Aavataris.5720

> @"kharmin.7683" said: It was you who focused on the community being the problem, now I find it cynical and hypocritical to CONVENIENTLY discard an example that proves otherwise ...based on the level of production, right? That makes no sense PS: You made that point (the dependency on the community) and I showed that it is not true with an example (the mounts today do work despite what the community said in past, so you have no argument) ...but: "Ok, werever u say", you insist because conveniently "you don't believe"

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > Arguing for/against mounts is significantly different than what is being presented here. I don't believe that to be a fair comparison to support one's argument. In fact, if it is, it is a perfect comparison: - You blame the community for not being able to implement the idea. - I show you that good ideas that the same community have condemned if they can perform, that it does not depend on it (they always violate the new and in a bad way).

> @"DeanBB.4268" said: 1) Through the use of AR, the difficulty is increased and narrative coherence is saved by using the "fractal" wildcard. 2) The cooperative survival system needs to limit the group on which survival depends, but maintaining an instance is cheaper when multiple players are kept in it. So: - If your group dies, they start from the beginning or a fortress. - You can see other groups, sharing the instance, as well as disarm and arm new groups. The best of both. 3) This is the survival mode, long games against difficult enemies, advancing as far as possible. In terms of quantity, you can enter alone, but by necessity you will end up aleandote with other players (something that they already demonstrated, if it happens in the Draconic Responses). 4) It is much cheaper to take the base of already built maps and plant on the same enemies already built (with some changes or recombinations), than to have to create new maps, with their own stories, elements, mechanics and rules. ALL of this can be deduced from the original post. Now explain it "with pears and apples", but it is only a matter of wanting to understand.

> @"radda.8920" said: For years I suggested mounts in forums, each time I was insulted and discredited with silly things ...now there are mounts and they work very well. If your argument is that the community does not allow growth: The community is going to swallow anything as long as it is good, even if before they only insulted and said it would not work.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: You are totally wrong: It is the same as they do in Fractals now (take an existing map, add new elements from other maps and increase the difficulty, both by AR and by stats). In fact, it is much cheaper to take existing maps and have enemies already created (under the excuse that it is a Fractal) than to create new maps, with new enemies and stories. It's like Obvious. P.D .: I can't even believe that your comment has a like, there you see people who want to tear down new ideas just because.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: If you talk about investment (and only from that point of view), then this is the best idea in the world: - Take what is already done and mix - Alter the filling of the maps, leaving the bases intact. - Have a lot of new "content", built on updating what has been recycled to a new series of mechanics, cheap to implement and program PS: To that you add skins, themes and accesses. Ready, for sale

> @"ugrakarma.9416" said: The episode may "be cheap", but the game system is what can be used (already being tested) to implement this mode ...do not mix things up (which, by the way, would not be a "new normal", but an alternative, such as PvP, MvM, Fractals, etc).

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: I did not understand the second thing you said, but regarding the first: It is adding a second version of the PvE maps, in a co-operative survival mode with AR, which basically only changes the rules to populate each instance, replacing the normal with much more difficult enemies and some new rules.

> @"Yggranya.5201" said: By the way, the intention of this is that if it is a challenge, that not everyone can achieve it on a daily basis (as with most events in the game) and that it is worth a new experience: Survival mode, co-operative, applying what was previously achieved in PvE and fractals (and, perhaps, not forced, improving the clan experience ...to a true clan war)

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: Perhaps it is even simpler: Use the same instances as now, **public and with a certain limit of players** , but change the rules for **filling in the maps** for those in "mega-fractal" mode . Basically, loading each map instance (where they exclusively find mega-fractal players, obviously) with **other** events, enemies and NPCs, keeping **the extra load charge to a minimum**. In that case, the biggest difference would be that the minimum number of instances of each map would be 2 and not 1 XD

> @"kharmin.7683" said: That would address it from 2 sides: 1) Increase the stats of the bosses, yes, but also take advantage of the fact that it is a "fractal" to abuse AR ... increases the difficulty requiring more resistance to agony the further they move away from Lion's Arc. 2) Take advantage that there is a range of bosses in the game and these mix or increase them. This already requires combat mechanics and team combinations, in this way, the difficulty varies depending on how the team is combined to face a difficulty (and events, if added). The idea is, exactly, to leave this point open, since it is **a whole new world** where to implement what already exists, but raising the base stats and the need for AR ..."imagination is the limit"

> @"ElijahFitzroy.5762" said: 1) That is why it is necessary that they be PvP ZONES and not the entire map. 2) PvP is an optional and extra, but aimed at finally materializing the GUILD wars, in a way that does not interfere with the rest. 3) Yes, it takes up more instance space, which would be minimal. No more than what each instance of the new game modes occupies. In addition, it is not a PvP + PvE, it is mainly a PvE of increased difficulty and in cooperative survival mode and with areas focused on clan warfare. 4) with you I could be "civilized". With the previous 2 who immediately commented on something negative and / or inventory things just to tear down the idea, I will not be "civilized". Thank you for your comment and indeed try to dialogue, do not seek to be negative

> @"Sobx.1758" said: And faced with a new mode (which, yes, it can come with its defects, but still they work and can work better) you choose to see the negative side ...even more, comment negative, at 10 seconds of the publication and without reading the rest, just for being negative. Yes, it is forcibly negative, and annoying ¬¬

> @"Sobx.1758" said: wow, 10 seconds to answer and forcefully ask negatively ¬¬ Yes, they work, at least "well"