Einlanzer.1627

Something I think would be really cool would be to add supporting dialogue to PCs for when they are guests in another player's instance. It doesn't have to be anything crazy, just ambient interaction to add to the sense of immersion and camaraderie - something they can do at the same time as the primary PC voice work.

I'm trying to play through PoF with two friends and we've encountered two major problems in two nights of playing.

1st - Night of Fires doesn't want to advance when the Cmdr tells Canach to open the gate. He just stands there. We finally got past it by getting the one person that didn't have it yet the springer and bypassing it, but it's absurd that we had to do that since you aren't "supposed" to have it yet in the story.

2nd - In the very next instance, The Sacrifice, the instance area auto-updates when you jump up the plateau. I did this not realizing it would happen, and it immediately kicked the other two out of the instance, which they then had to replay alone.

These kinds of problems are not uncommon in story missions, from NPCs just standing there while you die not healing you and not attacking the enemy to random breakdowns in the progression chain. Are these things that ever get looked at?

A full underwater expansion is not a good idea (and really doesn't seem likely without a lot more experimentation first), but that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't get the occasional mostly underwater map.

The system needs an overhaul at this point, really. It's not the cleanest form of progression and I expect we'll see some changes in the next year or two. They need to find a way to consolidate the options while also making the system more flexible for players. It currently manages to be both too limiting in terms of build customization AND overwhelming in terms of choice & collection.

As one potential option, I'm a fan of getting away from the "dominant stat" paradigm and just having all stat bonuses be equal with 3 or 4 options. That would allow them to reduce the total number of different combinations while also increasing flexibility for players in how they gear.

Another option would be to allow grouping on dominant stat so you can freely swap around the subordinate stats and only need to collect gear based on the primary stat or stats.

> @"Vavume.8065" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > QoL issue is that masteries are not included on the map panel showing the statistics for map completion.

>

> I can see an issue with adding them though, people may then think they are needed for map completion.

Honestly, I think that _not_ having them there ultimately creates a lot more confusion than having them there would, considering you only need to learn/figure out **once ever** that they aren't tied to map completion.

Something I've found to be a consistently (minor) annoying QoL issue is that masteries are not included on the map panel showing the statistics for map completion. I'm not necessarily saying they should be part of map completion, but it sure would be handy to see at a glance how many there are and how many you've gotten on a particular map.

That is all.

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> Here's what Jon Stewart has to say about firing people over a tweet on [10/20/2010](

> > KING: They're asking this: what you thought about CNN, us, firing Rick Sanchez after he called you a bigot?

> >...

> >STEWART: Should they have fired him for that? No.

> >KING: You think they made a mistake?

> >STEWART: ...Fire somebody if you don't think they're doing a good job as a news person... you know, they fired a woman for Tweeting something on her thing on her blog. They fired Sanchez for saying what he said. I think it's absolute insanity. I think this idea that people have to be held to account for everything that comes out of their mouths as far as their livelihoods is concerned -- does he do a good job? Were you pleased with his job? Or was it an excuse to -- you know, to get rid of him?

> >...

> >STEWART: And, again, the idea that they would have fired him for calling me a bigot. I think if that's the reason, hire him back tomorrow... I'm sorry, that is a nasty thing to say. I don't think he actually means that. But I don't think that's a fireable offense... again, I became an easy excuse for people up top who wanted to get rid of a show that was sort of low ranked to do that. Believe me, if I had that kind of power in the world, we'd leave in a much different world. Cancer would be ice cream.

>

> This debate isn't new. But it seems impossible for people to separate the subject from the issue, and so the polarities are divided along false lines.

> * Side 1: JP is terrible, so it must be right to fire her

> * Side 2: It was wrong to fire JP, so she must not be as bad as people think

> The alternative few people seem to consider is this: JP _is_ terrible, but it's _still_ wrong to fire her.

>

> JP _may_ be "narcissistic, sexist, and entitled," and I have seen little indication to the contrary. But this isn't about, "is JP a bad person," it's, "is it the job of a company to punish people for their personal etiquette and ethics (as opposed to their professional etiquette and ethics)?"

>

> The assumption for those who say "yes" is not only that there is no division between an employee's personal and private life, but also necessarily that a company has the right to judge "politeness" and can be trusted to make correct moral judgments. But a company's prerogative is not to make correct moral judgments; it is to generate profit. A company cannot be relied upon to do "the right thing" for the sake of what is "right," especially when what is right contravenes the pursuit of profit. And yet many say that ANET firing JP is precisely the most financially judicious thing to do, and posit, therefore, that firing her is "right."

>

> There's a sort of Objectivist bent to this line of thinking, that acting as moral police when it conveniently aligns with a company's interests is "right," while ignoring the possibility that it might be abusive. There are many ways in which this this principle can be abused, and has been abused, and for so much full-throated confidence to be voiced in support of it is extremely disconcerting.

>

> It's easy to support the firing of someone who seems awful. But what's interesting in the case of JP is that, right or wrong, she certainly seems to believe that her personal ethics justify her speech. Most people seem to disagree with her personal ethics, as do I. But in the future, there might be someone whose ethics you agree with who receives the same treatment; will everyone who supported the decision this time around be so supportive next time?

It is when they are representing their company and their job and are talking primarily to people who are customers of the company she works for. People get fired for this sort of thing all the time and there's usually nothing controversial about it.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree there's a bigger ethical dilemma surrounding this topic, but I honestly don't think this case is the best example of it, nor do I think JP should be used as a poster child for when companies get out of hand. She behaved poorly and had to face consequences. End of discussion.

The way the media is spinning this is insane and a sure-fire sign that something is really, really off in our culture. I'm a liberal guy, and JP clearly has issues with arrogance, sexism, and entitlement - things that routinely cause problems for people in the real world regardless of their sex or background. Unfortunately, that's something that gets pandered to and enabled when you're a woman or a minority, which helps to escalate those traits and turn them into a toxic personality that cares very little about social mores, or even objective reality.

I mean, really, how dare she act like a victim when there are millions of people who would love the privilege of working in the gaming industry.

The big mistake Anet made was being so pro-diversity that they overlooked her personality when bringing her on board and even coddled it early on. Diversity is important, but when someone has been radicalized in the way she has, that's a pretty good sign they have deep-seated personality issues and will cause problems. And the absolute last thing you should do is enable it by giving them power.

> @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> It would be suitable for 1-2 dungeons and a raid instance. You could only reach with flying mounts. So the noobs are locked out (joking).

This. Yet another argument for why FotM and raids can't replace regular dungeons and why the decision to drop them needs to be reversed.

I think the armadillo is pretty cute, honestly. I'm more likely to get it than I would be to get a charr motorcycle. Although I probably won't get it because, like other "premium" mount skins, it's too expensive and there are too many things to spend money on in the game at this point.

> @"Daccura.4769" said:

> My god I saw some stuff too. With realistic buffs/conditions someone managed to get 37.5k - this is where Thief should be!

> What is the purporse of the Thief? Dmg and yeah pure dmg. We have aside from group stealth, which is basically useless in PvE (excluding skipping mobs) nothing to offer for the group.

> So what can a Thief do? Bring dmg to the group - a lot.

Yeah, and you have to factor in the fact that they have to stop all mobility and utility to get that.

Norn males need it worse than charr, IMO. That said, stances or poses are a great idea for customization.

I always thought it was a downward facing sword that was distorted by the angle.

yeah, it's been too long. If we aren't getting new races, we at least need new weapons. They dropped the ball not adding land spears with elona.

> @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> There is another issue..... despite being an MMO, which is notorious for having the player be either without personality or personal motivation beyond events around them, GW2 seems to trip up people who think this game's format is supposed to be like Skyrim or Mass Effect. The difference between a "Character" and an "Avatar". This same argument gets brought up indirectly when comparing JRPGs to WRPGs, and that is what defines the character the player is playing.

>

> For a good story (as commonly defined by typical gamers) requires the entire game to revolve around them. Whats ironic is that GW1 both did and didn't do this, yet it stands as one of the best executions in story and lore in the short history of MMOs. When examined closely its kind of generic; but it does something most "games" struggle with..... focus. GW1 is the story of Heroes and Villains, but it isn't the story of the player. GW2 is squarely pitched and written with the player being the center of everything..... and it suffers because the supporting cast has no way of knowing how to play off of countless permutations that are player personalities. This role was reversed in GW1, and to a different extent Warcraft did as well. Another Hero is at the forefront of an event, and you're along for the ride. This is about as ideal as you can get for an MMO that doesn't use emergent game play as its core..... you make players Supporting Characters with Agency.

>

> By trying to assign a personality to player, it tends to struggle unless you can build enough of the game to be properly react (and not react) to their actions or decisions. Without that you're forced to rely on the Player being willing to "role play".... but the vast majority not only refuse to participate this way, those that claim to be Role Players don't know how to "role play". (In case anyone is wondering..... telling people what your character is, isn't really role playing. A good role player can work around limitations; and in video games there are A LOT of inherent limitations. But even in the free form of P&P games, one can be handed a filled character sheet, and should still be able to play it with their own interpretations. If I had to make a broad generalization of the problem.... too many are obsessed with "what" the character is, rather then "who" it is. And if you ask a person to describe it, that can tell you a lot of what they think of it.)

>

> There is a 3rd option, but its a lot harder to make work with the typical types that seem attracted to "story driven RPGs". You build a main character's personality so strong and relatable, that a player will just roll with it. This is hard to do in open world formats, just on the fact that players get too much agency in when and where they can engage something. But given the trajectory, this is probably the only good option to get everyone on onboard on the limited resources ANET has to develop story assets. However, what isn't helping is depth in character tends to fly over a huge chunk of modern audiences.... and believe me when I say GW players have a bunch of those traits, because most gamers have those traits. On the one hand shouldn't treat your audience like emotionally stunted children; but when they have the power to immediately discuss and try to deconstruct every detail without time to reflect on it, does drag down their ability to properly process emotional information. To really dig into this would take hours to discuss, and part of me doesn't think people would even read this far into the reply. But watch this...

>

>

> TL;DR In short, the Commander doesn't act like a person.

I agree with all of this. I think ultimately the decision to make the PC "the hero of everything" was both arbitrary and misguided in that it just doesn't work in an MMO context for numerous reasons. I think making the story more about the heroes and villains driving the setting and not the player is the right way to do an MMO, which is part of why, story-wise, GW1 was vastly superior to GW2.

With branching paths, I think their attempt at this is a lot of what made the PS execution very lackluster.

I also think they've shoehorned themselves with the way they've designed the narrative that makes it overly difficult to do things that MMOs really need to be able to do, like add new playable races, for example.

With that said, I think there are ways to improve the status quo without starting from scratch. They could do more variations of dialogue based on chosen personality, and they also need to add depth and presence to the games various NPCs, most of whom just aren't fully realized as characters.

I don't think gliding is useless even after getting griffon. In fact, I just went back to max it out. I also wouldn't be surprised if they try to find ways to increase its relevance in future content.

I mean... can't you buy them from the TP?

> @"muffi.3964" said:

> > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > @"Laivine.9308" said:

> > > > @"Loukious.7346" said:

> > > > > @"Twyn.7320" said:

> > > > > This is Deroir's quote: 'But, if instead players were given the option to meaningfully express *their* character through branching dialogue options (which also aren't just on the checklist for an achievement that forces you through all dialogue options), then perhaps players would be more invested in the roleplaying aspect of that particular MMORPG. Nonetheless, I appreciate the insightful thread!'

> > > >

> > > > This is what the people pissed about her being fired missed. He wasn't trying to tell her how to do her job. He was offering an opinion. One that she could take into the offices and say "Hey can we implement this?" or not want to use it and say "Well that's not the direction we are going but I can see your point". Instead she goes down the "oh a man is telling me how to do my job" road. It just bothers me that people seem to want to defend her in this when if you read through his whole post it seems like he is giving a good idea and seeing if it could be used or not and asking for her feedback. Instead she makes it into a sexism issue.

> > >

> > > If you want feedback, you ask for it. If you offer feedback without being asked for it, you're an kitten. Period.

> > > Try to imagine how it would be receiving feedback for all possible things, that you are fully aware of, on your everyday life without asking it. You all seem to miss this critical point.

> >

> > Somehow giving feedback is worse than insulting a player base.

> > Yep.

> >

> > What a strange world where feedback is not longer possible. Sometimes I wonder if everyone here has a job.

>

> Some of the people here sound like they're on tumbler 24/7 and have no connection to the real world where they'd be laughed at for spouting such nonsense

Never heard of this incident, but, yeah, seems like he deserved to lose it. You sure do make a lot of assumptions about people who disagree with you.

> @"Phosphorite.6192" said:

> > @"muffi.3964" said:

> > > @"Phosphorite.6192" said:

> > > > @"Shadowmoon.7986" said:

> > > > https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/6/17541318/guild-wars-arenanet-jessica-price-peter-fries-fired-reddit

> > > > And she learned nothing. Good riddance, at first I felt bad about someone losing their job, but blaming everyone but herself and pulling the sexism card again. I still feel bad for Peter, I feel he was collateral damage. Hopefuly anet vets people better with their social media BEFORE they get hired. I know hine sight is 20/20 but she had questional things on Twitter before she was hired. Peter might still have a job if they held that standard.

> > > > It reminds me a teacher who got fired for supporting segregation on facebook, and another district hire her and found out about it afterwards and fired her again. The first istance was the teachers fault, the second was district failing to do the proper vetting.

> > >

> > > And I am absolutely with her on this.

> > >

> > > "Furthermore, ArenaNet was not only aware of her outspoken approach to discussing similar issues on social media but encouraging of it. During a job interview with the company, she had told them she was “loud about these issues on social media and had no intention of shutting up. They reassured me that they ‘admired [my] willingness to speak truth to power.’”"

> > >

> > > Huh how fast the tables can turn.

> >

> >

> > Insulting customers while being racist and misandrist is not "voicing the truth"

>

> Again, Racism against white people is not a thing and voicing frustration about men being condescending and putting them in their place is not misandry.

Yes, it absolutely is. Prejuduce + power is a stipulative redefinition of the word racism to fit a political agenda where white people are always oppressors and minorities are always victims, which is absolutely not how modern society works, and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. The word racism has been used for eons to refer to any form of racial prejudice, which non-whites absolutely can and often do possess, and it's every bit as toxic as white racism.

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > @"saerni.2584" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"Laivine.9308" said:

> > > > > > @"phokus.8934" said:

> > > > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand?

> > > > >

> > > > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand?

> > > >

> > > > No. Accusing someone of mansplaining for stating their opinion or challenging your perspective is sexism.

> > >

> > > No it isn’t. Explain how you made the leap from “accuse a person of sexism” to “they are sexist.”

> > >

> > > @"Dashingsteel.3410"

> > >

> > > Not a woman. Ad hominem. Non sequitur.

> > >

> > > You can comment on something. I’m suggesting you comment intelligently by understanding her argument and not automatically dismissing it.

> >

> > He didn't make a leap in logic there because that very leap is what he commented on. Yelling "mansplain" is already sexism because it dismisses a man's opinion or knowledge based on his sex. It's not rocket science and yet people who oppose the entire idea of gendering something like that have to explain it to people who don't see the issue that lies therein

> >

> > What a laugh

>

> It’s not based on his sex. It’s a term that describes a common sexist assumption by men that women are inherently less competent and need to have the world explained to them by a man. Even if that man is not at all qualified and the woman is highly skilled.

>

> It is a term that describes one result of sexism. It uses “man” because the sexism of men towards women is uniquely represented in this behavior. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior.

>

> You are latching onto the use of “man” in “mansplain” to call this sexist. But, this is a red herring that distracts from what she was complaining about—sexism—by making her responsible for a term that uses “man” for no other reason than it accurately describes a socialogical phenomenon.

>

> This is why I call it a logical leap. You start by associating a common term with her and attribute bias to that term without thinking about why that term is what it is. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex.

>

> @"Einlanzer.1627"

So, by that logic, would you argue that "hysterical", how it was used in the 19th century, was not sexist?

Regardless, sorry, but you don't have a winning argument here.

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Laivine.9308" said:

> > > > @"phokus.8934" said:

> > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand?

> > >

> > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand?

> >

> > No. Accusing someone of mansplaining for stating their opinion or challenging your perspective is sexism.

>

> No it isn’t. Explain how you made the leap from “accuse a person of sexism” to “they are sexist.”

>

> @"Dashingsteel.3410"

>

> Not a woman. Ad hominem. Non sequitur.

>

> You can comment on something. I’m suggesting you comment intelligently by understanding her argument and not automatically dismissing it.

Yes it is. "Mansplaining" is actually a sexist term the same way "hysterical" used to be. It takes a perceived negative behavior and generalizes it to an entire sex of people (in reality, women condescend in dialogue every bit as much as men do.) When that's done against women or minorities, it's always considered sexist or racist. The only reason you don't believe it is here is because men aren't seen as victims in modern society (even though there are many ways in which men are disadvantaged relative to women, this being one).

It's all about indoctrination.

> @"Laivine.9308" said:

> > @"phokus.8934" said:

> > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand?

>

> Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand?

No. Accusing someone of mansplaining merely for stating their opinion or challenging your perspective is sexism.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> Of course this entire topic is highly subjective. Having said that ...

>

> In My Opinion

>

> HoT maps were revolutionary in their design and are arguably the best set of maps in GW2 to date; however, that does not inherently make them the best game-play maps. There are reasons why HoT maps were nerfed and why there are continued calls to nerf them further. PoF maps were designed with this history in mind and the extreme backlash that came from the HoT release.

>

> PoF maps have had their own points of contention and as the S4 maps have come out we see a gradual decrease in difficulty. Personally, I thought Sandswept was in a nice spot -- it had areas that were easier than others. Both it and Kourna don't have the over-aggressive AI that chases players all over the map. In this, I believe that ANet listened to the complaints of PoF.

>

> We cannot know the true population of any of the maps. Only ANet has those metrics. They can see if VB/AB/TD are indeed as popular as many of us advocate. They can see how prosperous the Istan meta is for players. They can also see the activity on the PoF maps versus HoT and DT/SW and use those metrics to guide their design intentions going forward.

>

> As a very casual player, I despise the HoT maps, especially TD, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the quality in them nor would I ask for changes in those maps which clearly have their following. There are plenty of other maps for me to wander through.

I agree with pretty much all of this, although I do think they need to downgrade the champs at most hero challenges to veterans. The content is just too old to justify making it that much more difficult to unlock elite specs in HoT vs PoF.

> @"Jeffrey Vaughn.1793" said:

> What's consistently worked for me:

> - Walk _with_ Rylock and Canach as they approach the camp, and stop when they stop to finish the opening dialog.

> - When your objective updates to "Infiltrate the Forged war camp." you're clear to run ahead and take out the two gate guards.

>

> There's an odd timing issue if you run ahead of your allies and cause some dialogs to interrupt each other. (Especially if the instance owner stays back while another player runs ahead.) It's going to take some time to unwrap and fix the timing issue, but this should at least get you through the chapter.

This is not working for me. I'm trying to do this instance with two friends, and no matter what we do, Canach does not ever open the gate. He says he is going to, then just stands there.

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> I am all for build saving but your problem is a completely different issue that would not be solved by such a feature. If you can accidentally change your traits what is there to stop you from accidentally forgetting to save?

That isn't what he's suggesting.

The game just needs to automatically remember trait assignments when swapping traitlines around. It's that simple, and the game definitely needs it. It's too cumbersome to rearrange your build because of retraiting lines resetting your trait assignments unnecessarily. The problem is made worse if you play multiple classes.