IndigoSundown.5419

The decision to base any rewarding game play in both PvE and WvW around group content while simultaneously providing huge visual effects and no means to significantly reduce those effects goes down as one of the more unfortunate design decisions in MMO's.

The only time I'm not happy to see other players in open world PvE is while doing the daily task "Complete Events in [specific zone]." Completing this task, done when I prefer to play (around reset), produces the most ludicrous game-play I've seen in any game. Players spam attacks, preferably AoE's, at expected mob spawn points, hoping to do enough damage to get event credit because the mobs die as they spawn.

Good news for me! I no longer do this task. The side effect of that decision, though, is that my consumption of open world PvE is reduced as a result.

Call it Grindstone.

Absent some obscure "dev reason" which makes it "necessary" for characters to hold swords at the wrong part of the grip, it's hard to fathom that graphic artists would not do some elementary research into how swords are used. There are a ton of videos on Youtube, for instance.

Yeah, this makes me cringe when I see it. Not that I expect ANet to ever _do_ anything about it -- as I don't expect them to do anything about a host of other issues which also detract from my enjoyment of the game.

Just once, I'd like to be able to clearly see what the boss looks like in a GW2 Group Event -- without it being the size of the Wyvern Matriarch.

Adding resources for such projects costs money. So what happens when not enough people support it? Refunds?

I want a short period of CC immunity (a few seconds) after being CC'd. Nothing like getting CC'd 7-8 times in a row in a WvW zerg fight. The first couple eat your stab, the next eats your stun break, then the rest come in succession before you can do anything. By then, you've been unable to play your character for 8-12 seconds and are probably dead.

GW2 has the worst implementation of CC for large scale competitive combat in any game I've played. There is the illusion of counter-play, but the counter systems are designed around sPvP one-on-one's and just don't work in anything bigger than 5v5 (if then).

> @"tampss.2540" said:

> Hello,

>

> So far I have bought 66 BLC Keys and used them.

> Drops are not so good as for 66 keys I have only 3 uncommon drops(no griffon fluff or cape dropped...) - is it kind of joke or the rates have been lowered somehow?

> Seems like a big scam for me.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Chest/Drop_rate

As shown on the Wiki, the drop rate for uncommons is 0.078. That's 7.8%. That means that the average for 66 keys used would be a hair over 5 uncommon items. The thing about averages, though, is in order for it to _be_ average, those who get an uncommon on the first key will be counterbalanced by others getting a lower than average number. It would be poor luck indeed to open 100 chests and get zero uncommon drops, but that is not impossible.

If that drop rate is too low for you, then don't patronize keys. The drop rate is such as it is so that players as a whole _will_ -- on average -- spend _more_ than they would be willing to pay for a given item than they'd be willing to pay straight up for that item. For the record, though, it's not a scam. While ANet does not publish the drop rates, those rates are known and the info is available. It would only be a scam if ANet promised something better than what is on offer -- and they aren't promising you anything other than that certain items are available _if you get lucky_.

This is by no means me defending the practice. While it is not a scam, it is exploitive and predatory. I only ever open them with free keys.

> @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > Dragon Bash. DB was enacted to celebrate Jormag's death iirc, and that was the last time I had much interest in the GW2 story.

> Snip

> >

> I think it came out after Zhaitan or Mordremoth. Jormag is still alive.

>

>

Oops, yeah, it was Zhaitan, my bad and good catch.

> @"Stelawrat.6589" said:

> @"Schimmi.6872" I just want to make sure that I understand how this works then, because last night the same thing happened to me, re: the pop-ups.

>

> In my case though, I only have 13 Masteries, with 1 Point earned towards the Advanced Logistics path, the last path in that section. While doing Map Completion in Mount Maelstrom, the experience bar filled & that message started its pop-up routine. I couldn't apply it to my current path, although I need 7 more points to complete that Advanced Logistics path. So I clicked into the next section, chose the first path in there & boom! the experience bar emptied & no more pop-ups.

>

> Are you saying that, had I just ignored / clicked away those pop-ups, gone on to another higher level map, that I could have applied that experience gain to my Advanced Logistics path?

No. If you have completed the experience-gathering for an interim mastery on a given path, you can only advance to the next experience-gathering phase in that line by spending the point(s) needed to complete the mastery to which the filled experience bar applies. You can (as you saw) change to a different mastery line and gather experience in it, but eventually you will run out of mastery lines until you gather the necessary mastery point(s) to complete one.

> @"paShadoWn.5723" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > A lot of people play games to get _away_ from reality. For them, your suggestion would not be an improvement,

> The original post is a sarcastic joke thinly veiled as a serious suggestion.

> The purpose of said sarcastic joke is to make original poster enjoy his own dark sense of humour.

>

Then, consider that I was playing along.

After playing Guild Wars for 7 years, I found the overall skill implementation in GW2 (including Elite Skills and the "locked to a slot" mechanic) to be an enormous letdown.

I get the whole "but game balance" _desire_ which was used to justify the skill setup in GW2, but frankly I'd rather have had the smaller imbalances I saw in Guild Wars than the ludicrous "optimal build/player does 10x the damage of an _average_ build/player" we see in GW2.

Regardless, neither the skill setup nor the effectiveness gap is going to change. ANet may not see these things as issues, and they probably don't have either the resources or the will to engage in what would be a large undertaking.

A lot of people play games to get _away_ from reality. For them, your suggestion would not be an improvement,

> @"paShadoWn.5723" said:

> And that is exactly what I am questioning.

Because that was the design decision made by ANet back when they were producing the game. If you need a _lore_ reason, then part of the enchantment of enchanted armor is that it self-repairs unless catastrophically hit (i.e., you were defeated).

Proximity only matters for Say chat. Map chat, whispers, guild chat, party squad and WvW Team chat occur over much broader areas of the game. The thesis, if it is applicable at all, would apply mostly to free accounts.

Also, in my experience, there is a lot more interaction going on over 3rd party voice coms than in-game chat. Ommv.

> @"Zephire.8049" said:

> You also don't need to buy gems during world transfer. You do that before or after, not during, especially as there's nothing time-sensitive that can't wait a few minutes unless you're trying to nab a sale item seconds before the sale ends and instead of taking care of that before transferring worlds, you decided to transfer first. Even if that's just an example you threw out there, there is no time in GW2 I can think of where you would need to buy gems right that moment instead of waiting a few minutes.

You are overlooking the likelihood that people don't pay attention to or don't already know how things work. It seems at least possible that the gem purchase pop-up during world transfer was meant as a convenience for those players who did _not_ know about the fee, or perhaps the amount of gems needed, so they did not have to open up another interface to get gems to continue the transfer.

I am unable to pick yes or no. That is because they do cater to me in some respects, and definitely not in others.

Yes: buy-to-play business model; ignorable (if I want to) cash shop; relatively flat gear progression (though I would have preferred the, "Every player, by level 80, will have max stat gear" thing); 95+% of skills can be used while moving...

No: no effects slider in a game that focuses on gameplay events drawing large amounts of players, all continually using flashy effects; ping-pong gameplay in WvW, with me as the ball, due to too much CC, not enough stun break, stability's inadequacies and no CC immunity; poor matchmaking in WvW, leading to poor gameplay experience; story that is for me excessively long-winded and plagued by silly mechanics for the sake of mechanics in story fights...

There's more on both sides of the coin, but those are the highlights.

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

>

> The solution to this for most people is just to spam a skill like your 1 key throughout the cut scene. It doesn't happen to most people, but those that do have that problem have reported this will fix it.

This work-around helped me get through the entire PoF story and Season 4.

It also provides a bit of catharsis, as I walk up to the NPC in that chapter that I like the least and pretend to stab him/her over and over. Very satisfying.

Maybe they could run a "happy hours," period (say, over a weekend) where higher purchase packages offered more gems. Cash only, of course.

For me, the real issue with loot boxes is that they have been the leaders in a change in the gaming industry that is not beneficial for gamers. I remember a time when companies produced games, sold them for what the market would bear, and depended on the quality of their product to produce the revenue necessary to fund the game and make a profit. Now, what we see all too often are companies that focus on producing a barely functional game that is miles short of being a good product, then heavily monetize it. The result is that players end up spending a lot more for a lot less.

Loot boxes are the poster child for this approach. Their _only_ reason to exist is to get consumers to spend more on a desired item than they would spend if the item was sold at a set price. While some players like (or at least use) the consolation "prizes," the fact remains that no player is spending a lot of money on keys with the idea that they are going to get some boosters or other filler.

This means that loot boxes are _by definition_ an exploitive practice. Many gamers support companies in their cash grabs by supporting the practice. So, supporters of the practice, you are enabling companies to exploit you and your fellow gamers. That means you are a part of the reason why we don't have as many really good games as we might otherwise. Companies only do what consumers allow them to do.

I would normally prefer that government keep its nose out of peoples' business. I would normally prefer that people take responsibility for their own choices. However, I do know that the psycho-physical mechanics involved in loot-boxes and those involved in, say, slot machines, are identical. This means that there is as much risk of unhealthy use of the loot box mechanic as there is of any practice currently classified as gambling. That said, the real reason why politicians might act is because they are not getting tax revenue from a practice that is in fact gambling, even if it doesn't meet current legal definitions.

I'd like to believe that if loot boxes do end up getting widely regulated, game companies might actually have to return to the practice of producing value for money. In reality, though, what's more likely is that the companies will find some other way to exploit gamers and continue producing barely adequate games. Color me cynical if you like, but that's what I'm thinking.

So, where do I see GW2 in all that? The BLC is certainly not as bad as some loot boxes. GW2 is, though, a mediocre product these days, with enough fundamental design issues that keep it from being a top game. Still, it would not be fair to say that the game's failings are mostly because it is designed as a barely-functional game designed solely to milk the player-base. Instead, I see ANet loot boxes as riding the coattails of the real offenders, with most of the game's issues being a result of poor choices made in fundamental design that are in all likelihood _not_ the result of a desire to throw together a shoddy product to serve as vehicle for monetization.

I got a BL Key in WvW, but nothing of note from using it (per usual).

Dragon Bash. DB was enacted to celebrate Jormag's death iirc, and that was the last time I had much interest in the GW2 story. Also, I find the repetitive tasks for virtual gewgaws to be less grindy for some reason.

Lunar New Year would be a close second.

SAB? Platforming and I don't play well together and I dislike the 8Bit art style.

Four Winds? Not sure why, but despite enjoying year one, I have not been able to motivate myself to return.

Halloween? Too much CC on Labyrinth mobs, makes for annoyance. Also, I'm so over the gaming player base's fascination with the Dark.

Wintersday? Bah. Humbug. Wintersday feels too much like the crass over-commercialization of the holiday in RL, with little to none of the real meaning of it to be found.

Strike missions _are_ easy-mode raids. If you mean developing easier versions of existing raids, it's not going to happen. ANet has been allergic to revisiting existing instanced content since their attempts to revise dungeons fell flat. If you mean a way to get raid rewards without doing existing raids, that could happen. However, there will probably be as many or more complaints about the new "way" as there have been about raids.

See you after this gets moved to the raids/dungeons/fractals sub-forum.

> @"wmtyrance.3571" said:

> They also I think know they have a problem because they are only doing new accounts with the steam launch.

What makes you think that decision has anything to do with difficulty or any other in-game issue? The obvious reason for "new accounts only" is that Steam will be taking 30% of sales, so ANet does not want to lose 30% of the income from existing accounts that spend money if ANet allowed them to register the account through Steam.

Not a fan of the down state, especially not on PvE mobs. No thank you.