TheUndefined.1720

@GorgaanPeaudesang.8324

Thanks for the response! I still completely disagree with your counterpoints and regardless, the story still feels like a silly internet fanfiction compared to the story from GW1.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate there are those that enjoy this story and don't find the failings I and others do. However, they are failings, imo. Prince Rurik still believed in his people, he sought to save them, not give up. Balthazar had many options for a more fulfilling end than the completely elementary one we were given and the fact we still end up with the exact same predicament we ended up with at the end of HoT still stands.

Honestly, I could keep going, but I feel my original post still stands firm with my opinion and I know most of these sorts of interactions just sort of ends up in a mindless back and forth.

I respect your view. If GW1 didn't exist, I honestly wouldn't have half of the issues... even a quarter of the issues that I have with GW2. Still, GW1 does exist, it established the lore that this game has completely disregarded in favor of what it has now.

GW2 is probably one of the funnest MMO's out there. The gameplay and creative takes on past MMO-tropes is so incredibly creative. However, the story is the greatest smear on this game and honestly I'd be happy to hear if they got a new story writer to take over.

Hands down, this is my biggest complaint with honestly GW2 entirely - expansion / base / otherwise.

The writing is absolutely terrible to me. Don't get me wrong, the acting and dialogue are good, but the plot / beats of the story are so atrocious. The complete dismissal of humans was such a spit in the face to GW1 fans from the beginning. I honestly still get fired up when it comes to how Ascalon, the city our GW1 characters sacrificed so much for, Prince Rurik died for, was completely handed over to the enemy.

Yeah, I don't care if it originally belonged to Charr. The Charr were an evil warmongering race that wanted to enslave everyone else and conquer everybody. They deserved to lose and be pushed back. Not to mention the Charr won, but the humans are now basically on the brink of total defeat by Centaurs?! ...Centaurs? Are you serious? Sure, there's the white mantle, and they're very interesting on their own.. but Centaurs?

Beyond that, the entire GW2 story progression has been so utterly disrespectful to GW1. I still remember when I read the plaque in grenth's temple, it gave me chills. Sure, the deities were gone, but their presence were still very much apart of Tyria. There were avatars. There were still battles between them. They were still relevant. Now, PoF has completely and utterly dismantled the entire premise of the human's backstory. That's what made the humans interesting, their hope. Charr were the industrious deity-less race, not the humans. The humans were the counterpart, through all odds they made it out through their faith and hope. Now they have what? To become Charr?

Not only that, but you don't have ANY new heroes in the expansions. We're still having our old tired heroes tagging along, which are so extremely poorly written aside from Canach. Honestly, when I think Guild Wars I think of Gwen, Thackery, Nika, Master Togo, Kormir, Koss, and many others - you get my point. The story was evolving, fresh, and fun.

When I used to buy an expansion to Guild Wars, the new characters, the new story, the new jobs, the new lands, the new heroes, all of that was what got my interest. Now it's a weak monster of the week to set up another living story for another dragon without any respect to the story that's come before it. Onto the them pesky dragons, the real threat - I mean where do you go from there? You've got the threat dialed to 11 - most other stories only go to 10, but GW2 it goes to 11 (/SpinalTap). That's fine, but what comes after 11? Nothing, it's like a powercreep in villains. The twist with Balthazar was totally wasted. Now we're back to straight up doomsday devices from every tired rehash superhero movie - the dragons. We couldn't cleanse Balth of corruption? Reseal him in the mists and roll him out for a later story only to be double crossed in the end? Have Balth give up his power willingly and live among the humans and find redemption? Nope - _spoiler_ - b/c that's apparently all we're good at.

Really huge misstep. I don't know who the main story director is, but I think they should replay Guild Wars 1 and remember what it was like to enjoy a well written story, not this convoluted fanfiction.

> @Palador.2170 said:

> > @TheUndefined.1720 said:

> >

> > Honestly, this whole destroying Balth without replacing him is a stickler to me with the story of Guild Wars overall. Although I think the story in PoF is generally pretty interesting and well handled overall, there are some real mishandled plot points that sort of destroys pre-established lore.

>

> Oh, trust me. When you get to that point, you'll know exactly where Balthy's power went. No plot hole there.

Seems cryptic, but thanks for the response.

[EDIT]

Oh geez.. I just watched the ending. Honestly, getting kinda tired with how loosey goosey all this "freed" energy is getting absorbed. You're right, it does make sense, but it definitely doesn't feel as tightly handled or suprising as GW1. I'm sure the next living story will address it though.

Thanks for all the info.

> @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

> > @TheUndefined.1720 said:

> > So this issue is confusing to me. The same situation happened with Abbadon, except when we destroyed him in GW1, the remnants of his power had to be absorbed and thus came in Kormir to "rescue" us from the explosion.

> >

> > I have not beaten the main story yet in PoF, but is that the explanation as to why there is no longer a replacement for Balth? Is there more to the story that I'm missing here?

> >

> > Honestly, this whole destroying Balth without replacing him is a stickler to me with the story of Guild Wars overall. Although I think the story in PoF is generally pretty interesting and well handled overall, there are some real mishandled plot points that sort of destroys pre-established lore.

> >

> > Again, I haven't beaten the story, so I'm hoping I'll be proven wrong, but it sounds like this is the case and I find it pretty disappointing.

>

> They handle Balth's death in an appropriate manner that makes sense

Great, is it that he lost his power to the other deities is why there wasn't a Kormir situation? If so, then what was different with Abbadon? Also, if they absorbed his power and didn't seem fit to install a replacement - why aren't the other deities taking on any sort of mantle of war? Kormir still kept the general mantle of Abbadon - information / knowledge; so what was explained with Balth's power?

I know the text may read as sarcasm, but I honestly want to know lol. Thanks :)

So this issue is confusing to me. The same situation happened with Abbadon, except when we destroyed him in GW1, the remnants of his power had to be absorbed and thus came in Kormir to "rescue" us from the explosion.

I have not beaten the main story yet in PoF, but is that the explanation as to why there is no longer a replacement for Balth? Is there more to the story that I'm missing here?

Honestly, this whole destroying Balth without replacing him is a stickler to me with the story of Guild Wars overall. Although I think the story in PoF is generally pretty interesting and well handled overall, there are some real mishandled plot points that sort of destroys pre-established lore.

Again, I haven't beaten the story, so I'm hoping I'll be proven wrong, but it sounds like this is the case and I find it pretty disappointing.

I don't know if I'm overlooking it, but please provide / recreate the option over an official ANet post to jump to the next ANet post within the thread.

Currently, it's a real hassle trying to find if there are anymore ANet posts within the thread. This could also save ANet posters a lot of headaches, since posts often get buried within the thread.

Thanks

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> It would have been great if Anet had included dying for backpacks and it was extremely shortsighted of them not to. But at this point it is not something I would like them to spend all of the resources on that it would take. I would much prefer they spend the resources on additional armor sets.

They're going to do that anyways. Settling with them not creating this option is one of the reasons why we dont' have it (not the prime reason by any means). Don't settle! ANet are terrific coders! They can do both ;)

> @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

> Actually, this would cost them money. At the moment, for example; there are black angel wings and white angel wings which are separate. I am sure you can already see where the problem lies with that. As it stands they could charge you for a whole host of coloured wings, Golden, Parrot, you name it... oh wait.

I touched on this - just lock the dye channels like the glider. The color specific items wouldn't be dyeable. ;)

> @TheUndefined.1720 said:

> * **Takes away value from some of the existing backpack items**: Black winged vs White winged backpack vs Macaw winged backpack - those are **3 separate sales that could be reduced to 1** if EVERY backpack item was given a dye channel - _**REBUTTAL**_ obviously the easy way to prevent this would be to handle the backpack items exactly the same as the glider skins - **lock dye channels for certain specified items to prevent the loss in sales**

Thanks for all the interesting responses! I'm totally aware this is a non-essential piece of coding that would take a large amount of work, but to simply accept that without requesting / encouraging it would be a disservice to the game imo. Obviously, ANet are good at their jobs. I don't underestimate their potential with making games. I absolutely know they can do this. The game has been out for 5yrs. They have 2 expansions under their belt as well as a plethora of living story episodes.

So yes, ANet can do this and honestly, I think they should :)

Aside from mount SKINS, - none. I think when you get really loosey goosey with mounts, you totally devalue the mounts that have been added.

Honestly, I don't want to delete 250g for a very limited flying mount then in a couple years see there's been a real flying mount added in an expansion. Mounts that have been added I think were very well balanced within the world of Tyria and should remain like that. Adding more mounts would take away from the balance .

Thanks for bringing that up.

I don't really think that's a con considering EVERYTHING needs to get qc'd and there are bugs with every form of coding. I've never been someone who saw bugs as this avoidable evil in video games - then again, I've been a fan of Elder Scrolls games for a while so that probably says something about me lol.

Thanks for the point though, I'm sure others don't share my insight and would consider that something to take into consideration, while I think it's just part of the job ;)

TLDR: Read bold

Hello,

I know it was posted that allowing players to **dye backpack items would cost a lot of resources** (time, money, developer tears, etc), but **I think the cost would be worth it**. Here are some pro's and cons:

Pros:

* **Player / customer happiness**: A lot of players have been wanting and waiting for this feature, it would **generally raise the morale of players**

* **Creative boost in game's appearance**: For new players / people just trying it out, logging in and seeing the wide variety of choice included with the new feature would make the **game look even more appealing to invest in** (expansions / gemstore items / etc)

* **Selling feature**: Comparing MMO's to each other has become an internet pass-time at this point, adding an extra feature into the game that is either on-par or far exceeds the other top MMO's out there really **helps GW2 stand apart**

* **Helps in selling more gemstore items**: For me personally, and I'm sure for many others, I've been **sold on gemstore items based on seeing different dye variations** on players in game or in my hero panel's costume preview with my own dye channel. Changing the dye of an item completely changes the entire feel of that item and has been a huge factor in where I spend money on this game

Cons:

* **Huge time pit**: It would take **developers an enormous amount of time** to retroactively open dye channels on pre-existing backpacks

* **Huge money pit**: Time paid to developers to do the work **takes away from time paid from other features**

* **Takes away value from some of the existing backpack items**: Black winged vs White winged backpack vs Macaw winged backpack - those are **3 separate sales that could be reduced to 1** if EVERY backpack item was given a dye channel - _**REBUTTAL**_ obviously the easy way to prevent this would be to handle the backpack items exactly the same as the glider skins - **lock dye channels for certain specified items to prevent the loss in sales**

Suggestion:

I would suggest that this feature use the glider dye channels as a base for the backpack items (above example). Set this feature aside to be done in waves - work with the most recent / easiest items (glider skins) that could be more quickly translated, then slowly roll out the older items. Another way to implement this huge change is to provide this feature in an expansion, where it can be chipped away little by little then presented completely in a selling feature for an expansion (this option is a little slimey to paywall a dye feature, but just giving suggestions).

Final thoughts:

Overall, despite the money and time it would take, I honestly think providing this base feature could add an enormous player morale boost / selling boost to the game, in other words - it'd be worth it.

At the green quest marker and trying to go in solo I get this error -

InstanceCreate failed. Error=1042; Product=9; Module=18; Line=687

There's a group of other players getting the same thing. I tried logging out and back in and restarting the game with the same issue.

> @usnedward.9023 said:

> > @TheUndefined.1720 said:

> > It launches 9am PST?

>

> There may be a time but don't hold your breath, It is crunch time. It may or may not release on time and wouldn't it be great if it released early:) I can picture the all nighter the Dev team pulled last night...the empty lines at Starbucks because there is no more coffee...the bloodshot eyes of a team on the brink of a nervous breakdown. Let's not ruin it for them :)

Cool, thanks for the info :)

It launches 9am PST?

> @Epphyx.5078 said:

> As the title says, I do think that removing the thumb down was a bad idea.

> 1) You did it on the day one Anet post was massively down voted. Most definitly a coincidence but it will stick in people's mind as "they did it so we can't express our disagreement so easily". So bad timing.

> 2) You did not remove Helpfull nor thumb up. If I have to type a message to express how I disagree with a post, with don't I have to type a message to express how I agree ?

> 3) It promote the idea that only positive thoughts are allowed on the forum. But without criticism there's no progress only stagnation.

I disagree with this to an extent. Number 1, ANet had other thumbs down votes on other posts. The fact I now have to actually express my disagreement is in support of expressing criticism and disagreement. Easy = nonconstructive. "I love ice cream!" I disagree - well why? What is it about ice cream you disagree with? Is it me loving ice cream? Etc. The whole point of the forums is to converse.

I do agree the thumbs up should also be altered. The +1 system was a good way to go. It's not necessarily an agreement or disagreement. I might +1 a funny meme b/c it made me laugh or I thought it was clever. I might also +1 a statement that I disagree with, but it was very well constructed.

Again, I don't think taking out thumbs down will pull away constructive responses but actually promotes it.

> @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> The downvote option is a valuable tool that shows people think something really is a bad idea, and its distinct from the indifference shown in simply not voting. I think, especially since its anonymous, there was no reason to remove it, and its removal may actually damage the integrity of the forum. This poll is equally anonymous, unless you comment your choice of course.

People should show if something is a bad idea by using the forums as it's intended with a response, like this one. Thumbs down was a nonconstructive form of feedback. Thumbs down could also lead towards harassment or even undue influence. I think it was a smart decision to take it out, so good job on ANet.

**(g = Gems)**

New:

**Largos Backpack / Glider:** 700g

New / 30% off Sale:

**Magnus's Eye patch:** 280g (Normally 400g)

**Pirate Captain's Outfit:** 490g (Normally 700g)

**Peg-Leg Bootks Skin:** 210g (Normally 300g)

**Pirate Hook Skin:** 210g (normally 300g)

I'm still in support of disabling this silly thumbs rating, but you got my one thumbs up. Thanks for the fun post ;)

@"castlemanic.3198"

Thanks for the counterpoints! I still disagree with your points, but I appreciate the thought out response :)

I couldn't disagree more with this suggestion. **First, I'm not disagreeing with some gender neutral armors. Sure, add a few here and there, but in mass quantities, I think this is a bad idea, here are a few reasons why:**

* **It limits outfits to one look only;** With gender specific outfits, you get 2 outfits in one - one for men and women. In other words, you get more bang for your buck

* **It dulls down the look of armor overall;** I like the look of my female characters, and if I were to choose to play a male character, I would play that character for the male attributes. I enjoy the distinct looks between male and female armors, and in general ANet has handled these distinctions incredibly respectfully (not a lot of armor-clad bikinis). This would be like me complaining that I like armor on charr more than human and for the art direction to make all human armor look the same as charr, it just waters the armor down overall.

* **There's already a very gender neutral option in game - Charr;** I get this doesn't apply to most, not everyone plays a charr, but it doesn't take away the fact that most (if not all) the armors on Charr males and females are pretty much the same or very indistinct from one another (at least from what I have experienced through my playthrough). Sure, there are certain gender specific armors like the wedding clothes, and in general the cloth gear. Still, there is an option for this in game.

Again, **I don't think gender neutral in limited quantities is bad, but in large quantities it could be a really terrible choice;** I think it limits the artist, the player, and could give an incredibly boring and dull look to the game.

Please bring back the ghostly outfit

I would support it if the system was akin to TESO's sub model. Imo, I think TESO has a well thought out sub model. Base game is free, expansions are paid per release, and with the sub-model members get:

* all DLC (Living Story for GW2) can either be paid for individually or free during monthly membership,

* the equal price of the monthly payment for the cash shop currency,

* expanded bank inventory,

* free unlimited dye use on costumes (maybe this could be switched for transmutations) during the monthly membership,

* increased xp gain,

* increased gold drops from mobs,

* decreased crafting times, etc.

I don't know how well this could translate to GW2, but the TESO sub model really pays for itself. The in game perks alone are worth the payment, then the added cash shop currency for the price of subscription is really fair for the price.

In other words, I would support a sub model so long as there are perks that go along with it - substantial perks, not just throw away ones.

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> First, I want to say that I agree with feedback that the avatars are a wee bit too large. I've put in a lower-priority request for us to revisit them. I'm not sure if it's possible to redo that aspect, but I want us to take a look.

>

> Second, let's give this "visibility" a little time, and see how it goes. There are positives: No stealth "thumbs down" sprees. There may be negatives: a clutter of icons and possible social implications. I'd like to revisit this in a week or so and see where we stand, from both a forum member and administrator perspective.

>

> Thanks for the input. You are more than welcome to also share your thoughts in the official feedback thread: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/269

It looks like they'll be wanting to keep the thumbs down for at least a week. Between the time limited edit and this really backwards non-communicative system, I'll be avoiding posts on the forums unless I feel the posts are absolutely necessary.

Just my feedback, these are forum features that were totally done away with years ago and shouldn't be reinvested by these forums. A vote-system destroys thoughtful discussion and introduces lazy popularity contests as well as possible forms of harassment. Time limited edits removes the poster's ability to change their mind and adjust their post in any meaningful way.

Please reconsider these points.

It doesn't seem to allow edits past a certain time limit (15mins?). I don't know if I'm understanding this correctly but if I am...

Suggestion: Allow infinite edits at any point in time.

Reason: People type fast and make dumb typos. People also change their minds and may want to come back and change a harsh comment to a softer comment, an insulting comment to an approachable comment, etc. Taking the power of editing out of the control of the poster is not fair.

Suggestion:

Remove Thumbs Down (and possibly Thumbs Up as well) or change the term to a neutral vote.

Reason: A thumbs down / thumbs up vote detracts from the point of using the forums. Forums are meant to share and spread ideas as well as discussion. These votes offer an optional and less communicative form of response that is not in line with discussion. These votes may also be used for harassment or point of reference for someone's feedback ( example; "I want the Disney logo as my icon" Thumbs up x1000, thumbs down x2 - "See! We should have a copyrighted logo!").

Suggestion: Change the thumbs up / thumbs down to neutral votes - examples: Insightful, Profound, Deep, Ritlock-Approved, Quaggan-tastic, Kitten!, etc... Neutral votes at least won't 1. detract the conversation with a little flavor text and 2. won't inspire harassment among members.

Additional thoughts: In general, people need to be able to take criticism. The forums are a great place for discussion and challenging ideas. However, they shouldn't be filled with a handfull of posts and hundreds of votes.