kharmin.7683

> @"Nugget.7203" said: > > @"Deedrick.4372" said: > > None, screwing up the game so its unplayable should always be optional. > > the game is already unplayable > Thousands, if not millions, of players logged in daily would argue that point.

> @"Randulf.7614" said: > April Fools was a tradition going back to GW1 days. Gender reversals, stick figures etc. Never hurt their business interest before and it wont in the future either. > > Personally it's people kicking up a fuss over nothing when they create over it, but Anet can always just make it capital cities only or LA only like in GW1. That way a it's a one day bit of completely harmless fun that doesn't become a needless drama Fuss over nothing in your view, perhaps. For some of us, it was a pretty big deal. Implementing this kind of thing in capital cities only would be preferable.

> @"Ayakaru.6583" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"Ayakaru.6583" said: > > > For me, I'd like to see a grainscale filter. > > > All visuals through a brown filter, lines and rasps across the screen as if it's an eighties cinema screening. > > > All audio and music filtered to make it sound like a gramophone player is playing. > > > > > > (I know that plane effect a few years back got anet on edge, but an effect like this is so harmless i can't possibly imagine any backlash) > > > > No backlash? I hated it. I didn't play until it was gone. I know several other players who likewise hated it. > > Well, for that effect, there should always be a disable button, of course > (can hardly imagine why anyone would passionately hate a 1-day effect, though) Were you around when it happened? I despised this effect to the point that the game wasn't fun to play. Others I know did as well. Implementing something globally that discourages players from logging in or playing that game is not something that I think would be in Anet's best interests. Yes, a disable option would be preferred should something like this be implemented.

> @"Ayakaru.6583" said: > For me, I'd like to see a grainscale filter. > All visuals through a brown filter, lines and rasps across the screen as if it's an eighties cinema screening. > All audio and music filtered to make it sound like a gramophone player is playing. > > (I know that plane effect a few years back got anet on edge, but an effect like this is so harmless i can't possibly imagine any backlash) No backlash? I hated it. I didn't play until it was gone. I know several other players who likewise hated it.

> @"Naxos.2503" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > I don't believe that Anet wants to give players the ability to turn off other players' effects. I believe a good portion of their gem store sales are supported by Fashion Wars. They need these effects to be visible to encourage purchases. Just my opinion. > > While the statement is true, I think it could readily be applied to infusions, as they are not store sold items, or is there one sold that I'm not aware of ? > Perhaps, but my point is that I don't believe that Anet would be willing to offer an option to turn off just infusions. Seems like a lot of work for them with little to no reward.

I certainly don't use the more "popular" runes and sigils because I don't want to pay the price for them across all of my characters and builds. But then, I'm a very casual player. Perhaps I could find more success in content with which I struggle if I invested in them.

I don't believe that Anet wants to give players the ability to turn off other players' effects. I believe a good portion of their gem store sales are supported by Fashion Wars. They need these effects to be visible to encourage purchases. Just my opinion.

Glad I could help. Steal away! :)

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > Alt+1 Build Template A > > Alt+2 Equipment Template A > > Alt+3 Build Template B > > Alt+4 Equipment Template B > > Alt+5 Build Template C > > Alt+6 Equipment Template C > > > > Shift+1 Raptor > > Shift+2 Springer > > Shift+3 Skimmer > > Shift+4 Jackal > > Shift+5 Griffon > > Shift+6 Skyscale > > Shift+7 Roller Beetle > > Shift+8 Warclaw > > > > > > Not a one-button solution, but I've found it easy enough for me. /shrug > > I like those build and equipment template shortcuts. I’ll have to use those. I just found it easy for me to hold down the Alt key with my pinky and then quickly hit whatever 2 numbers I need to swap my build/equipment. I had already done a similar set up with the mounts, so it was almost natural for me. > I use the number pad on my keyboard as the mount shortcuts, instead of the number keys across the top. They evidently are different (which I didn’t know before) I know other people do this, too, but I'd rather keep my right hand on my mouse and my left closer to all of the keys that I use instead of reaching for the number pad. /shrug Whatever works, right?

Alt+1 Build Template A Alt+2 Equipment Template A Alt+3 Build Template B Alt+4 Equipment Template B Alt+5 Build Template C Alt+6 Equipment Template C Shift+1 Raptor Shift+2 Springer Shift+3 Skimmer Shift+4 Jackal Shift+5 Griffon Shift+6 Skyscale Shift+7 Roller Beetle Shift+8 Warclaw Not a one-button solution, but I've found it easy enough for me. /shrug

> @"Veprovina.4876" said: > If the company takes their idea, then they are getting compensated, whether the company sought their services or got the concept art for somethign at random. > If they don't, it's plagiarism. At the very least, the company should contact the artist and have them talk it out. > > Now of course, "community ideas" work a bit different, and you can't just pay the community for every word written on the forums, but the point is, if they do end up making OP's idea, the least they can do is give him his oozes. :wink: From the [GW2 User Agreement](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-user-agreement/): --- start paste --- You acknowledge, and further agree, that You have no IP right related to any Account ID, any Account Display Name, any ArenaNet Message Board ID, any communication or information on any ArenaNet Message Board provided by You or anyone else, any information, feedback or communication related to the Game, any Character ID or characteristics related to a Character ID, any combination of the foregoing or parts thereof, or any combination of the foregoing with any Service, Content, Game, or parts thereof. --- end paste --- Would it be generous and a good faith act for Anet to "give" something to the player who brought something like this to production? Sure, but they are certainly not obligated to do so, nor is it plagiarism.

There is also this thing from the gem store: [https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_Boss_Portal_Device](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_Boss_Portal_Device)

> @"moony.5780" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"Hesione.9412" said: > > > > > The problem is dailies on those lower level maps. The solution is for those dailies to be unavailable to players who have a level 80 on their account. The mounts are account-bound rather than character-bound, so the conditional has to be maximum character level. > > I think that this would be a terrible idea. > > I think so too. > i think the dmg from mounts can be near 0 in central tyria. The game was very easy playable without mount, and player should learn their class there not how to kill stuff with a raptor tail. But veteran players already know their classes. Why should they not benefit from the dismount skill? I don't think that nerfing damage down to 0 from mounts is the right answer.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > To the OP: I think you used the right term at the start: **incentivize** > > That doesn’t necessarily mean ‘force’ as some others have pointed out. I disagree. Please see my earlier posts on why. > Making rewards that require all modes would be great. > > **However** provide alternatives that may take longer and more effort in another mode. > > They kind of did that with legendary armor. Raid armor can take the shortest time if you play it regularly, but I at least have access to Legendary armor via WvW, it just takes me a lot longer. PvP also can obtain legendary armor. > > The problem I have is (and likely others) often there is no alternative way to obtain. > > For an example: make Gift of exploration available after rank 2000 in WvW once you have collected 5000 skirmish tickets. (Random numbers used, not actual time comparisons) > > Make GoB obtainable in an exchange for 4 Gifts of Exploration. Or more maybe I don’t know.. > > So the **incentive** is there, but not the **requirement** Happy now? I've included the entirety of your post. I didn't have anything to add to these points, but since you continue to be vexed by my not including them, well, here they are. They aren't relevant to what I was pointing out, which I said in a previous post. Yes, alternatives like this might be incentives and not requirements, but that was not what the OP was saying which is why I only responded to the very first point.

> @"Hesione.9412" said: > The problem is dailies on those lower level maps. The solution is for those dailies to be unavailable to players who have a level 80 on their account. The mounts are account-bound rather than character-bound, so the conditional has to be maximum character level. I think that this would be a terrible idea.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > > > @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > > > > > Reality is a spoiled "Open World PvE" playerbase will not accept any activity that has a fail condition and that they cannot be completely carried through. > > > > > That's a bit cynical, no? You assume this statement holds for every player who enjoys OWPvE? Perhaps in your experience, but let's not paint an entire community with such a broad brush. > > > > I could sit here and dispute you but... > > > > >I disagree. If Anet were to add more incentives to particular content, then in order for players to achieve them, they would have to play the content; otherwise, they would not be able to achieve those incentives. That's why I felt it would be forcing. > > > > You yourself play semantics over the word "forced" and just prove the entitled nature of the vast majority of OWPvE players better than I ever could. > > > > > > Entitled? How? Please explain, because I really don't get it. > > > > Nothing in what you said indicated a sense of entitlement. This is just another example of someone throwing around a catchphrase without really understanding it. > > Like the word ‘forced’. ? I don't know what else to call it when the OP wants Anet to add "incentives" for content with which players aren't engaging enough for the OP. If players want the additional "incentive", they would then be forced to do the content. I can't make this point any more clear. If some can't wrap their mind around it, then I can't do anything more.

> @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > > > > Sounds to me like anet has noticed player numbers dropping, and are doing a last-ditch effort to retain who they have. You know, fulfil player wishes in hopes of keeping them playing (and paying). Cynical? Maybe. > > > > > > > > > > And no, i'm not saying the game is dying. just stating the more likely scenario. > > > > > > > > > A more likely scenario with no data to back up that assumption? > > > > > > > > > > Since we're only guessing here, why is mine the one people gang up on? Not what you like to here is my guess. Still, my guess isn't going turn a guess into reality any more than anyone elses. > > > > Well you do say its more likely then any of the other claims, so what proof you got that your guess is more valid then the others mate? > > Nothing, which shouldn't surprise anybody. When we all start providing inside knowledge to anets decisions, we'll all be working there. That, imo, could only improve matters. ;)

> @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > > Reality is a spoiled "Open World PvE" playerbase will not accept any activity that has a fail condition and that they cannot be completely carried through. > > That's a bit cynical, no? You assume this statement holds for every player who enjoys OWPvE? Perhaps in your experience, but let's not paint an entire community with such a broad brush. > I could sit here and dispute you but... > >I disagree. If Anet were to add more incentives to particular content, then in order for players to achieve them, they would have to play the content; otherwise, they would not be able to achieve those incentives. That's why I felt it would be forcing. > You yourself play semantics over the word "forced" and just prove the entitled nature of the vast majority of OWPvE players better than I ever could. Entitled? How? Please explain, because I really don't get it.

> @"TeeracK.3601" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > I would more easily accept dwarves over tengu. > > why would you be against one of the core guild wars 1 races? Especially when they are a key example of tyrian fantasy(charr, asura, sylvari, etc) where they try to break away from the generic fantasy tropes. Because I don't like tengu.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > To the OP: I think you used the right term at the start: **incentivize** > > > > > > > > > > That doesn’t necessarily mean ‘force’ as some others have pointed out. > > > > I disagree. If Anet were to add more incentives to particular content, then in order for players to achieve them, they would have to play the content; otherwise, they would not be able to achieve those incentives. That's why I felt it would be forcing. > > > > > > > > > > Which is also why I expounded on the idea. Incentivizing would be making a mode easier for some things to be acquired, and harder in others. > > > > > > But still be able to be acquired in your preferred mode. > > > > > Right, but in the context of the original post, I felt the suggestion would force players into content which was my point. That's why I disagreed with your statement. /shrug > > Right, except you removed the whole point of my post in your disagreement. /shrug. I only wanted to react to that one statement.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > To the OP: I think you used the right term at the start: **incentivize** > > > > > > That doesn’t necessarily mean ‘force’ as some others have pointed out. > > I disagree. If Anet were to add more incentives to particular content, then in order for players to achieve them, they would have to play the content; otherwise, they would not be able to achieve those incentives. That's why I felt it would be forcing. > > > > Which is also why I expounded on the idea. Incentivizing would be making a mode easier for some things to be acquired, and harder in others. > > But still be able to be acquired in your preferred mode. > Right, but in the context of the original post, I felt the suggestion would force players into content which was my point. That's why I disagreed with your statement. /shrug

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > To the OP: I think you used the right term at the start: **incentivize** > > That doesn’t necessarily mean ‘force’ as some others have pointed out. I disagree. If Anet were to add more incentives to particular content, then in order for players to achieve them, they would have to play the content; otherwise, they would not be able to achieve those incentives. That's why I felt it would be forcing.

> @"mindcircus.1506" said: > Reality is a spoiled "Open World PvE" playerbase will not accept any activity that has a fail condition and that they cannot be completely carried through. That's a bit cynical, no? You assume this statement holds for every player who enjoys OWPvE? Perhaps in your experience, but let's not paint an entire community with such a broad brush.

If any "factions" happen, I hope that they don't prevent the ability to complete content because a player chooses one faction over another. The only way I would want to see factions implemented would be in some WvW capacity, which would be unattached to anything OWPvE.

> @"Danikat.8537" said: > > @"Rhaazyk.6374" said: > > Yay for even MORE trash, just like all the armor I get on my lvl 80 guy that ends up being trash and broken down. I have gone through so many salvage kits that I now make sure I have 100 of them before I go out for a day of killing stuff. > > If you have Mystic Forge Stones you can use them to make a [Mystic Salvage Kit](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mystic_Salvage_Kit), which has 250 uses. I make them with stones from login rewards and I find them much more convenient than the default kits. One day I might get one of the permanent ones, but as long as I've got mystic forge stones to use up I don't see the need. > Yeah, I do this, too especially for the Mystic Forger daily.