Seera.5916
-
Posts
789 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Seera.5916
-
-
> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:
> > @"Julischka Bean.7491" said:
> > One question though. How do you know people are in complete silence at banks and such? They might be engaging in guild chat, or whispering to the person next to them.
>
> So i wrote this as a response to someone I'm currently messaging whom I'm having a more in depth discussion on the topic, so I'll just paraphrase what i said over there, over here -
>
> ----Unfortunately, these hidden interactions can't be realistically tested to any reliable accuracy. The assumption is that anything that could be considered outlier behavior (Extremely chatty guilds, to extremely dead guilds.../extremely chatty players in hidden channels, to extremely silent players in hidden channels) are treated as outliers, and thus the frequency of guild chats, whispers or other 3rd party communication services lay somewhere in between, which we would expect to be distributed as a bell curve with some average frequency.
>
> The reasoning behind just observing interactions we can see, and using that as data we could use, is that it should be representative of interactions as whole by a similar proportionality, which is again based on how we aren't treating interactions we can't measure as outliers, but instead as an average. This is the same tactic that's used in statistics, where for example, [we can measure measuring Gw2's total population by looking at the amount of gw2reddit subscribers](
), (based on the 80/20 rule). In other words, the people that use reddit or forums will be some proportion of the population. We are using this tactic but in reverse, taking the total population and using measurable interactions to determine proportionality of hidden interactions.>
> So in a general sense, the amount of interactions you can measure in chats you can actually observe, is assumed to be some proportion of all chats that you can't observe. So if there are 100 people in Lions Arch, and you have 10 Interactions per hour, than it implies that may also have on average 10 interactions per hour that you can't observe.
>
> Again, because you can't reliably measure these hidden interactions, you can't make a case for it because it could be anything, ranging from 0 to 100 to a thousand. It's unfalsifiable.
>
>
You can't have it both ways. You can't use unfalsifiable data to prove your hypothesis is correct if you're saying we can't use it to say that it's wrong.
Which means your entire hypothesis above is wrong because it uses unfalsifiable data. Or that's the only things you've been able to come up with.
You claimed only 2 meaningful conversations happened while you were in Lion's Arch. We refuted that just because you couldn't see them, doesn't mean more didn't happen. None of us claimed that they did happen. Just that the possibility exists that the meaningful conversations were had in places you couldn't see. And gave evidence to support the fact that it was likely. You brushed it off simply because it goes against your theory instead of actually taking a step back and realizing that maybe parts of your hypothesis are wrong. That you've miscalculated what percentage of conversations that you can see are of the total conversations had by players in game.
Example: It's reasonable to expect that Discord is where a large number of conversations happen. With Discord I can have a meaningful conversation about Guild Wars 2 with someone while I'm at work on my lunch break. I can chat with a friend I made in Guild Wars 2 without both of us being on at the same time and both wanting to spend game time chatting. I can chat with a group of people who are on different maps without needing to be in a party of squad in game. It's also safer for me to chat in Discord than using in game chat while actually playing the game. Private chats also give players a little more leeway with the rules. Two friends can rag on each other in private chat, but it might get reported by someone who means well if done in public chat.
We can estimate forum/reddit users to active players because there have been enough companies who have released active player data to base those calculations off of. I've yet to see any official data for number of public vs private chats and they would always be lower on private since they wouldn't be able to account for third party chat systems.
-
So you have access to the game's chat logs and can see whispers and guild chats or other chat systems which you may not be able to see?! You can't tell me exactly how many conversations are going on in a single map unless you're a moderator and you'd probably be bound by all kinds of contracts and NDA's to not reveal that information. Really drops your credibility down when you claim stuff like that, especially when you're getting on people for saying most or many. You can state we can't prove something and then use something you can't prove as evidence.
Your hypothesis is wrong. As I've seen more people say that without these conveniences in the game, they'd be less social than they are in game already. Meaning the conveniences increase their social interactions in game. I've yet to see a single person in this thread state that they would talk more if the conveniences are removed/reduced.
I know I'd be less likely to go help out someone who called out in map chat for help if it was going to take me more than a minute or two to get to them. I don't tend to play for extended periods of time anymore and I want to make progress towards my goals when I play. Without the closeness of waypoints, going to help someone might mean giving up on meaningful progress towards my goal. Which would reduce the chances of me going to help. The willingness of people to go help out would likely go down for similar reasons. That's not to say no one would go help, but maybe instead of 10 people, only 5 show up (numbers chosen at random for illustration purposes and not indicative of the reduction in willingness).
In a game with thousands of players, I'm sure there are hundreds who can go a few hours in game without socializing. 200 players out of 200,000 is 0.1%. 200 out of 2000 is 10%. Both 10% and 0.1% are relatively low percentages and therefore in the realm of possible. Accounting for non-public chats or conversations taking place outside of the game (discord, etc), I'd say it's fair to assume that there are likely hundreds of players appearing to be silent in game because we can't see/hear their conversations. Even in places such as Lion's Arch.
-
Ask if they can confirm the person is on your friend list. That at least narrows it down, but doesn't give the exact name of the person.
That way you at least won't be cold PM'ing people on your friends list without knowing it's one of them.
-
> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:
> > @"Seera.5916" said:
> >I've only seen actual proof that it would lessen the social experience if there were fewer waypoints and no mounts.
>
> And what proof would that be exactly?
>
> The way i "proved" (it's not actually proof btw, it's a hypothesis) that waypoints mounts, and other features take away social interaction is by explaining how taking away the time it takes from point A to point B eliminates interactions that could have occurred along the way. This is shown in a mockup network map that illustrates that behavior.
>
> The mockup network map i drew itself is just a terribly drawn approximation. if i had the drawing skills, the regions of interaction would look more like a river that forks out into capillaries, like these population and interaction density map...
>
> rather than a [contour map](https://support.goldensoftware.com/hc/article_attachments/360034201934/DualColorscale.jpg) where the path most people travel on from Point A to Point B would have the highest interaction density, forking off towards area's of interest like events, hearts etc, which would have less interaction density then the main pathways.
>
> > This game was designed so you spend more time actually doing the content and not waiting for others
>
> This has been said multiple times in the thread. I understand that is the point of the waypoints and the mounts etc... Having some waypoints in the game is actually perfectly okay, and i said as much in the OP. My point was that having TOO much convenience starts an amplification process...where the effects of having too much convenience compounds those densities into tighter and tighter regions...and the conclusion of that compounding would be that there would no longer be any reason for people to interact with other people...because why would they when everything can be done right now, by yourself, in an instant.
>
> I backcheck these hypothesis with in game observations...from what i observe in most cases, is that interaction is incredibly low, where population densities are very high (like Lions Arch) which is not normal...it's not normal for hundreds of people to be standing completly silent and completly still for hours without saying anything to anyone.
>
> Now, people have proposed many things to explain this, such as that "everyone is in discord" or "everyone is in guild chats" or some other reasoning to dismiss the fact that people aren't interacting in any medium other than those that are impossible to measure with any accuracy. That is not proof...it's unfalsifiable to say that people are using discord more than they are using public chats because one can't actually prove that to be the case.
>
> Edit: Also as a continuation of the above thought, is that there should be places that you would expect there to be a higher population density than what is actually present in the game. These are places like The Human Starter area for example, which, according to some statistics, is the most commonly picked race among new players. However, this location, although it does have slightly more people than other surrounding areas, is drastically lower than what one would expect it to be. You can actually compare this to other games where it actually matches with the expectation like WoW's Goldshire. The two places don't seem to be any different to each other in design, in fact both seem nearly exactly the same...with a tavern, a few houses, and an outdoor centralized square...except one of them is completely devoid of interaction and people, while the other is so crowded it's hard to understand why there is such a massive difference between these two, seemingly similar starter zones.
>
You haven't proved that the waypoints are the reason. Yet others have come up with other reasons and given proof.
When people have pointed out that removing the waypoints would cause them to be less social. Yet no one's come forth to say the opposite.
Or more, you haven't proven that the problem you're presenting is worse than the solution you're suggesting. When there's been multiple people posting that your suggestion would actually make the problem you're presenting worse.
No one's claiming more players are in Discord chat than game chat. Just that one reason for people not chatting while going from point a to point b is that many do use voice chat services. Because you can't say that it's not a safer way to communicate while playing with others than using an in game keyboard chat. And since those services are much more stable and easier to set up and many are free, a lot of communities have moved to using Discord. It wouldn't surprise me if this was a majority of players.
As for the starter map population, unlike in many games, players are free to go to whatever starter map they want to. They aren't forced to stay in their starter area for several levels. With the only exception being literal new players who haven't unlocked Lion's Arch and would have to traverse more dangerous maps to get there (not that it's not possible to do so).
It's totally possible for you to spend hours in a location in an MMO game in this day and age and not see any conversation made. Doesn't mean it isn't happening. Even in Lion's Arch or any other racial city. There are even a few of us who can go several hours without participating in a conversation, I'm one of them. I'm an introvert. Conversations drain me. It has to be a pretty good conversation going on for me to participate. I'll spend time just watching a conversation if it's interesting but not enough for me to join in.
-
Home instances: people advertise coming in and farming their home instances.
Which can lead to "Where did you get that node?" or "Where did you get that cat?" [The various home instance cats that you do various things for in the rest of the game].
The home instance nodes give you very few items per day. You'd have to farm other players' home instances or still farm the stuff yourself if you want to get any amount of the item. It's not harming the game. I should know, I have a few.
It sounds to me like you've never gotten a home instance node or farmed one.
Please actually research the items you're saying are ruining the game.
You failed to prove that waypoints and mounts reduce the social aspect of the game. So please stop claiming that it does. I've only seen actual proof that it would lessen the social experience if there were fewer waypoints and no mounts.
This game was designed so you spend more time actually doing the content and not waiting for others or from getting to point A to point B once you've already explored the area or gotten a mount. Yes, this means that more players stop playing sooner than in other games, but this game is designed such that players can take a break and come back when things get added to the game that they want to do.
-
Your WvW guild mates should be able to help as well. Who knows, maybe they're in a PVE oriented guild and can get you hooked up with some help.
Maybe get your WvW guild to do a once a month PvE goals day to help members with their goals that require groups in PvE. And maybe you could offer to run or organize it. When your out doing it, pop a commander tag and people are likely to come running because PvE players are conditioned to follow the tag.
-
Maybe ask to speak with a supervisor?
Don't know if they'll be able to do anything if the item did get sent to an actual player given the chances for scamming support to say an item gifted didn't reach the correct party.
-
> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:
> > @"mezuzel.4987" said:
> > Agreed. OP seems to be claiming that we'd be having more conversations while running to objectives.
> >But in my experience, if you're running to an objective, you're having to dodge and combat the mobs that are in the way. That's not conducive to typing out a >conversation at the same time.
>
> This isn't exactly what i said, so ill elaborate so you can understand what I'm saying more clearly. The point is that, because waypoints exist, the chance that you will engage in a meaningful interaction with another human being from point A to point B is 0% because you get from point A to Point B instantaneously. Any possible interaction you could have had along the way is thus not explored. In the case of mounts, the chance that you will engage with another human being is although not 0%, it is less than if you would have been walking, because mounts allows you to get from point A to point B faster, thus reducing the time in which interactable events could occur.
>
> The mobs and the combat is one of the reasons that players come together in the first place...and that depends on how well these mobs generate social interaction. If they are braindead easy (to the point where you don't actually need to engage with another person in order to defeat said mob) then why would there be an interaction? The amount of self-sufficiency becomes more and more amplified by these mechanics that i'm listing off...and the problem gets worse and worse to the point where a player can go from Point A to Point B to Point C without ever having an interaction with any other player.
>
> Aside from the above being a social issue, it's one you can't actually control because it's a construct. There might be a player out there who needs help with a mob...or might even just want to party with someone or just in general interact with another human being and not an NPC...but if no other players are around to help or interact with, then that player will, whether they wanted to or not, not be able to socially interact because nobody is around (since they are all taking way points and mounts to their own self sufficient objectives and goals.
>
> Anyway i was standing in LA for about an hour just now, and i had witnessed only 2 meaningful interactions (A player teleporting players to a JP, and those that took the Portal saying thank you, and this happened twice, for a total of 2 meaningful interactions). The majority of people standing in LA were completely still at vendors, hopping around on mounts or just standing around in the middle somewhere. I even hovered over multiple name plates to see if any of these players were in a group (perhaps engaging with others in party chats) and found only 1 of them was in a party.
>
> So I'm here in this thread trying to explain why there is so little interaction in this game because i observe it quiet clearly. It's not just LA where this is happening, but in a majority of places, some less severe than others. My post focuses on waypoints, but it's not just waypoints. Its a combination of many mechanics that are causing this "phenomenon."
How do you do know only 2 meaningful conversations took place?
Say doesn't cross the entire map.
People may have been whispering to each other.
People may have been in guild chat.
People may have had plenty of meaningful conversations earlier and were at a NPC reducing the items in their bags before either heading off to fill up their bags again or to hop off the game for some bed or work or other real life event.
Maybe they were at the bank digging for an item a friend they had met while doing RIBA earlier in the day had wanted and they were feeling generous. Maybe their friend had gifted them the last item they needed to make their first legendary and they were at the bank getting the final items out of the bank to stick in the Mystic Forge.
Also many players have moved to using services like Discord to chat while gaming. Because it's a lot easier and a lot safer to play an MMO and voice chat than it is to use an in game typed chat.
I don't disagree with your argument for your case. I just think that the cons of your solution are worse the cons of the current situation and that the pros of your solution aren't as good as the pros of the current situation.
No system is perfect, it's just choosing the one that's best. And at this point, they can't change the system to what you're suggesting. All you can do is try to work within it to make those meaningful conversations happen more frequently.
Whether that's you out in the maps trying to get people to band together to do a group event in some random map or making/joining a guild with the mindset of being social in game while actually playing or striking up conversations in Lion's Arch.
-
I don't see that the cons of the current system outweigh the cons of the system you wish was in place.
With fewer waypoints and/or no mounts a call for help at a world boss or bounty may not get enough people there because by the time they arrive the thing is either dead or timer done.
It means less time getting to what you want to do in game and to actually do it.
I'd be less inclined to find a safe spot to chat if I had longer distances to travel due to your system. Because the time I spend chatting is time whatever I want to do might happen or end.
-
If there is enough content to warrant it then yes.
Elite specs. Major WvW and PvP overhaul. New content for current maps that doesn't negatively affect non-80 players.
Fractal, dungeon, strikes, raid overhaul.
-
Think of the free transfer as a thank you to the play for free players for deciding to buy the game.
Also remember that server only matters if you want to play WvW or some chose NA servers and some chose EU servers.
-
> @"Meabeye.8304" said:
> > @"keenedge.9675" said:
> > > @"Seera.5916" said:
> > > > @"Meabeye.8304" said:
> > > > As for writing it down.. I drive a truck. so 2 weeks from now, when I finally get time to sit down and play, I can look to try to find the piece of paper I scribbled the new password down on. Or... You know, you could do just as I said... Post a warning, and if the fools get their account hacked then so be it.
> > > You could text it to yourself. You could save it as a phone contact. You could have a file on Google Drive with passwords to sites you use. There are a bunch of ways to store your password in such a way that you get access to it later on that would keep it secure.
> >
> > I put all of mine in a simple .txt file in the game folder. I've never lost it yet.
>
> Yeah, wonderful - if you even read my 2nd post, you would have noticed that I mentioned 2 computers....
>
> I dont want a way to remember a new password. I dont want to put yet another password into it with an authenticator. I want to use the password I WANT to use, even if I have used it before. PERIOD!
>
> As I said, this isnt the Pentagon. I dont need a super-secret 87 character encrypted password that God himself couldnt crack. I just dont care. There is nothing in this account that I care if I lose. Its a GAME. I JUST DONT CARE!!!
>
> Let me say that again for clarity. I DONT CARE, its just a GAME.
>
> It just isnt worth the hassle to keep coming up with new ones all the time. Its MY game. I bought it. Let ME decide HOW I WANT TO SECURE IT.!.!.!
>
> Once more, for effect:
>
> Let ME decide HOW I WANT TO SECURE IT.!.!.!
Unfortunately, there are enough who aren't as secure with their stuff that ANet has decided that if you have to change your password, you can't reuse it. The few ruining it for the many. It isn't going to change. Figure out how to deal with it.
-
> @"Blumpf.2518" said:
> Yesterday i watched a group doing Adina in a Stream. Boonthief, RenegadeHealAlac, Soulbeast, BS, 6x Dragonhunter.
> Speedkill setup with over 30k DPS for each damagedealer. They had 1 Pillarspawn each phase, so high was the DPS.
> Should have been an easy bosskill.
> But what happened? They wiped about 10 times with their speedkill setup before finally killing the boss and guess why?
> No Boon removal - Retaliation killed the dragonhunters within an instant.
> Low Heal - Damage to group could not be healed completely.
> Or people just walked into Adinas sandray attack. Their "skill" was only maxDPS based, but movement "skill" wasnt there.
>
> Switching a Dragonhunter for a 2nd healer, maybe a necro who does shields on 10 people and brings projectile blocking poison cloud and boon removal or a chrono who just keeps 3 swordclones on Adina that remove Boons and brings a focus for projectile reflect wouldve solved their problem. The DPS would still have been superhigh to still only have 1 Pillar per phase. But instead of first trying the boss with a safe setup they wasted so much time with their speedkill setup and had a lot of unneccessary wipes and that only because they chose DPS over more sustain.
>
> And thats what snowcrows is promoting, that DPS is better than everything else, which leads to situations like this.
And the players you mentioned failing at the raid is not SnowCrows fault in the slightest.
You could repeat the above with players on any combination of builds that can beat the content. If the players haven't fully learned the build yet, then obviously they're going to make mistakes that could lead to wipes.
If the players didn't understand what the raid needed and didn't choose a combination of builds that would be able to do it, it's not SnowCrows fault.
Based on what you described, they likely would have the same level of success on other builds.
-
> @"Meabeye.8304" said:
> Or, you know, you could do just as I said... Post a warning, and if the fools get their account hacked then so be it.
>
> As for writing it down.. I drive a truck. so 2 weeks from now, when I finally get time to sit down and play, I can look to try to find the piece of paper I scribbled the new password down on. Or... You know, you could do just as I said... Post a warning, and if the fools get their account hacked then so be it.
>
> Or is that just too kitten simple?
The more players who get their accounts hacked the longer support takes to handle all of the tickets they get because of the increased volume. I'm just fine with ANet doing logical steps like this to reduce their load. Because of the people who refuse to change their password after getting their account hacked.
You could text it to yourself. You could save it as a phone contact. You could have a file on Google Drive with passwords to sites you use. There are a bunch of ways to store your password in such a way that you get access to it later on that would keep it secure.
-
Unfortunately, due to the number of people who use the same password everywhere, ANet is very unlikely to do this.
It just invites people who just had their accounts stolen to go back to using the same password that lost them access to the account previously.
The many suffer for the few.
What you could do is if you've got an email that you know is secure and preferably not the one associated with your Guild Wars 2 account, in your contacts you could put just enough information to jog your memory about the password you use or the whole password if you feel like it.
The other option is as soon as you change your password on one computer, immediately log onto the other device and save the password.
-
> @"Blumpf.2518" said:
> Youre all talking about "efficiency" or "effective" as if it was the same for everyone, but you dont realize that this can mean very diffrent things depending on who you ask.
> For snowcrows an "efficient" build is a build that does more DPS than other builds and helps them kill the boss as fast as possible. If thats your goal, the build is "effective" cause it will reach that goal.
> Now if you have a lfg raid and play an "efficient" snowcrows build, but your goal is not a new speedkill record, or worse, youre not able to kill the boss while playing that build, this build is now not "effective".
>
> "Efficiency" and "Effective" very much depends on the intention what you want to achieve. The normal LFG raiders goal is to kill as many bosses as possible in the time theyre playing. A raidwipe costs a lot of time, especially a wipe if the boss has low hitpoints. Two wipes with a snowcrows build easily cost you 10 Minutes of Raidtime and will probably lead to people leaving the raid, so that you have to find new people, which costs time again. And then a DPS focussed build is neither efficient nor effective.
> By playing a safer or more group supporting build you couldve prevented the wipes which wouldve saved time and wouldve prevent people from leaving the raid.
> In this situation the 95% of max possible DPS build that has more group support is more efficient and more effective. Often all thats required for that is changing some traits or skills. The equipment can be the same.
>
> Therefore, for the normal raiders who only want to kill some bosses, the dps focussed snowcrows builds are not the most effective builds in achieving that. In fact they will often prevent that cause the raid is so squishy that a lot of unneccesary wipes will happen.
Conversely: the best defense is a good offense.
Higher DPS means a boss dies quicker. The quicker a boss dies, the less likely someone is to make a mistake that leads to a wipe.
Players should strive to do the most DPS possible for them. IE: a person with low reflexes (either age related or disability) will have to choose a build that's not dependent on super fast reflexes.
SnowCrows isn't harmful to raiding. They give a good starting point for people looking to do raids. They follow the "best defense is a good offense" approach and offer builds that focus on DPS.
People and ANet are the reason raids are dying. People have to actually want to learn for any build site (or any offered help) to be effective. This is a portion of the raiding community. These players who do not care to improve gradually reduce the number of veterans who PUG or are willing to critique builds and provide help unsolicited. Players who rudely tell someone to go watch a video and refuse to help in any other fashion hurt raids as this makes new players less likely to try to ask for help again - they may not learn the best through watching a video. It also puts off players who want to try out of fear that that's who they'll run into. ANet not putting out raiding content in a consistent manner hurts raiding. Players get tired of waiting for new raids and will only do the same raid over and over again for so long before they move on.
-
For this, it doesn't matter what we want.
ANet has mentioned many times that the work to do this is too prohibitive to make it worth it.
Each weight has different meshes and they don't line up at all if you mix and match.
And while some would be fine with weeding through for the combos that don't clip horrendously, I would imagine many would as this game is often referred to as Fashion Wars.
So just keep that in mind and keep expectations at an appropriate level.
-
You can convert gold into gems through the trading post.
-
> @"Blumpf.2518" said:
> What Seera.5916 basically said is: "If you want to learn how to drive a car, go to the formula 1 racing track first and learn how to drive that highspeed car that can get people killed. And once you are able to do that, slow down to the level that works for you and drive your Toyota at the speed that you want."
> Which is of course total bullkitten.
Here's the thing. In game raiding and formula 1 racing have 2 very different outcomes for catastrophic failure.
And your analogy isn't even logical to the situation either.
Driving itself is more aligned with the game as a whole. Formula 1 racing is more aligned with raiding.
So if you want to learn how to drive you start out small and with help. But formula 1 race learning assumes you've mastered basic driving.
And you also completely missed what I was saying.
I said learn the meta build and adjust for your play skill level (adjust to preferences according to what the rest of the group brings). So you read over and look at it and figure out how the traits and skills work together and why those skills and traits and rotation was made so that when you adjust it down to your skill level for actual play, that you give up as little as possible of the meta build. So that your rotation and build are as close as possible so that it's easier to retrain muscle memory and break the bad habits that can come out of safer builds.
-
> @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > > Such entitlement to expect others to teach you how to play the game.
> > > > > I think it's entitlement to defend terrible metas, people teaching them and then whine when no one plays the game mode. Gee whose fault is that?
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be beneficial to look up what entitlement actually means. Your usage of it in your post is incorrect.
> > >
> > > It's completely correct. You want the devs to use precious resources on something that isn't valued by the community. Because of the community's behavior. You're literally a 1-2% of the population being asked to be catered to.
> >
> > First off, what you just said doesn’t dispute the previous post. You still missed the term.
> >
> > With this post, you’re still misusing it as well. It’s not entitlement to expect Anet to maintain a part of the game, which they added, when they routine update other areas. Equality is not entitlement. Otherwise, by your definition, sPvP and WvW players must be entitled for wanting support in their game modes when the active player base in open world PvE dwarfs theirs.
>
> Except I bet you more players dabble in those than raids as a % of the population. They have limited resources. Expecting them to expend massive resources disportionate to the playerbase is the very definition of entitlement: you expect resources to be spent on YOU instead of other players, when it would benefit way more people than you. YOu see yourself entitled to anet's resources.
>
> I blame the player base more than the raids themselves for this downturn in activity.
Shouldn't take massive resources to maintain raids.
I expect MMO companies to maintain content that players can still access. Regardless of how popular or not it is. They should pull content they no longer wish to maintain.
Keep in mind that maintaining content is different from adding new content.
-
> @"Swagger.1459" said:
> @"Trevor Boyer.6524"
>
> "snowcrows need to list two different kinds of metas"...
>
> No, they don't need to do anything.
>
> "take the initiative"
>
> You peeps who want it can take your own initiative. Put in the effort to compile information and share it with the community, just like SC puts in the initiative and effort to provide their type of information.
This. I do get the difficulty in getting people to accept non-meta builds from a site that hasn't developed a reputation.
But you could be up with some builds for each class and then reach out to Snowcrows and ask them if they wouldn't mind verifying the build accomplishes what you claim and to post them on their site. I'm sure they have a contact method listed on the site.
-
> @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > @"Seera.5916" said:
> > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > @"Seera.5916" said:
> > > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > > > > Such entitlement to expect others to teach you how to play the game.
> > > > > > > I think it's entitlement to defend terrible metas, people teaching them and then whine when no one plays the game mode. Gee whose fault is that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No one is "teaching" the SC "meta". Most raiders, and by that I mean players who raid beyond those 1-2 initial raids where they got carried by benevolent experienced trainers, know what SC is as a resource.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The site itsself has extensive information one ca read up on, especially under the writen guides for each class and build. A vast majoroty of the builds aren't even meta, just good builds to run. As such they are already providing a vast amount of information and guides which are off meta and safer. There is an entire ranking of how difficult a build is and how well it performs on specific bosses. That's not something needed for top tier players.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The complaint here is not that SC is providing only meta builds and should provide "safer" builds, given how they already provid substantial non meta builds and go out of their way to explain how to play them. The argument in this thread is literally: the SC builds are not safe enough for some players. Well how safe is safe enough? You could make a setup which is nearly unkillable, the famous multi scourge raid setup for example, and there would still be players for whom this would be not safe enough. **The issue with "safety" is that it's completely subjective and dependant on a players skill. That's something each and every player has to figure out for themselves (or within their squad).**
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem here is the complaint put forth targets an issue of ability, lack of reading comprehension, lack of desire to understand, lack of desire to improve, etc. In short: human ignorance and lazyness. Instead of putting the blame with the individual though, it is put with the group who try to provide information and share their findings/knowledge. The self pity and entitlement is off the charts with this line of thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure the 98% of players who just don't bother with raids are stupid, entitled idiots. Super healthy opinion to have of the community. Honestly the community will give you flack for trying something different even in Strike missions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you point me to the link in snow crows for the nigh unkillable scourge comp?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also i can personally attest to people bending over backwards to match meta while having a few good trainers who make safer comps and we actually pass the boss. SH being my most famous experience with this. Also people give me flack for running 3 heals in WoJ runs. We have like 80-90% 1-shot pug rates with that. I mean you can blame the community all you want for being idiots but i think snow crows doesn't put enough emphasis on changing strategy to actually clear.
> > > >
> > > > But those players who were just handed those safer comps were hurt unless the trainers took time to make sure they understood the reasons why they chose certain traits and skills over others.
> > > >
> > > > Snowcrows aren't aiming at just clearing. They're aiming at the meta. The meta will more than just clear content.
> > > >
> > > > And no one is saying that a majority of players don't want to learn. Just that bad PUG's tend to have these players in them. Because to me, even if a group doesn't clear the content before the group disbands, if improvements were made, then that's a win. The next group they get into they'll be able to take that improvement and improve further and maybe clear it the next time. And no amount of giving them builds or spending time with them is going to change them. They have to change for themselves.
> > > >
> > > > **Your getting on a site who has no part of this problem. You think giving out fault tolerant builds will help but it's just a crutch and many will rely on that crutch too much and be more harmed than helped by it**. They won't strive to improve to not needing the fault tolerant build. Key word being strive, some people may just not be able to improve enough given their own limitations at a specific time.
> > > >
> > > > Players should learn the meta and then back it down to just the level that works for them. Not start at the most tolerant and work towards meta. That's just a recipe for bad habits being learned.
> > >
> > > I disagree. There's nothing wrong with telling Chronos not to use CS on SH and/or taking extra alac with a ren. It's just plain sense when you have so many instant death mechanics running around that you want one less thing to have to manage before you react to it. This, arrogant elitism you just displayed is exactly the problem.
> > >
> > > "Let's make this as hard as we possibly can and then treat people like idiots if they don't want to do that".
> > > and
> > > "Let's waste hours of our time learning it"
> >
> > Again you are MISSING THE POINT.
> >
> > Telling someone to do X doesn't help them.
> >
> > Reminds me of a saying that I'm paraphrasing: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life.
> >
> > You're suggesting we just give people fish.
> >
> > I'm saying we teach people the meta: even if it's just verbal or read off of a site. Here's the meta, here's why. If people know the whys, they can adjust the build to their current skill level. You can go: "It's meta for elementalists to use the conjured weapons because they have the highest DPS skills, but you can swap to X if you don't like the conjured weapons. You'll just need to make sure your group can provide X if the boss manages to go into Y phase due to the drop in DPS."
> >
> > And no where did I say the first. I never once stated that anyone was an idiot if they didn't want to do something.
> >
> > And since when is time wasted if you're learning something? I'd rather spend 3 hours failing something and learning why than succeed on something the first try. Because we actually learn more from failing than succeeding. If we want to.
>
> I'm not claiming that it's wasted time. I'm claiming not adjusting strategy when it makes sense is. Your wording implies that it's cutting other people off from an opportunity. You're also claiming it's handing out freebies, nothing about raiding in this game is a freebie. You can still fail SH on a more fault tolerant strategy. You're totally taking me and the OP the wrong way. Raiding in this game is hard. With or without a strategy because of the mechanics. The idiot thing is implicit: you're basically assuming people who don't want to do things the hard way are bad or stupid.
>
> >
> > It's just too many people are focused on the rewards and not actually learning. And part of that is on ANet for not doing a better job at getting players to learn basic mechanics like CC and combo fields.
> >
> > And by the way: I've never raided (hence the lack of a proper example above). I fall into the group of people who doesn't feel like learning their class well enough. No amount of fault tolerant builds are going to change that or make me clear something easier. Fault tolerant builds sacrifice DPS for survivability. You trade extra time due to wipes to extra time due to DPS. When the former can be reduced through learning, but the former can't be reduced because max DPS of a build is max DPS of a build.
>
> If you never raided then why are you arguing with people who have about something you don't understand.
I perfectly understand what you and the OP are claiming. That it's Snowcrows fault at why people aren't successful at raiding.
The thing is, just giving people a safer build handicaps them more than it helps them in the long run.
If they don't understand the meta and why the meta is what it is and what difference their build has from the meta, then they'll be in trouble when they get to their next group on that build. They won't know to tell them that they've sacrificed X skill for survivability. Then that new group doesn't know that they need to make sure they account for the loss of what that skill would have brought to the table. And what the skill the player does have brings to the table.
This doesn't mean having the player play the meta build. Just learn it and understand it. So that they know why their build doesn't meet meta. So that they can tell groups they join about what they don't bring to table and what they do compared to the meta. So that the other players can adjust accordingly.
Which again goes back to the player wanting to learn being the key point. You can go over a meta build or a safe build, but if a player doesn't want to learn it then you might as well have let them randomly choose their traits and skills. Because going up against a training dummy is one thing, but start applying that to an actual boss that does mechanics and rotations get thrown off even for players who are skilled. Its just the skilled players know better when and how to adjust their rotation to account for the mechanics to get back to the max DPS rotation as quickly as possible. And it takes some desire to get past the initial while it takes to get the muscle memory for the new build and learn a boss and the mechanics.
I don't need to raid to know that Snowcrows isn't destroying raiding by not offering safer builds.
I'm very literal. If I don't say it explicitly, I probably don't mean it that way. I say what I mean. I'm definitely not saying or even implying that if someone doesn't want to play meta that they're an idiot. Or I'd be calling myself an idiot. I main ele and hate conjured weapons. My current build doesn't have a conjured weapon on it.
-
Party members are able to help in a limited way for the second part of that mission.
There are two main strategies for Eater of Souls:
1. Break his bar right before he does his attack. This will finish the fight the quickest as you're able to wail on him big time while he's stunned from the bar break.
2. Run like crazy away from him when he does his attack. He's very predictable so you could easily just watch a few times to see what it looks like before the big attack comes. Ranged weapons work best here as you can stay further way from him.
There's a third strategy of trying to trick the AI into getting him stuck somewhere he can't reach you that easily and going at him, but it can be tricky to get him into a spot like that.
Anything in your inventory directly you can access via the hero panel, so while you might not be able to repair, you should be able to swap gear sets or switch to a new armor should your armor start breaking.
If you're not good at bar breaking and just want to be done with the story instance, I'd go for strategy 2.
-
> @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > @"Seera.5916" said:
> > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said:
> > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > > Such entitlement to expect others to teach you how to play the game.
> > > > > I think it's entitlement to defend terrible metas, people teaching them and then whine when no one plays the game mode. Gee whose fault is that?
> > > >
> > > > No one is "teaching" the SC "meta". Most raiders, and by that I mean players who raid beyond those 1-2 initial raids where they got carried by benevolent experienced trainers, know what SC is as a resource.
> > > >
> > > > The site itsself has extensive information one ca read up on, especially under the writen guides for each class and build. A vast majoroty of the builds aren't even meta, just good builds to run. As such they are already providing a vast amount of information and guides which are off meta and safer. There is an entire ranking of how difficult a build is and how well it performs on specific bosses. That's not something needed for top tier players.
> > > >
> > > > The complaint here is not that SC is providing only meta builds and should provide "safer" builds, given how they already provid substantial non meta builds and go out of their way to explain how to play them. The argument in this thread is literally: the SC builds are not safe enough for some players. Well how safe is safe enough? You could make a setup which is nearly unkillable, the famous multi scourge raid setup for example, and there would still be players for whom this would be not safe enough. **The issue with "safety" is that it's completely subjective and dependant on a players skill. That's something each and every player has to figure out for themselves (or within their squad).**
> > > >
> > > > The problem here is the complaint put forth targets an issue of ability, lack of reading comprehension, lack of desire to understand, lack of desire to improve, etc. In short: human ignorance and lazyness. Instead of putting the blame with the individual though, it is put with the group who try to provide information and share their findings/knowledge. The self pity and entitlement is off the charts with this line of thinking.
> > >
> > > Sure the 98% of players who just don't bother with raids are stupid, entitled idiots. Super healthy opinion to have of the community. Honestly the community will give you flack for trying something different even in Strike missions.
> > >
> > > Can you point me to the link in snow crows for the nigh unkillable scourge comp?
> > >
> > > Also i can personally attest to people bending over backwards to match meta while having a few good trainers who make safer comps and we actually pass the boss. SH being my most famous experience with this. Also people give me flack for running 3 heals in WoJ runs. We have like 80-90% 1-shot pug rates with that. I mean you can blame the community all you want for being idiots but i think snow crows doesn't put enough emphasis on changing strategy to actually clear.
> >
> > But those players who were just handed those safer comps were hurt unless the trainers took time to make sure they understood the reasons why they chose certain traits and skills over others.
> >
> > Snowcrows aren't aiming at just clearing. They're aiming at the meta. The meta will more than just clear content.
> >
> > And no one is saying that a majority of players don't want to learn. Just that bad PUG's tend to have these players in them. Because to me, even if a group doesn't clear the content before the group disbands, if improvements were made, then that's a win. The next group they get into they'll be able to take that improvement and improve further and maybe clear it the next time. And no amount of giving them builds or spending time with them is going to change them. They have to change for themselves.
> >
> > **Your getting on a site who has no part of this problem. You think giving out fault tolerant builds will help but it's just a crutch and many will rely on that crutch too much and be more harmed than helped by it**. They won't strive to improve to not needing the fault tolerant build. Key word being strive, some people may just not be able to improve enough given their own limitations at a specific time.
> >
> > Players should learn the meta and then back it down to just the level that works for them. Not start at the most tolerant and work towards meta. That's just a recipe for bad habits being learned.
>
> I disagree. There's nothing wrong with telling Chronos not to use CS on SH and/or taking extra alac with a ren. It's just plain sense when you have so many instant death mechanics running around that you want one less thing to have to manage before you react to it. This, arrogant elitism you just displayed is exactly the problem.
>
> "Let's make this as hard as we possibly can and then treat people like idiots if they don't want to do that".
> and
> "Let's waste hours of our time learning it"
Again you are MISSING THE POINT.
Telling someone to do X doesn't help them.
Reminds me of a saying that I'm paraphrasing: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life.
You're suggesting we just give people fish.
I'm saying we teach people the meta: even if it's just verbal or read off of a site. Here's the meta, here's why. If people know the whys, they can adjust the build to their current skill level. You can go: "It's meta for elementalists to use the conjured weapons because they have the highest DPS skills, but you can swap to X if you don't like the conjured weapons. You'll just need to make sure your group can provide X if the boss manages to go into Y phase due to the drop in DPS."
And no where did I say the first. I never once stated that anyone was an idiot if they didn't want to do something.
And since when is time wasted if you're learning something? I'd rather spend 3 hours failing something and learning why than succeed on something the first try. Because we actually learn more from failing than succeeding. If we want to.
It's just too many people are focused on the rewards and not actually learning. And part of that is on ANet for not doing a better job at getting players to learn basic mechanics like CC and combo fields.
And by the way: I've never raided (hence the lack of a proper example above). I fall into the group of people who doesn't feel like learning their class well enough. No amount of fault tolerant builds are going to change that or make me clear something easier. Fault tolerant builds sacrifice DPS for survivability. You trade extra time due to wipes to extra time due to DPS. When the former can be reduced through learning, but the former can't be reduced because max DPS of a build is max DPS of a build.
I haven't raided because I don't want to be that one player that drags down the group because I can't get my act together and learn my class. So I'm looking at this from the aspect of the people you think Snowcrows is causing a problem for. When I know full well what my problem is: it's not the lack of builds that fit my skill level, it's my lack of desire to learn my class.
Constructs and Mechanics that lead to the Death of the Game.
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:
> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > Specifically, when you make a theory based on observed data, that theory applies only to the part you can observe - you can't automatically assume it will hold true when you include the parts you couldn't observe. You'd need to make a reasonable explanation why the unobserved data would not impact you results first - and you didn't do that. You claimed that this unobserved data is irrelevant, _without_ explaining why it is so. That's highly unscientific.
>
> Ehh...i think you need to go back and understand how scientific method works. Sorry not trying to be rude. Firstly, you never hold ANYTHING in a science to be 100% true ever because there will always be a margin of error in experiments (Experiments are done via orders of accuracy, where the only way of getting 100% accuracy is by doing an experiment an infinite number of times) .
>
> Secondly, you do not need to explain away things you can not measure. In science you don't explain away the theory of the bearded man in the sky everytime we talk about protons and neutrons. The theories are based on what you can measure...and that's as far as the theory will go to address a phenomenon Things you can not measure in theory or in practicality is what's called unfalsifiable...and can't be USED to prove or disprove a theory...its inconclusive information. This is not my words here...this is something you go on to google and nod your head and accept that this is the reality of scientific approach.
>
> >
> > > No it's not reasonable. Again you can't measure it to within any accuracy.
> > Actually, no. Discord does exist, and conversations do happen there. That's a fact, not a belief. Sure, you can't measure them easily (which, by the way, doesn't mean you _can't_ measure them - it just means _you_, personally, don't have easy access to the right tools for that), but they _do_ exist, and you can't simply ignore them. At least not when you're talking about social interactions.
> >
> > > > We can estimate forum/reddit users to active players because there have been enough companies who have released active player data to base those calculations off of. I've yet to see any official data for number of public vs private chats and they would always be lower on private since they wouldn't be able to account for third party chat systems.
> >
> > > You can actually figure out the proportionality by averaging out how often you see say chats in proportion to map chats, in proportion to guild chats in proportion to whisper chats etc.
> > You could do that, if you had access to that kind of data - but you _don't_ have that for anyone that is not yourself.
> >
> > Those proportions will be different for each player, though - you can't "average" that data based only on your personal experience. Well, you can, but it will apply only to you, it won't be something you could extrapolate on the entire playerbase.
> >
> Not exactly true. Because you can go looking at a streamer's chat logs can give you data to reference. But, in general the only person you have to make a reliable measurement is yourself, ...one can think of clever ways to get non-bias data , and or you of course can collaborate with others to get that number, which realistically you can do. (Send picture of your chat box, send over for analysis. Done.) Since you're only finding a universal proportionality, you don't have to interview complete strangers, you can go about and ask your friends for snaps.
>
> Anyway, the scientific methods on measurement are very precise and clear for a reason. Reliable measurement means you are supposed to do an experiment over and over again, and what this does is confirm accuracy of the measurement. You can take data that is just yourself, but you have to include a margin of error due to the fact that it's just one experiment and not 5 sigma's of experiments. Here in gw2 we don't need 5 sigma's of accuracy to talk about a forum post...you just include margins of error based on how rigorous the experiment was.
>
>
>
>
There you go again stating that unfalsifiable data can't be used to prove or disprove something, yet you've constantly used it your attempts to prove your theory.
You can't determine the ratio of hidden conversations to ones you can see because there are not tools for that and you wouldn't get a large enough sample size from friends where you could be sure you could reliably eliminate duplicate chat snaps. Not to mention friends wouldn't be random enough to make sure enough different play styles were captured in order to get the widest chat types.
Therefore any argument that hinges on using the 1:1 ratio you claimed is derived from unfalsifiable data and therefore based on your own words unusable to prove your hypothesis. Especially when there's good reason to suspect that there are more hidden conversations than ones you can see.