usable when referring to plurals.

If I recall correctly, Bangar actually does refer to Jormag as "it". (Probably says more about his personality than it does about Jormag.)

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > @"Ben K.6238" said:

> >

> > >

> > > Adelaide to Washington DC is about 3 times as far, so it makes sense that it'd be about 3 times the ping. That's not infrastructure quality (which is generally better than the US anyway), it's purely distance.

> > >

> >

> > Actually it is not. in the line (or in the ether) data travels with the speed of light. Wich would mean 56 ms vs 20 ms for the distance between EU and NA.

> > The main issue is the amount of hops and route taken. This is also why the use of a dedicated gaming vpn makes a big difference and proves that distance isn't the issue, but the route taken, the routers used and the amount of hops envolved.

> >

> One must also consider that data travels in packets which are split up and re-assembled, with each packet probing and taking the quickest route. The fastest route for one packet may not be the same route as another. Quite frankly, if people really understood how networking happens, they would be amazed that it even works at any speed.

Also that ping is round-trip time, so it has to make its way back again. Crossing the Pacific is indeed quick compared to continental networking due to fewer hops, so it adds less per unit of distance, but all of this adds up. It's never going to be realistic to get lower than 180-200ms to the US East Coast from the western rim of the Pacific no matter how good the connection is, and it's usually going to be a lot higher than that, even at the end of the trans-Pacific cable.

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> Just look at this website. It shows pings between various cities. Just add e.g. Adelaide and see the differences. for example. From Amsterdam to washington the delay is 84ms. from Adelaide to Washington it is 242ms. While both distances are significant and are on different landmasses. So the issue really has to do with infrastructure.

>

> Now please reread my earlier post again about the dissadvantages of a dedicated server and ask yourself why Arenanet should do something that is hurtfull to the whole community just cause some parts of the world refuse to have a decent infrastructure.

>

Adelaide to Washington DC is about 3 times as far, so it makes sense that it'd be about 3 times the ping. That's not infrastructure quality (which is generally better than the US anyway), it's purely distance.

> @"Astyrah.4015" said:

> The servers are in the east coast -- iirc in Ashburn, VA. if the servers were anywhere in the west coast, expect your 200ms ping to go down to 155~180ms range same goes for the rest of OCE and SEA better pings if the servers were in the west coast

It used to be about 180 ms in GW1 when the servers were on the west coast, and that was even before the fibreoptic lines got rolled out here. So yeah, it could be quite a lot lower - my ping to the California servers in PoE is about 160, for example.

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> 1: 90% of bad pings are not caused by the proximity of the server (or lack of proximity).

> 2: a lot of bad pings in Australia and New Zealand are caused by low standards for internetconnections.

> 3: international lines have the potential to be so good that the delay is to be neglected. And those lines exist between Oceania region and NA and EU.

This is such a stretch I can't really call any of it true.

Bad pings are only caused by something other than server proximity when the server is actually close. Australia, NZ, and SEA are a very long way from the US servers - western Australia is actually pretty close to the other side of the planet. In the best-case scenario, you can get about 180-200 ms from New Zealand, which has widespread fibreoptic coverage and two high-speed cables to the US West Coast. Everywhere else in the region would be looking at 200-300ms, best case. You can't increase the speed of light with a different ISP.

I'm one of the lucky ones on around 200ms, and while the game is certainly playable, I've never been able to "neglect" the delay like I can with games that have local servers. It's not hugely important to me, but it does make the Thief class difficult to play, and it also means I spend more time playing games that do offer local servers.

About 10 years ago, I would have agreed that there wasn't enough of a playerbase in the SEA region to justify servers there. But these days, if you don't have a viable SEA playerbase, it's probably because you don't have SEA servers.

The probable reason why they don't support this is because Steam takes something like a 20% cut of the sales through their platform, so if someone plays a pre-existing account through Steam, ANet is making a loss.

Easier to use less of an oversized area than to use more of an undersized one, I guess. If there were a few more of them to choose between, maybe some could have been smaller.

Grothmar Valley. It is a bit of a themepark map, but it's got a good ambience to it. Elon Riverlands is a close second, but there's not much reason to go back there often.

No, it really isn't.

As a developer (different game, obviously), I'm not going to need to read through someone's defense of a suggestion on a forum to decide whether it's a good idea or not. Either I already know, or I'm going to refer to colleagues who are in a much better position to make a call on it.

What responses can be helpful for is getting a general idea of how popular the suggestion is, but once I reach page 2 and see the same two people going back and forth over semantics, I tune out and skip to the end.

The ones I particularly dislike are those where the environment design doesn't make sense, and the worst offenders in this game are the ones that get the vertical scale horribly wrong.

In that light, Verdant Brink still tops the list. Trees that tall and canyons that deep make the place surreal, in a bad way. Domain of Istan gets an honourable mention for turning small cliffs from its Nightfall appearance into towering edifices that simply do not make geological sense in GW2.

Much of Vabbi is passable, but it's home to the worst individual landmark - the Necropolis, which is so oversized it's physically impossible and the individual pixels on the roof's normal map might even be larger than some player models.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"AdamWarlord.6782" said:

> > 2. Lags way too much on my mid end laptop.

>

> Maybe that's why your experience is so much different than that of many other players, including those posting in this thread. Having horrible fps drops does make content a lot more challenging, but I'm not sure if it's something Anet can fix, the game's requirements are already so low (especially core/hot) that I don't know how much lower they can get them. Maybe lower graphics settings? Are you playing with everything on lowest already?

>

> Also, since you talked about expansions, Path of Fire has quite higher system requirements so if your laptop lags in Hot, you are gonna have a rather bad time in Pof. And of course the upcoming next expansion should increase the graphics quality even further. Maybe it's not a matter of difficulty/challenge but rather it's time to upgrade the machine you play on.

I, too, suspect that a lot of this problem is about the hardware. Playing GW2 on a bad laptop with a dim screen (maybe even trying to do it with a trackpad?) would make HoT a pretty awful experience. The rest of the game would only be possible because core mobs are so easy.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Ben K.6238" said:

> > I've yet to see a map where anyone's attempting it when I logged on, so I've just been playing other games.

>

> Use the LFG or you could simply start it on your map instance.

I know that's a possibility, but I honestly can't be bothered. I'd rather just play a game I actually enjoy than faff around with map queues for however long it takes to get to the good bit.

I've yet to see a map where anyone's attempting it when I logged on, so I've just been playing other games.

If they'd finished the alliance system two years ago it would have been a reasonable platform to start building up WvW. It's too late now.

Signet of Humility is perhaps the most GW1-like skill that mesmers have left. It is extremely powerful when used on the right target at the right time, but when used poorly, it can be worse than useless.

In my opinion, that's exactly where it should be.