Tails.9372

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > @"thepenmonster.3621" said:

> > "Forced" is Anet locking Almora's story behind a strike. Vanity items are chosen.

> It's only a "strike" in name. It's nothing at all like the "real" strikes.

It depends on how you look at it, it gives strike specific currencies, it advances strike specific achievements and it counts for the weekly chest. And while you technically can't fail it it's also easier to turn into a mess than some of the other SMs if people don't do the mechanics.

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > @"Mortifera.6138" said:

> > > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:i have no ideas why one would be so upset over an overpridced skin.

> >

> > Because skins are the endgame?

> >

>

> Yea, but I don't see how looking like the other 100 other people who look exactly the same in Lion's Arch is the way to go at it, assuming you can see them at all in the particle effects.

Well look at it like this, legendaries are designed to be wanted by the players so that they go after them and continue to play content which would be dead after the initial experience otherwise and the fact that you see "100 other people who look exactly the same" / we see threads like this shows that they (to various degrees) do have the intended effect.

There is also the issue that if you play a ranged build you pretty much have to get a leg weapon if you want to change up your projectile animations / sound effects as almost all non legendary weapons use the standard animations which e.g. leads to situations were you have an energy crystal shooting regular bullets with gunpowder effects...

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"yoni.7015" said:

> > > It doesn’t work against these goals.

> > Like it or not but if it discourages people to go for them then yes, it does work against these goals.

> No, it discourages SOME people.

Meaning it still: "does work against these goals"

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"yoni.7015" said:

> > > Just because some few people complain about that?

> > Given how constant the issue is brought up it doesn't just seem to be "a few" but a more sizeable part of the playerbase. However, that in itself seems to be a rather moot point to bring up as no one here has the exact numbers.

> No, it is a vocal group on a forum. That is hardly a sizeable part of the playerbase. I'd wager that there are more players who actually have 1 legendary than there are people on the forums complaining about it.

The "vocal group on the forum" only shows a miniscule part of the group in question just like how most people don't use the forum in general. But the fact of the matter is there is no data on how many people it discurages from going after them, at all. So everything in this regard is pure speculation which is why it's such a moot point to bring up.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"yoni.7015" said:

> > > To get a Legendary should include all aspects of the game.

> > But the is no need for them to, that's just what you want. In fact in some aspect we already have a double standard here and if it goes against their initial goal then like I said they shouldn't.

> What double-standard?

Legendaries which are obviously aimed at the more general PvE players such as Aurora require you to still play WvW while Conflux doesn't require you to play PvE. Also, pretty much all PvE legendaries (unless you can buy them from the TP) require you to play specific sub content while pretty much all WvW legendaries are significantly less restrictive as to which part of the sub content you have to play in order to earn them.

> @"yoni.7015" said:

> It doesn’t work against these goals.

Like it or not but if it discourages people to go for them then yes, it does work against these goals.

> @"yoni.7015" said:

> Just because some few people complain about that?

Given how constant the issue is brought up it doesn't just seem to be "a few" but a more sizeable part of the playerbase. However, that in itself seems to be a rather moot point to bring up as no one here has the exact numbers.

> @"yoni.7015" said:

> To get a Legendary should include all aspects of the game.

But the is no need for them to, that's just what you want. In fact in some aspect we already have a double standard here and if it goes against their initial goal then like I said they shouldn't.

> No one cares if you forget about creating a legendary again

Actually the Devs. should. If the goal of the legendary items is to add log term goals for the player and to add replay value to the content then design elements which work aganst these goals shoud be adressed, if not for the current then at least for future content releases.

> @"Fueki.4753" said:

> > @"Shiyo.3578" said:

> > These people will never understand that all they're accomplishing with their gatekeeping is making ALL development stop on any type of instanced content. They're basically self-defeating.

>

> Having multiple **difficulty options** could easily solve this _kill proof_ situation.

It depends, if the lower difficulties allow you to still work towards whatever the long term goal of the content in question is (even if it's in a slower but still reasonable pace) then yes. Otherwise: no. If you can only progress though the "hard mode" then people would just ignore the lower difficulties (maybe playing it once for the story) and try to join hard runs leading to the same situation we have rn.

> @"Fueki.4753" said:

> So, if someone requires raid kill proofs for something like Whisper of Jormag, it's a problem of content design?

No but depending on what the target audience is it can be a symptom of one e.g. let's say they introduce a new raid with the stated goal to make it "as accessible to the wider player base as possible" while also adding a challenge mode designed for "only the most hardcore players".

If, in this case, the average LFG pug for the "normal mode" would put up some KP requirements then this would be an strong indicator for the presence of some mechanics capable of turning the raid into a mess and therefore a failure to fulfill the initial premise.

However, for the challenge mode it would be the opposite. The lack of KP requirements for pugs would be an indicator for the content being to easy and thus failing its initial premise.

> @"Sleepwalker.1398" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > The OP is complaining about being forced to play for a long term goal!

> > Not quite, he complains about having to play a different game mode for a long term goal. Something which is only applied to a subsection of the mostly PvE based legendaries. A PvE player needs to play WvW in order to get Aurora but a WvW player doesn't need to play PvE if he wants to get Conflux. The main issue here is that it discourages players to go for them which wouldn't be much of an issue if we were talking about a couple specific ones but it becomes counterproductive if it's a general requirement for most of them.

>

> Same argument can be put by a wvw player that they have to do a pve vanilla map completion in order to make a gen 1 legendary.

Not really, ignoring that you can just buy it from the TP, in this case it would still be a WvW player complaining about having to play PvE for a mostly PvE based legendary which would be more equivalant to a PvE player complaining about having to play WvW for a WvW based legendary like Warbringer. That being said I would support the idea of adding more legendary items to WvW including a legendary tier for the hero weapons.

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> Why are you arguing semantics

Because that's what the whole the opposition to the OP (and many like him) boils down to. Sure there is no "need" to remove these requirements (which I personally wouldn't) but there is technically no "need" to keep them either.

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> The OP is complaining about being forced to play for a long term goal!

Not quite, he complains about having to play a different game mode for a long term goal. Something which is only applied to a subsection of the mostly PvE based legendaries. A PvE player needs to play WvW in order to get Aurora but a WvW player doesn't need to play PvE if he wants to get Conflux. The main issue here is that it discourages players to go for them which wouldn't be much of a problem if we were talking about a couple specific ones but it becomes counterproductive if it's a general requirement for most of them.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> the existence of such players is the reason for having requirements in the first place.

No, the fact that the performance (or better lack thereof) of a part of the group can have profound impact on the progression speed / success of the content in question is why people put up requirements. No one cares about carrying others in OW metas as long as it goes "smooth enough". The same would also be true for FS if it weren't for the BB on the last part and instanced content in general.

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> So talking about legendary armor misses the entire discussion about legendary weapons, which I assumed the OP was talking about since you need a Gift of Battle to craft both the Gen1 and Gen2 legendary weapons.

Except the OP never specified whether or not he's talking about weapons and GoB is also required for other kinds legendary gear. The general notion that "legendaries" should require you to play "everything" is also not just limited to weapons either so if you're only talking about a sertain sub section then you could have been more specific. Now I'm all for them adding an overarching legendary set that actually fully embraces the notion of "mastery over the entire game" and not just for one or two items but this shouldn't be the standard for all legendary EQ as this would undermine one of the main reasons of why we should have them in the first place.

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> Legendary weapons were (and still are) endgame content. That's the reason for their implementation.

"It's endgame content" isn't a reason either. The game outright tells you what the reason is: "to give players a long term goal to work towards". Sure players don't "need" legendary gear but "do you need it?" is the wrong question here cause it's missing the point. The real question is "should we have it" and I'd say for the general game modes and the bigger subcategories the answer is yes cause it's IMO the best way to serve the purpose.

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > This couldn't be any further from the truth but ok: What "mastery over the **entire** game" does the acquisition of the legendary WvW armor require?

>

> The identical 'mastery' required for the acquisition of a Gift of Battle.

>

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > That's not really an answer for anything as "need" has never been the reason for their implementation to begin with.

>

> The actual answer is: because ANET says so.

>

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > No they don't need to leave "'their' area" for their associated legendaries.

>

> Gift of World Exploration

> Gift of Jungle / Desert Mastery

>

> You should look those up on the wiki and educate yourself.

You should try to actually understand what you're responding to cause your responses don't make any sense in context to what you just quoted.

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> Legendaries were never meant to be PvE-only gear, but representative of a player's mastery over the entire game.

This couldn't be any further from the truth but ok: What "mastery over the **entire** game" does the acquisition of the legendary WvW armor require?

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> The real answer is you don't need a legendary if you're not going to participate in the entirety of this game.

That's not really an answer for anything as "need" has never been the reason for their implementation to begin with.

> @"Diovid.9506" said:

> It's really the same for PvP or WvW ... players that want legendary gear, they also need to play content outside of 'their' area.

No they don't need to leave "'their' area" for their associated legendaries.

What legendary are you talking about? If it's a Gen 1 weapon you can just buy it from the TP, Ad Infinitum and the raid stuff also don't require you to play WvW.

> @"Raknar.4735" said:

> I don't see them going back to retroactively add legendary armors to old content again, that includes Fractals the old JPs and the old Adventures. **It should be part of content that is being developed!**

Not really, for a legendary PvE set they can easily add a WvW style reward system based on event participation to PvE. This would pretty much cover the entirety of PvE. No need to exclude old content for a general PvE set.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> And then extend that same idea on Gen1/Gen2 Legendary Weapons (or create a Gen3 set with that idea)

"Legendary Sublime Mistforged Hero Weapons" sounds good to me.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> If they make a legendary armor set that can be acquired exclusively by playing Raids/Fractals/WVW and/or PVP without "forcing" players into general PVE then maybe.

The WvW set doesn't force you into PvE except for throwing cash at some vendors. Same goes for the sPvP set iirc.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Even the Raid Legendary Armor has too much general PVE attached to it.

Ikr, that's why I look at it more as a HoT leg set but as of right now the game doesn't have a leg set representative for PvE as a whole with a model based on general partition like e.g. WvW has.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> they need to add a Legendary Armor that is acquired from Raids that doesn't require any other PVE because the current version requires too much non-Raid content. And add a Fractal Legendary Armor with the same set of requirements (acquired in... Fractals)

They don't need to but it serves the purpose so they should, same for a "-> asc -> leg" upgrade of the runic set for SMs. I do think that A-Net should add a general PvE leg set before adding more sub content specific ones tho.

> @"HotDelirium.7984" said:

>>! The rest of the warband was killed at the end of the meta allegedly?

well

>! In "A Crack in the Ice" we learn that Jormag has Zhaitans death magic so be prepared for the posibility to fight a "zombie" version of them later on. We also know that Aurene is in the mists and has Joko's lich powers so she can bring back Cinder but we'll see.

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> Vishan was already dead yet you fought them again at the end.

That was Varinia Stormsounder but yes, Jormag does have Zhaitans magic and should be able to raise the dead. So does Aurene btw. and we should still have Cinders body so there you go.

> @"HotDelirium.7984" said:

>

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> the devs ... are desperately trying to mix groups with completely different playstyles and approaches to enjoyment **in the same types of content**

I don't think that by itself is an issue, there is no reason why there shouldn't be instanced group content aimed towards a more casual audience. The problem is that there is no deviation within these types of content, aiming for a vertical content structure when they should have gone for a horizontal one.

You're not a commander anymore, it's just the title people address you with for your role in fighting Zhaitan.

> @"Chaosmade.8732" said:

> I hate WvW and they add it in PvE content ;( :s :s

Except not really. The theme aside, gameplay wise this map is nothing like WvW. The closest thing to the "WvW experience" in PvE is still following a com in Dragonfall.

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> > @"basil.9532" said:

> > Can we possibly get a Celestial Legendary Armor that is 100% PVE without forcing people into raids, WVW, PVP, Fractals etc?

> If raids and fractals are not PvE then what counts?

You're missing the point, he never said "they shouldn't count" or that they don't count as PvE but that it shouldn't require players to do specific sub content just like the WvW set doesn't require you to lead a squad and capture a castle or to "kill 100.000 enemy players".

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Yes, what other choices are there? For pugs, i mean.

It depends on what you're after, public pugs work actually really well for FS. I've never had any problems finding a group although this might change once people "got what they wanted" but this can take a while depending on what they're going to do with the SM currency. The only two things you have to "worry" about are A: people not understanding that the 15 sec timer during the boss fight means "get ready to jump into the tank" and B: that people don't spam 3 once they're in it.

Also, this shows that there is a general interest to play instanced group content even among the more casual players. The issue is that the difficulty they feel comfortable with only really exists in OW PvE and story dungeons (and even some of those are questionable). Crank up the difficulty (or introduce a BB) and things can easily become a mess which leads to the issues you mentioned earlier. Problem is that the Devs. seem to equate "instanced group content" with "increased difficulty". Introduce some dungeons with a difficulty more on par with the average dynamic OW event (which is what FS arguably did), give it some decent rewards + an easily accessible hub and I would be surprised if this wouldn't become popular.