Astralporing.1957

> @"zombyturtle.5980" said: > Only 1 fractal has a norn boss Do you mean Skorvald, or Lornarr Dragonseeker? There's also Horrik in a supporting role, and Mossman that isn't a boss anymore, but was one for a long time.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said: > While I agree with the assessment, let's rephrase that one part a little please: > > _you either need to go into groups **with some expectations**, or risk it with a group that will probably fail and then start spreading the blame all around_ > > Yes, there are expectations. Yes, those can pertain to setup or a certain performance. Yes, this can mean having to adapt to a groups desire. > > No, those expectations are often not high, at least not in all groups. Those expectations being "not high" is extremely subjective. They may not be high to you. They are too high for a vast majority of GW2 players, though. > Please keep an objective perspective on the broad spectrum of groups here. From an objective perspective, the expectations are way above the level of an average gw2 player. There's a reason why people keep prefiltering players through using different LFG requirements. It's because they _know_, that without doing that they run the very high risk of not getting the clear run they wanted. > Not every group treats players like that 200 Dhuum KP static one. Especially groups aimed at newer players or inexperienced players have often a LOT more leeway. They do have a lot more leeway. But they also tend to _fail_. And, as i pointed out, failure (especially repeated failure) also generates tension. Not to mention, nobody's really interested in failing in the first place. > If players who are interested in raids actually interacted with groups intending to introduce those players to raids, a lot of issues would disappear. Sure, if most players were interested in having to do a lot of training before attempting to clear a content succesfully, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And raids would be the baseline, not the the high-end content. It just so happens however that most players do _not_ play this way. And there's absolutely nothing you, me, devs, or anyone else can do to change that. Frankly, the "toxicity" problem never really affected the players with the raider mentality. Those players are, for the most part, always capable of finding the necessary info on their own. The whole issue is caused by the fact that raids are being attempted also by the players whose playing style is inimical to the one raids are designed for. And that is caused by raids having stuff in them (not necessarily the same for everyone) that is interesting on their own to those players (And by Anet trying to funnel them into that content). We may spend a ton of time trying to put the blame on one or the other part of the community, but that will not actually solve anything. Nothing will get better that way - at most, the relations between different parts of the community will become even worse than they already are. If you want to fix the problem, you have to accept that some people play differently than the others, and craft the solution based on this. Or, look at what must be done to fix it and decide, that for you the cure is worse than the disease.

> @"Sammyjoe.4271" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > In this game's past there was already one massive condi rework, and several partial ones (like at least 3 reworks of confusion). I don't see condi getting treated any worse than any other elements of the whole balance ecosystem. If anything, it got even _more_ attention from devs than some other parts. So, what exactly are you asking for? > > I'm asking for a well thought through balance patch for conditions. Power users got hit hard in a patch pointed toward us. My MAIN argument for conditions is, why does it make sense to let them deal big damage and have the choice of being extremely tanky as well? There should be a trade off like power users have. Being able to put big points into vitality, toughness, and even healing power while still being able to dish out huge damage blows my mind. In order to have the dps values comparable with top tier power dps builds, condi also needs to fully specialize into damage. Additionally, top dps builds are, interesingly enough, still power dps ones, not condi. So, again, you might want to specify what exactly is the problem you think needs fixing. Because it seems it isn't as general, or as obvious as you think it is.

> @"finkle.9513" said: > > @"zallesz.1650" said: > > My 2 cents on this: > > Whenever I go to a place in order to do an achievement, even when that place is not a daily Season map, or even if it's not a popular map or event, there are people. Wherever I go on the maps, there are always people that join in the activity with me. I never feel like the game is empty, as opposed to a lot of other MMO-s. So honestly, I have no idea why people keep saying the game is dead. > > In a bid to keep this on topic as it seems people are just reading last comments and replying to "bots" > > My comments regarding bot where in response to a comment stating: mmopopulation say gw2 has 600k active accounts - My reply was basically to say how many are real accounts and not bots? i don't think that bots are a significant part of active accounts. They may be highly visible in some parts of the game, sure, but that does not mean a lot of bots in total numbers - just that the few they are are concentrated in the same places. All that is beside the point however. The main point is that mmopopulation stats are pure guesstimates that are most likely way off from the real numbers. They really should not be used as a basis for any kind of discussion.

In this game's past there was already one massive condi rework, and several partial ones (like at least 3 reworks of confusion). I don't see condi getting treated any worse than any other elements of the whole balance ecosystem. If anything, it got even _more_ attention from devs than some other parts. So, what exactly are you asking for?

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > Queen's Pavilion and SAB were affected by changes to how jumping works (physics?) it wasn't about graphic performance. When they changed the graphics engine with Draconis Mons it didn't cause them to rewrite all assets from scratch either. In the end it depends on which part of the engine they are gonna tweak to increase performance. We are talking about graphics here, if they finally add a proper way to handle reflections and shadows, the current system is heavily taxing the CPU on these two effects where they could be done on the GPU exclusively, it won't affect jumping or skill usage, the rest of the game should be fine. It's not the reflections or shadow that are the main problem here. Sure, they can result in a performance hit, but that's on the top of the real problems. The stuff you speak of is clientwise, while the real issue lies in what's happening on the _servers_. The first clear sign of problems to come was the Karka southsun event where most of the mobs weren't taxing your computer at all, because they weren't even visible. Then came the WvW Stonemist fights, where, again, the game was often unable to even show most of the participants, and thus you ended up being killed by people you never even saw. All those things are _not_ graphic engine problems. They are game engine problems that seem to be buried much more deeply into the code. The stuff that needs to be optimized (and reworked to make use of multiple threads, so it will be able to make use of multiple cores way better) seems to lie at the very basis of the game's programming, long before graphic calls are even taken into consideration. BTW, they seem to be actually working on all that, but it is a very, very slow process. Probably not only due to the sheer scale of it, but also to the fact that they have to do it on a working game, without disrupting it too much. Yeah, some renderer upgrades might be nice, but i personally don't think they would help that much - and they would mostly be seen by the people with the high-end computers, so those that are in the _least_ need of performance fixes.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > The real question however always is - what would we need to sacrifice, and for what level of improvement. Engine upgrades are generally a complicated matter, requiring a lot of time and resources. Resources that would then not be used for other things. > > It's not like the writers, composers, asset creators and programmers are gonna be affected by an engine performance optimization. If anything, it's gonna make the work of the artists faster, it's puzzling to this day why pre Draconis Mons maps use a different rendering solution than maps released after it. This causes the asset creators to make sure their creations look well on both systems, and we've seen cases of a dye or a skin looking good on one, but horrible on the other. Streamlining the game to use one solution for all maps, either a completely new/overhauled one, or at the very least the one used after Draconis Mons, would certainly help improve the game and cut down on resources and time needed to create new assets. You're right on writers and composers - i doubt they are the ones that decide the release schedule, though. You're not necessarily right about asset creators and other devs however. Remember that the reason why it took them a while to bring back SAB and Queen's Pavillon was that the original instances were no longer compatible with the engine and they had to adjust them first. Now, think about making a new LS episode while also working on that rework for _all_ currently existing maps. Not that you'd be able to make new stuff either, until the changes were finalized to at least some degree. Also, again, we're likely not even talking about the rendering engine - we're probably talking about underlying core threads that call upon that engine, and about the client-network communication. It's not the car chassis that needs a rework, it's what's under it that does. And here we are talking about adding some spoilers and paint job.

> @"Danikat.8537" said: > Can someone explain for me what difference upgrading to DX12 would make if they don't change the graphics? Would it just change some of the lighting effects and shaders? People that ask for dx12 usually think it will result in visibly better performance. It's doubtful that the actual effects would be even close to what they hope for, but hey, people can dream. But as for answer to the OP's question: There are different kinds of "should", and different kinds of graphics updates. As far as quality of graphics goes, i think GW2 is in a good place and doesn't need any upgrades. It might use some more display options so, for example, people can choose the amount of sfx spam they want to see better, but that's not a change to graphics itself. Now, what might be really nice is some kinds of _performance_ upgrades - although, again, those might not necessarily be graphics-based. Most bottlenecks supposedly are on a much deeper level, in the core of the game engine (and possibly in the client-server communication routines). The real question however always is - what would we need to sacrifice, and for what level of improvement. Engine upgrades are generally a complicated matter, requiring a lot of time and resources. Resources that would then not be used for other things. For example, i'd really not want to hear that sure, the engine update happened, but we had to sacrifice the whole next expac for it. And, considering how LS5's quality went down since they started working on expac, which suggests they don;t have enough resources now to work on two major projects at the same time, it's quite likely that the engine update might actually cost us far more than just the next expansion. So, would we really want _that_?

> @"Sobx.1758" said: > ...still interested why anet can't just tell us what's their reasoning for this tp cap. Probably for the same reason why they don't tell us their reasoning for 99% of their _other_ decisions. Good communication is simply not what they do.

> @"yann.1946" said: > Did the idea that dungeons where full of toxic players decrease because they became easier? Or because interest wained on them? Unlike with raids, that idea existed mostly on forums, as it was trivially easy to avoid it completely in game. The real problem now is not that toxicity itself exists, but that players think they cannot _avoid_ it. At the times of dungeons playrs wishing to avoid toxicity could simply make an "all welcome" lfg, which caused most of the players with any more stringent expectations to stay away, while still allowing for a relatively safe (even if longer) clear. In case of raids it is not so - sure, you can still put up such LFG, but this will likely mean that most players capable of doing the content will not show up, and you are extremely likely to end up with a group that will keep wiping over and over again. Which _also_ breeds toxicity. So, basically, you have no choice - you either need to go into high-expectation groups, where tensions are high and people are judgemental, or risk it with a group that will probably fail and then start spreading the blame all around. In both cases, it's a loss. The only winning move is to not play at all. It's of course not a problem for the people that fulfill those high expectations, but they are _not_ the ones afraid of toxicity in the first place. They are the ones _others_ (justly or unjustly) are scared of.

> @"Westenev.5289" said: > It's soldiers, but somehow worse? > > Please don't add more noob traps into the game. That stat is already there. It's just its acquisition modes are extremely inconsistent. Yes, it is a "noob trap" stat, but in this it's not any different than the most of the other stats we have. Stats revamp may be something this game needs, but it would be a massive undertaking, way more complicated than just removing few stat sets from existence (and it's a topic for a completely different discussion). As far as currently available stats go, the key should always be consistency. We shouldn't have cases where some stat sets are available only for some pieces of gear, but not another. We should not have cases where some stat sets are named differently between different types of gear (or stat sets with the same name have different stat spreads on diffeent gear). The only difference that should be allowed is some stats being available only to SPvP, or not available to SPvP. We can possibly also ignore the fact that some stat sets are not being available on upgrade items (jewels, crests), considering that those are not important for ascended gear anyway. Apart from those very few exceptions, acquisition and availability should be consistent for all stat sets.

> @"yann.1946" said: > So as a question: What are you're suggestions to reduce this problems. The only way to do that is to reduce the reasons why tensions happen in the first place. This happens when the group does not match the expectations some (or _all_) of the players in that group have. And the primary expectation is always "i want a group with which i willl be able to clear the content without any major problems". The more likely it will be for the (semi-)randomly matched 10 LFG players to fulfill that expectation, the lower the toxicity is going to get. Of course, the consequences of actions leading to that end might not be all that desirable for raiders. Spoiler: this mostly worked in dungeons, because they were much, much easier. It isn't going to work for raids though, unless you will somehow find a way to separate players with different expectations in such a way that will make all their expectations able to be fulfilled, without conflicting with each other. Which is not possible in raids as they are now, and to solve would require introducing some things many raiders would definitely not be comfortable with.

> @"BioDio.3476" said: > Story missions are just a minor issue I have. GW2 story feels like GW1, a single-player game that you can play online/co-op. FF14 story sequences are actually locked as a single-player ONLY experience, but main bosses, endgame story raids, no, that's online, with a party, and it feels epic. > GW2 has world events with Dragon's minions that required hundreds of players, but a god was just you a sword and a sapling... meh. It was the best fight so far in the game, but... eh. I felt like PS2 Kratos. There are two problem with GW2 and locking story progression behind group content. The first is that there's no equivalent of Duty Roulettes or Duty Finder. And, due to how the classes are designed (and lack of hardcoded roles), it's not something that can be introduced to this game without rebuilding large parts of it from grounds up. Second is lack of gear progression - meaning, you are not likely to outgear the content in order to minimize its difficulty, like you can do in FF XIV (just consider how easy Crystal Tower raids are nowadays, even with level sync in place). That's why trying to lock the content behind group instances run a distinct possibility of having a lot of players get stuck on a story step, unable to pass it. And that would be most unfortunate.

I don't think you should look for narrative explanations for differences that are there for gameplay reasons.

> @"Blude.6812" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Solanum.6983" said: > > > They added 7 other missions into the game last patch and they specifically stated that there will be releases in-between chapters, if not the DRMs they added into the patch then what? > > They added some stuff to gemshop, haven't you noticed? And there's going to be Wintersday... > > > > I don't think a recycled festival as well as bling and recycled stuff that I have or don't need, added to the gem shop really counts as added content in any way, shape or form. And i didn't think LS2 (or ls5, for that matter) was "expansion-level content". Anet happened to disagree.

> @"White Kitsunee.4620" said: > I don't think I've ever heard an NPC described as toxic... Well, thanks to Scarlet, we have the whole Toxic Alliance...

> @"Solanum.6983" said: > They added 7 other missions into the game last patch and they specifically stated that there will be releases in-between chapters, if not the DRMs they added into the patch then what? They added some stuff to gemshop, haven't you noticed? And there's going to be Wintersday...

> @"Pifil.5193" said: > One of the Achievements for this Chapter is to open 10 Ebon Vanguard Supply Boxes. That strongly suggests that the Ebonhawk faction is coming in this chapter. If the faction is added then it's likely that the Fields of Ruin DRM will also be added. They did say they'd be adding content between releases after all. That's the achievement tab for the _whole_ Champions chapter. Which consists of 4 chapter parts. We're still on part 1 of that whole chapter. So, yes, Ebonhawke faction is going to appear, but it doesn't mean we'll see it before January (or even in January - technically it could be introduced in the very last part of the chapter)

> @"Blocki.4931" said: > Stop assuming the absolute worst. We're not. If you think it is an absolute worst, you are a true optimist. Trust me, it can _always_ get worse.

> @"Fangoth.4503" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Fangoth.4503" said: > > > your math is wrong i'm afraid there is 1 mastery point in every single dragon mission so 7 are coming. you can see them but not take them untill the dragon mission is released. Same goes for the point you will earn by completing story line when more is released. Don't forget to include locked mastery poin if you want to compare to locked masteries. Don't let not released content become a tarir 2.0, just chill and wait for it to be released before panicking > > It seems that i probably wasn't wrong after all, and those remaining 7 dragon response missions will be released only with the new chapters of the story. > > > > same goes for the masteries. > no IBS, 63/58 is still wrong as you don't take in account how many mastery point will be released whenever the masteries 3 onward are released. > for the currently available i was able to unlock all with 9 spare mastery points so no need to do weapon collection :) I did say that it was at this point, with 3 last episodes (well, in reality 3/4th of the last episode) still unreleased. To quote again what i said then: > IBS, 63/58 (although it's actually 46/58 at the moment, since the last 17 points of the newest mastery track are currently locked) > >_At this moment though we're still 3 episodes short on IBS_. The last episode supplied 6 total mastery points (4 easy ones, one locked behind the weapon collection, one behind a challenge that may be problematic for many). **if the next 3 chapters all add 6 points each, and no new mastery tracks/tiers, IBS would end at 63/76**. Which would put it at a margin comparable to PoF, but worse than for HoT and Core. Marked the relevant parts for better readability So, again, currently it **is** 63/58 (with 17 points out of 63 locked), and, **if** the last 3 "parts" of the Champions episode also add 6 mastery points each (_and there would be no new masteries added_), we'll end at 63/76. I don't see where i was wrong with that

> @"Psientist.6437" said: > This thread is like being trapped in a Twilight Zone episode. You've now side stepped to arguing against a position you previously held and are trying to crowd me from mine by distorting my position. Oh, i'm still saying the exact thing i've been saying since beginning. I have tried to explain it to you several times already, using as simple explanations as possible. If you still can't understand my point, it's not _my_ fault. > I am glad Arenanet understands the situation. Well, you wanted to remove the cap, and yet it's still there, so this suggests that at least on some points you and Anet are _not_ on the same page.

> @"Fangoth.4503" said: > your math is wrong i'm afraid there is 1 mastery point in every single dragon mission so 7 are coming. you can see them but not take them untill the dragon mission is released. Same goes for the point you will earn by completing story line when more is released. Don't forget to include locked mastery poin if you want to compare to locked masteries. Don't let not released content become a tarir 2.0, just chill and wait for it to be released before panicking It seems that i probably wasn't wrong after all, and those remaining 7 dragon response missions will be released only with the new chapters of the story.

> @"Psientist.6437" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > So 1 item sold for 20k gold wouldn't be the equivalent to 20000 items sold for 1 gold? > > It would be. The first part of your mistake is in assuming that this kind of equivalency is something that would actually take place. > > > This equivalency is always taking place. No, it is not. When you drop a price of a commodity by half, it doesn't mean the number of buyers will double as well. The very fact that you think it is always so tells me everything i need to know about your economic knowledge and theories.

> @"Psientist.6437" said: > So 1 item sold for 20k gold wouldn't be the equivalent to 20000 items sold for 1 gold? It would be. The first part of your mistake is in assuming that this kind of equivalency is something that would actually take place. I gave a specific example several of my posts back, you can look it up if you want, but basically, you would not be replacing one 20k gold item with four 5k gold ones , twenty 1k ones or twenty thousand 1g ones. You would be replacing that one 20k gold item with a certain number of lower-value trades, but that number would _not_ add up to the same amount. The question of course is whether the change would lower or increase the overall value of all trades - _and that's exactly where the market research part comes in_. Because the answer to that question cannot be simply "reasoned out". My attempts at research, comparing the few over-the-cap infusions to a few of the still very, very costly, but under-the-cap ones, seem to imply, than in GW2 environment lowering the price at below 10k would _increase_ the overall worth of trade of said item. You on the other hand are basing your arguments purely on theory, and _assuming_ the result beforehand. And you seem to not be very eager to confront those assumptions with reality. And that is the second part of your mistake. Edit: since you seem to not like actually checking anything up, i will do that job for you. The example i gave was [here](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1373219/#Comment_1373219). The numbers i gave there were "one trade at 15 to 25k gold vs 15 trades at 3-4k gold". Notice, that there's _no_ equivalency here. 15-25k is _not_ equal to 45k-60k. BTW, before someone comments on it, i have realized later that i've made a huge mistake here, that significantly affects the result. I forgot that when checking an infusion on GW2bltc or gw2tp there would be a separate entry for each stat bonus the infusion might have (as such, i checked only _part_ of what was available - the real number would likely be much higher than ~15. Which would make my point even more visible)

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > I think that's a fair assessment and I also think that is one of the consequences of the business model. Not relying on people's sub and anticipation for future content at some approximate date enables Anet to shift their plans as they need to. Being agile is important ... but if they are going to take advantage of being agile, they need to lay off telling us things that may never be. I don;t think this is being agile and trying to constantly adjust to the market situation. I think it's more of a case of not being able to decide on the direction, and just wandering around blindly. Former would still be having a plan and vision. Latter however is just being lost.