Astralporing.1957

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"lokh.2695" said: > > I understand that more is more and more is always better. So why stop at 10? Make it 15 or 20. Then after a while, when 20 are no longer enough, raise it to 40 or 100 or a fantastillon templates. > > > > Would more slots be better for the few who need them? Yes. Will any number be enough for that portion of the playerbase? Probably not. > > You’re right in that Anet has to set some form of a limit. Actually. no, they don't have to. They could have used a method that would not have such a limitation (like, for example, for gear loadouts offer an option of using gear from inventory, or, in case of build templates, let them be stored clientside, gw1 way). All the limits in this system are merely a byproduct of Anet's desire to monetize it at the cost to its usefulness.

> @"Ailuro.2780" said: > > And even being delivered on a platter is no guarantee that players will learn anything - because the complexity of the information matters a lot. > > > As you can probably see, i don't really believe introducing more training opportunities would improve things significantly. Personally, i think that it's not the lack of training opportunities, but rather the complexity of the system itself (coupled with next to no ways to bypass the learning part) that cause a problem here. > > I would like to hear your views on why you believe the complexity of the system is too great. Personally, I agree that to some extent, some parts of the system is indeed complex however I do believe some parts that are left untouched are very very simple to learn. For example, the ideal combo, and why. Every core build has a basic combo, and a "better" combo. Every build (core or espec) has a proper rotation. Not every build has a simplified rotation however, unless you include autoattacking in this (which is a huge stretch). Some of those rotations are simple, some are anything but, and some _seem_ simple, until you actually try to execute them. Notice, also, that each rotation is very build-specific. Sometimes even a small variation within the same general build can impact rotation to a significant degree. And since builds are anything but static, and are something that changes from one balance patch to the next, the same becomes true of rotations. And all that is when someone _else_ is doing the hard part for you (finding out what the rotation should be). If you have to do it on your own, it becomes a very complex problem. Sure, the basis of each rotation may seem extremely simple (chain skills in a way that you can use the best damage skills as soon as they go off cooldown, fill the gaps with secon-tier damage skills, fill the gaps in those with autoattacking), but that in itself is not really as easy as it seems. And once you add to that the next part (line up damage buffs from traits/skills so you can get as much dps as possible covered by those buffs), it suddenly turns in a problem very few players can solve on their own. Frankly, even many players that use the "meta" builds and rotations don't fully understand all the intricaties that had to be considered to make that build a success. Often, they just understand some high points, but miss a lot of less immediately visible interactions. So, how can players that do _not_ follow third-party sites get all that? Notice, that the game can't really help players to skip that step - only other players can do so. Why? Because, as i mentioned, the "proper" rotations are build-specific, and builds are a subject to change. There's no way game can keep up with all that, unless devs decide to completely freeze class balance - which means no new balance passes, or any other additions to balance (like new especs) ever. And somehow i don't think players would like that. The whole build system is built in such a way that it is not easy to fully comprehend it and get maximum use of it. It is a system many players can use, but only few can master. This is completely intentional, btw. If Anet intended everyone to get to the same level of mastery over this system, they would not have bothered to make it so complex, but would have went with something much simpler. If they went with a system with much smaller variance between bad and good builds (and amount of choices was much smaller compared to what we have now), it would have made the work of balance team so much easier. And it's not like they didn't know that - they already had enough experience with this from GW1. And yet they decided to go with what we have now. So, we're stuck with a freeform build system that makes it extremely easy to kitten your build in hundreds of ways, and makes making full use of it a challenge only a limited number of players can master. And not only (intentionally) does not teach you how to master the system, but, in fact, is created in such a way that makes teaching you that next to impossible. And all of it is by design. By now, changing that would require tearing down the whole system and building up something new in its place. Which is not very likely to happen. Edit: > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Ailuro.2780" said: > > Another common issue with new players who reach level 80 is they don't understand what an ideal rotation is. > > That's not a problem at all. Precisely. It's not a bug. It's a _feature_ of this system. It is **completely intentional**.

The whole game is the endgame.

> @"Infusion.7149" said: > Any equipment templates above 6 are probably only used by WVW players anyway. Most PVE players are very unlikely to run more than three or four equipment templates because you have berserker's (+ assassin's to reach crit cap) , viper's, and harrier (or diviner) for most classes other than chrono. Before the current buil "template" implementation killed Arc templates, there were people doing raids that had over 30 build templates on a single character. Sure, many of those were just slight variations of each other, but if we're to talk about a proper template system, why artificially limit its usefulness? There's no point in template system even being there if in the end we have to tweak those loadouts by hand every time anyway.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > Humans: Brains As a rare drop, i guess?

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Zoid.2568" said: > > Like it works in WoW but instead of your character the whole guild is at war and you gain bonus xp, gold and karma while its active. > > > @"Zoid.2568" said: > > Open world pvp is optional though. You need to be in war mode. > > How do these two work together? If the guild is in war mode and I don't want to be in war mode, it's no longer optional. I guess you being in that guild would be considered optional. Still doesn't make it any better of an idea.

> @"Hesione.9412" said: > Given that I still haven't got the achievement https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Shatterer_(achievements)#No-fly_Zone I'm not sure that players understand breaking the defiance bar is needed. That one is problematic, because the breakbar is tuned so high it's practically impossible to break with using class cc skills alone. You need to have a significant number of players using the bomb skill from gliding in order to be able to deal enough breakbar damage (when i say significant number, i mean somewhere between 25 to 50% of all players, depending of how efficient the glider attacks would be - see further on that). Another problem is that the timing is so tight, you need to be either at the launchpad or already in the air when the breakbar appears in order to be in time. If you start running to launchpad when you see the first sign of breakbar phase starting, you will be too late. Which requires people checking the timer. Which, again, gets compolicated, because timer is not constant - it gets affected by the length of each healing crystal spawn phase (basically, the internal, invisible timer for breakbar phases stops when crystals appear, and starts again only once they all get destroyed, which takes a variable amount of time). That's why it's next to impossible to see the breakbar broken ina normal, pug attempt. You generally only see that when there's enough discord-coordinated players involved to take care of that part of mechanic.

> @"Ayakaru.6583" said: > They should remove all underwater traits from the main lines. Make it a separate trait line for uw traits. > > Remove all skills from underwater (yes, i know that's a big shock), and create 2 uw healing skills, 3-6 class skills, and 2 elite skills. They can use pre-existing skills as a foundation, but the point is that from the ground up they're designed with underwater synergy in mind. > > Then; _add an underwater exclusive legend to the revenant_ That's a bad idea. First, remember that you don;t have a dedicated underwater traitline setup currently - you use the build you have selected for land. Moving underwater traits from main lines to separate one would have the consequence of noone ever using those underwater traits at all, and all builds ending up broken underwater. Even if you assumed that a separate trait setup would be introduced for underwater, to work alongside already existing separate skill setup, your suggestion would still not help. You'd simply end up with every class having one or at best two working underwater builds. Builds that would not necessarily represent builds that would be available for that class on land. You don't want a situation where i.e. healing druid, when going underwater, gets changed into either a power dps build (built around spear) or a condi one (built around a speargun)... while still wearing harriers. And, also going back to this underwater revenant exclusive legend - what build would that one have synergy with? Condi? Power? Support? Heal? I'd say it should be the opposite - we should aim for the current traitlines to be equally useful both on land and underwater with no need to change traits inbetween.

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > So you want them to add HUNDREDS of new skills? I'd rather they start with the utilities that can't be used, give it more of its own identity, and THEN think about more weapons. > > Well, obviously currently disabled utilities would need to be made useable as well. But if you want to compare things like that, then - sure, fixing utilities is probably easier and requires less work. It also has far less impact and is unlikely to change the current situation in any significant way. Compared to stuff like weapons it is a minor issue. > > > > Regardless, the fact of the matter is that if every weapon was available underwater and worked the same way then it would not do anything to giver underwater combat its own identity. It was not me talking about allowing all the weapons uderwater. I was just talking about the current underwater weapon setup not being enough. We need enough good weapons to cover all main overland roles the classes can have. They can be different weapons (or the same weapons, but with different skill sets - which, btw, would allow for things like land spears), but they need to offer an equivalent amount of choices and synergies to overland weapons, so there's no problem with build synergy when transitioning from land to underwater (or in the other direction). >That is not the way to improving it. If they WERE to add every weapon then they would need to function differently. As i said, that's okay for me. > Also, not everyone dislikes it either. Never said that. Still, not many people actively _like_ underwater content at this point. Most i guess are ambivalent, and simply do not care about it - they don't actively dislike it, but they still generally avoid it because there's nothing in there they _would_ care about. Which is one of the reasons why Anet abandoned the content. > As it currently stands, it's a different experience from land. That should not be lost. But improved. Agreed.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > Except if any of this was a barrier to playing the game, how do you explain the millions of people that have managed to successfully learn and play this game over the last 8 years? > > I hope you realize that this is a very bad argument. > > At SOME POINT, those accounts had active players ... and without the information the OP says should be in game to learn it ... so no, I don't think that's as bad an argument as you think. Considering you don't know how many of those players ever learned anything, how long they played, and why they stopped playing, yes, it **is** a bad argument. Because i could as easily twist it around and ask "How do you explain the millions of people that **tried** to successfully learn and play this game over the last 8 years, but ultimately gave up on it and quit?". > You know what IS a bad argument? The argument that says people don't know the game because the information isn't being crammed in their faces every level with numerous tutorials _in game_. Sure. The people don't know the game, because we can actually _see_ they don't know the game. We don't really have any idea _why_ they don't know it however. Game not doing a good job at teaching players stuff might be a cause, sure, but so might be too big a complexity of the stuff to learn. Or several other things. > The reason people don't know is NOT because the information isn't available to them. It's because they can't be bothered to learn it. That's one of the possibilities, sure. Some don't have access to the information, because it is not available _in the places they are looking for it - in the game itself_. Some don't understand the information in the form that is available for them. Some do understand the information, but can't turn that understanding into any practical result (i.e. may not be skilled enough). Some can't be bothered to learn. > >And yes, there _is_ a problem. If we get back to how many people have "succesfully learned and played this game", i need to remind you of the efficiency gap between the **average** player and a top one (10x dps) > > Do not assume the gap is solely due to lack of knowledge how to play. I don't assume that, but that _does_ play a large part. You keep forgetting that most of players truly use only informations they can access from the game itself. Many don't even know that some of the third-party sites (like snowcrows) exist - sites you might consider to be common knowledge. In fact, the reason for why quite a lot of players would not try looking for info about stuff like that outside the game is not because they're too lazy to do that, but because _it would just not even cross their mind_. > If anything, that gap exists because the game allows it for success. Your average player isn't looking to break any records if they can still win walking the track instead of running as fast as they can. Considering the typical reaction of those players when confronted with a type of content where their level of knowledge turns out to be unsatisfactory, i'd say that expecting players to get better because the game would demand it from them is naive. Those players that can learn, learn it regardless of whether it is required. Those that (for some reason) can't/don't learn will not change either just because it is suddenly required - and if forced to, they would just stop playing. Sure, that would make the gap smaller, but not by improving the skills of individual players, but by flat out removing the weaker ones.

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > So you want them to add HUNDREDS of new skills? I'd rather they start with the utilities that can't be used, give it more of its own identity, and THEN think about more weapons. Well, obviously currently disabled utilities would need to be made useable as well. But if you want to compare things like that, then - sure, fixing utilities is probably easier and requires less work. It also has far less impact and is unlikely to change the current situation in any significant way. Compared to stuff like weapons it is a minor issue.

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > What you are suggesting would kill the identity of underwater combat. Big NO on that. If the pain point is that you can't just ignore weapons made spcifically for nautical use in favor of using the same two weapons always then I would say that is the real problem - not the game, YOU. No, that actually is one of the huge issues with underwater combat now. Basically, only an extremely limited number of builds have any synergy with underwater weapons - and even less with good synergy with underwater and overland weapon set _at the same time) (remember, that while your skills change when you go underwater, your build and gear - barring weapons - doesn't). That means, if you want to create a character that can move between land and underwater, your choices will be heavily limited (i.e. good luck playing heal druid underwater that spear and harpoon gun will be soo useful for that build... not). Remember, that builds are heavily tied to weapons used - and so far we have only 3 underwater weapons, of which any class can use at most 2 - with some classes like ele having no choice whatsoever. Also, notice that often you can't really use both weapons you have access to with your build, because both often cover completely different styles (power and condi, melee and ranged). Or, sometimes, are something even worse - a hybrid weapon that is not good at anything. Significant lack of weapon choices for underwater combat is one of the things that definitely need to be addressed if we'd ever think about transitioning underwater content from beta testing stage to a fully finished product.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > Except if any of this was a barrier to playing the game, how do you explain the millions of people that have managed to successfully learn and play this game over the last 8 years? I hope you realize that this is a very bad argument. Sure, this game has over 10 million accounts. Most of those accounts _aren't active anymore_ though. How many of those players "succesfully learned and played this game"? How many of them stopped playing because they _didn't_ succesfully learn this game? Who knows. I would not be surprised if the answer was not to your liking, though. > Oh right, they read 'the manual' ... or even more shockingly ... ASK people how to do it. What a novel concept for an MMO. Actually, yes, yes it is. If you haven't noticed, most players in MMORPGs do _not_ learn well things that need to be researched (be it inside or outside the game) instead of being an info delivered to them on a platter. And even being delivered on a platter is no guarantee that players will learn anything - because the complexity of the information matters a lot. Most MMORPGs deal with it by allowing their players to at least partially outgear their lack of knowledge (and, often, simplifying the stuff that need to be learned as much as possible). GW2 does not offer such an opportunity however. Which is quite bad, seeing as a lot of the info about the combat/build system is significantly more complex compared to many other MMORPGs. As you can probably see, i don't really believe introducing more training opportunities would improve things significantly. Personally, i think that it's not the lack of training opportunities, but rather the complexity of the system itself (coupled with next to no ways to bypass the learning part) that cause a problem here. And yes, there _is_ a problem. If we get back to how many people have "succesfully learned and played this game", i need to remind you of the efficiency gap between the **average** player and a top one (10x dps). This should tell you something about how "succesfully" said average players have learned things here. I'd say that it's quite clear that the current approach of letting players learn on their own, when applied to the combat and build systems, contrary to your optimistic opinion, is _not_ working all that well.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > Nobody wants to fix/tweak older stuff because it is a drudge work. > > > > > > Or because it's not as important as other things. > > Dungeons were not important. Duly noted. > > > > Honestly, I think dungeons were not important because for some reason, Anet coupled them to a specific part of the leveling storyline. I mean, your point is that dungeons don't work or something? What 'tweak' do you think they need that's so important that it gets done over other things? You seem to forget that they abandoned dungeons specifically because _they didn't want to fix all the bugs they were riddled with_. Nor were they wiling to rewrite their code to something that would make further work on them easier. But i will give you another example: _underwater combat_.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > Nobody wants to fix/tweak older stuff because it is a drudge work. > > Or because it's not as important as other things. Dungeons were not important. Duly noted.

Encounters like Largos that are designed in such a way that they heavily promote a relatively narrow group composition are **not** a good thing.

...what upcoming raid? Did i miss some reveal hidden away somewhere in a corner of the internet?

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > These "insignificant things" are part of what's called polish. Something I see come up a lot lately. > > So in your opinion, lack of polish indicates not caring? That's rather sensational considering there are more important things to deal with wouldn't you agree? That's a general problem with this game. Apparently, there are _always_ "more important" and more recent things to deal with instead of polishing old content. Which is why the game is covered with carcasses of abandoned content and mechanics. Nobody wants to fix/tweak older stuff because it is a drudge work. It's far more glamorous to work on new things, and keep throwing stuff at the wall hoping this time it will stick. In the end, that "we have more important stuff to do" approach is hurting the game longterm.

> @"Nightcore.5621" said: > > @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > Open world stuff - maybe, but there's also dungeons that are not as easy and some events and areas can still catch new players unaware. Depends on where they're leveling. > > There's lots of different maps to explore, if one is too easy like, if you're leveling in Kryta and you find it easy, go to Ascalon and level there. You're not married to your starting region. You also don't need to level at current/lower level, you can go do maps that are above your level. > > All dungens can be done alone lol most paths can be done in 6 min or så Not by most players though. In this game, there's an absolutely massive gap between average and top players. And that's even when we ignore the existence of _below_ average players.

> @"KelyNeli.4516" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > On the other hand, in truth FF XIV's glamour wardrobe system is vastly inferior to GW2's one. And by saying "vastly" i mean exactly that - FF XIV's system, compared to what we have here, is _very_ primitive and limited. I'd love to have in FF XIV something that would be even half as good as the wardrobe here. > > > > Idk when you played ffxiv the last time but nope. > Ffxiv has a wardobe with 12 slots, that allows you to create 12 different looks you want to apply on gear, it cost you nothing and you could change your look to a preset you made in few clicks. Sure it has glamour plates, and applying plates indeed costs you nothing. What you omitted however is that those glamour plates are made out of glamours you take from glamour wardrobe. And not only the number of slots in the wardrobe is limited (heavily limited, in a fact), but it doesn't work by unlocking skins, but by putting actual items in it. Not to mention you can change glamour plates only in few major cities, which in itself can be a problem if you want to have a different look for classes sharing a gear (i.e a separate look for a black and red mage, or for machinist, bard and dancer). And that's even without mentioning the dye system. Also, adding items to glamour wardrobe (or applying individual glamours) does cost you something. Sure, glamour prisms may be cheap, but they still exist (and it's not like in gw2 getting transmutation charges ingame is any harder, tbh). In general, glamour system works if you want to have one generic look per role, and are very conservative about changing your looks. Or, if you play a single class and are interested in looks for that class only. If you are like me however, and like to have every single class dressed differently (and like to play with looks, changing them relatively often), then you will find out very, very fast how limited the glamour system is, and how you will constantly keep thinking about all the gw2 wardrobe features you would want to have instead.

> @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > Of course! I address that these things existed to begin with in my original post. However, back then I did not need to avoid major cities and play at the lowest traffic hours in order to even attempt to avoid them. Oh, i don't know, some of those things were always there, and very hard to avoid. For example, if anything, there's _more_ non-trenchcoat options for rangers now than in the first years.

> @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > It WASN'T a flashy mess. Just because some flashy items existed didn't mean they caused significant issues considering how few and far between they were. The threads about aestethics of GW2 being "wrong" for one reason or another were there since day one. Some of those were about things like Moot, some were about charr in pink dresses, some were about unrealistic armor looks, some about Ranger Trenchcoat Brigade, and some about too revealing female clothing. What constitutes "compromised" aestethics varies wildly depending on whom you ask, but most of those things were present in this game from the very beginning.

> @"Cynder.2509" said: > I just don't get why people still fail easy as kitten HoT metas so easily. No offense I'm just curious. > This also applies to 2012 content. Just why... This is a game with no gear progression. Meaning, barring some nerfs, after a few years passed, content still stays as difficult as it was originally. It doesn't matter if it's from 2012, 2015, 2019 or from last week - we're not getting any stronger, and relative content difficulty does _not_ go down with time. Sure, you can say that after you've done the content a lot of times you will gain some experience and become better at it, but that only affects veteran players, not more recent ones. And veteran players tend to concentrate on most recent (and/or most rewarding) metas, leaving the rest to less experienced community members. From my observations, most of the players doing Verdant Brink and Auric Basin are relatively new to that meta. Been doing Tarir a bit lately, and saw a number of cases where i had to explain to everyone how each side mechanic works, because people were, for example, looking for bombs on west and north. For some reason i don;t seem to see as much problems with Gerent though - it usually goes smoothly if there's just enough people per lane. I don't know however if it's because it's for some reason more popular for vets, or because lane mechanics are clearer to understand. Incidentally, if Marionette was not limited to LS1 only, and we'd still have that fight present, i'm quite sure that it would be a total disaster now, with how the platform fights were prone to failure due to even a single player not understanding mechanics.

> @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > > > > GW2 started off fairly similar, > > > > > > GW2 started off with a [baseball cap](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Celebration_Hat). Just saying. > > And [The Moot](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Moot). And the [rainbow unicorn-shooting shortbow](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Dreamer). You can't forget those. > > > > At the time these were extremely rare. I went months before I even learned they existed. I'm quite sure i saw someone waving double moots in one of the cities even before southsun update. Although you are right - at the time people preferred to burn other people's eyes out with male charrs in pink dresses meta. TBH, i'm not sure if one is an improvement over the other.

> @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > > GW2 started off fairly similar, > > GW2 started off with a [baseball cap](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Celebration_Hat). Just saying. And [The Moot](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Moot). And the [rainbow unicorn-shooting shortbow](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Dreamer). You can't forget those.