Einlanzer.1627
-
Posts
1,016 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Einlanzer.1627
-
-
> @"Menadena.7482" said:
> I am going to guess maybe you are not in the US or some other western country? It is pride month, it is pretty common to do rainbows on things (I assume that is what they did). Just like on St Patrick's day you will find things in the US turning green for a day.
I am mostly ambivalent about changing the logo (I don't really think it's needed, but it's not harmful either - plenty of companies show this kind of LGBT support and are perfectly within their right to do so).
But, this is an interesting point - handling of pride is no different than handling of St. Patty's day. If you oppose changing a logo because it's "political" you should also oppose changing the logo for events like St. Patty's Day. I'd guess that most of the naysayers don't have any problem with Anet doing similar things with other groups. This shows the issue is you, not pride and not Anet.
-
> @"Sojourner.4621" said:
> Here's the question, how far do they go?
>
> If they introduce new weapons at MINIMUM they need new skills and new animations. How many people will be happy with just that. At this point we have HUNDREDS of different full weapon skin sets. If they don't add new axe skins to at least every one of the core weapon skins there would be a mutiny. Then there are the gem store skins... do they do those too? Beyond that, we don't have ANY idea how easy or complex it is to actually code a new weapon... not just transferring an existing one to a new class, but adding an entirely new weapon to the game from scratch. It **sounds** easy enough, but then so does adding more than two currency types to display at the bottom of the inventory screen, and in a Reddit AMA the devs said that when they looked in to it, it was basically impossible without re-writing the entire inventory screen from scratch. To be honest, we will likely never see a new weapon set... the best we can hope for is more skins that resemble the weapon people want on an existing weapon set.
There's a lot of this kind of thing in the game "we can't feasibly do this because of having to rewrite major parts of the game to accommodate it".
That is a terrible, terrible way to design an MMO. Sounds like some very amateur frameworking went into building this game, which is why we regularly can't have nice things.
-
> @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:
> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > Asura outlawed the use of Double Handed Axes, because too many "Accidents" in the lab while trying to slice watermelons.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you all know why they are not in the game.
> > > >
> > > > That's just about as dumb as Elonians breaking their spears and turning them into daggers. Because someone who's used a spear their whole life is going to want to destroy the weapon they're intimately familiar with and distort it into something else they aren't as adept with.
> > >
> > > well when what you are familiar with gets outlawed and you still want to live, you may want to do something with it to not get attention of undead authorities ya know....
> > >
> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:
> > > > > > @"Overlord RainyDay.2084" said:
> > > > > > If you added a new weapon type and only gave it to three classes,
> > > > >
> > > > > except other 6 classes would whine about 3 getting new toys so you'd need to find something new to introduce to them to satisfy those, and then you could get into issues of "but XX weapon fits Y class more than Z so why Z has it and Y don't" elite specs gets somewhat away with it because all classes gets something "new" in terms of tools available to them but nothing of these is purely exclusive to anything. so the only complaints you hear is that one guy complaining about axe-wielding librarians (which sounds awesome to me but apparently silly to him) or those guys complaining about one class getting mainhand and offhand while other gets only one of these. which is still much less
> > > >
> > > > You're sensationalizing something that's mostly a non-issue. They could easily add 3-4 new weapon types in a single expansion and give each class access to one of those 3 or 4. And I'm sure people will complain anyway, but people complain about everything that happens. That shouldn't stop the addition of things that are good for the game.
> > >
> > > "could easily add", yet they didn't. Haven't a thought occur to you that maybe, just maybe it wouldn't be that easy? also are you sure that whole new weapon types right now are really "good for the game"?
> >
> > That was just an attempt at justifying a gameplay change through lore, rather than the other way around.
>
> yes, but a very well thought out one as opposed to your previous claim ;)
>
> > Everything in the software world is just a matter of priorities, which are influenced by how easy or hard something is but also by business desires. You could literally use "it's hard" as an excuse to not do anything, ever, which would obviously be a terrible idea. Adding new weapon types absolutely does not need to be any harder than anything they've done in the past, like adding gliding and mounts. Again, it's about priorities, and I see no reason why new weapon types shouldn't be a priority when:
>
> let me rephrase for you: it requires too much effort to do safely for it to be profitable
And, having experience with game design and software iteration, I don't agree.
-
> @"piitb.7635" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > I think GW2's biggest issue is a total lack of vertical progression in end game combined with pretty limited horizontal progression. The mastery system is cool, but it's not as fleshed out as it needs to be, and character building in general is too restrictive with locked down weapon skills, a limited number of traits, and no ability to cross profession barriers. I think this combination of factors leads to a lot of people playing for a short time and finding it really cool, but it lacks the stickiness other MMOs have with a very high rate of abandonment and/or super casual play.
> >
> > Since GW2 is basically built on no vertical progression, I think there needs to be a much stronger focus on horizontal. It can't just be fashion wars. You have to give players a virtually unlimited ability to experiment with different builds and acquire new skills/traits and continue to "grow" in some way. New weapon skills, new weapon types, new trait options, new specialized types of gear to pursue that are based on unique properties rather than stat inflation. All of that is needed.
>
> Or they could add alternative advancement as seen in other MMOs.
>
> AA is a way to keep players grinding without having item power creep.
>
Well, that's basically what I was talking about. We do have that, but it's not refined enough or executed as well as it could be. In truth, GW2 is arguably designed in too much of an on-rails way to not have vertical progression. AA really works best in more sandboxy games that don't put your character development on rails, such as PoE.
I think the struggles GW2 has had are largely related to that. On-rails leveling in an on-rails world that just stops at the end game with not that much to do outside of cosmetic collections. They should have either gone with vertical progression, or designed the toon building process to be more open-ended.
-
I think GW2's biggest issue is a total lack of vertical progression in end game combined with pretty limited horizontal progression. The mastery system is cool, but it's not as fleshed out as it needs to be, and character building in general is too restrictive with locked down weapon skills, a limited number of traits, and no ability to cross profession barriers outside of getting new elite specs. I think this combination of factors leads to a lot of people playing for a short time and finding it really cool, but it lacks the stickiness other MMOs have with a very high rate of abandonment and/or super casual play.
Since GW2 is basically built on no vertical progression, I think there needs to be a much stronger focus on horizontal. It can't just be fashion wars. You have to give players a virtually unlimited ability to experiment with different builds and acquire new skills/traits and continue to "grow" in some way. New weapon skills, new weapon types, new trait options, new specialized types of gear to pursue that are based on unique properties rather than stat inflation. All of that is needed to a much higher degree than we're getting it.
While I definitely like getting elite specs a lot better than getting nothing, I don't think it was conceptually the best way to settle on creating more horizontal progression. It's too on-rails and effectively just changes the best build for a given profession from expansion to expansion. I would have created a much more generalized system of skill and trait hunting similar to what GW1 had that allowed all professions to dabble in tons of new areas.
-
> @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > Asura outlawed the use of Double Handed Axes, because too many "Accidents" in the lab while trying to slice watermelons.
> > >
> > > Now you all know why they are not in the game.
> >
> > That's just about as dumb as Elonians breaking their spears and turning them into daggers. Because someone who's used a spear their whole life is going to want to destroy the weapon they're intimately familiar with and distort it into something else they aren't as adept with.
>
> well when what you are familiar with gets outlawed and you still want to live, you may want to do something with it to not get attention of undead authorities ya know....
>
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:
> > > > @"Overlord RainyDay.2084" said:
> > > > If you added a new weapon type and only gave it to three classes,
> > >
> > > except other 6 classes would whine about 3 getting new toys so you'd need to find something new to introduce to them to satisfy those, and then you could get into issues of "but XX weapon fits Y class more than Z so why Z has it and Y don't" elite specs gets somewhat away with it because all classes gets something "new" in terms of tools available to them but nothing of these is purely exclusive to anything. so the only complaints you hear is that one guy complaining about axe-wielding librarians (which sounds awesome to me but apparently silly to him) or those guys complaining about one class getting mainhand and offhand while other gets only one of these. which is still much less
> >
> > You're sensationalizing something that's mostly a non-issue. They could easily add 3-4 new weapon types in a single expansion and give each class access to one of those 3 or 4. And I'm sure people will complain anyway, but people complain about everything that happens. That shouldn't stop the addition of things that are good for the game.
>
> "could easily add", yet they didn't. Haven't a thought occur to you that maybe, just maybe it wouldn't be that easy? also are you sure that whole new weapon types right now are really "good for the game"?
That was just an attempt at justifying a gameplay change through lore, rather than the other way around.
Everything in the software world is just a matter of priorities, which are influenced by how easy or hard something is but also by business desires. You could literally use "it's hard" as an excuse to not do anything, ever, which would obviously be a terrible idea. Adding new weapon types absolutely does not need to be any harder than anything they've done in the past, like adding gliding and mounts. Again, it's about priorities, and I see no reason why new weapon types shouldn't be a priority when:
'
a). it wouldn't be significantly more difficult than any other type of new development - that's just used as an excuse for business priorities.
b.) some very obvious ones are missing, causing flavor and theming vacuums
c.) they're running out of room to logically pass existing weapon choices around to new classes.
-
> @"STIHL.2489" said:
> Asura outlawed the use of Double Handed Axes, because too many "Accidents" in the lab while trying to slice watermelons.
>
> Now you all know why they are not in the game.
That's just about as dumb as Elonians breaking their spears and turning them into daggers. Because someone who's used a spear their whole life is going to want to destroy the weapon they're intimately familiar with and distort it into something else they aren't as adept with.
-
They really need to figure out a way to make new races work. I'm confident they can. IMO - craft a new personal story that encompasses several races, then the effort to tie them into the Living World isn't as significant. Basically just adding new voicework.
-
> @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:
> > @"Overlord RainyDay.2084" said:
> > If you added a new weapon type and only gave it to three classes,
>
> except other 6 classes would whine about 3 getting new toys so you'd need to find something new to introduce to them to satisfy those, and then you could get into issues of "but XX weapon fits Y class more than Z so why Z has it and Y don't" elite specs gets somewhat away with it because all classes gets something "new" in terms of tools available to them but nothing of these is purely exclusive to anything. so the only complaints you hear is that one guy complaining about axe-wielding librarians (which sounds awesome to me but apparently silly to him) or those guys complaining about one class getting mainhand and offhand while other gets only one of these. which is still much less
You're sensationalizing something that's mostly a non-issue. They could easily add 3-4 new weapon types in a single expansion and give each class access to one of those 3 or 4. And I'm sure people will complain anyway, but people complain about everything that happens. That shouldn't stop the addition of things that are good for the game.
-
> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > Revenants are by far the class with the fewest skill options and most limited build flexibility.
>
> Perhaps so. However, I wonder whether that has more to do with the way their 6-10 slots work than their 1-5's.
It's mostly the latter, but the former is part of it too. They are obviously missing at least one weapon from their core set. They launched with Hammer as their only ranged weapon, and it isn't particularly versatile. What's more, they lack an all-purpose weapon at all, with all of their weapons being highly specialized in one way or another. It was just designed in an overly restrictive and pigeon-holing way.
-
> @"Pifil.5193" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:
> > > I was surprised by the following.
> > >
> > > **Weapons available (non-aquatic)**: 16
> > >
> > > **Land weapons available to each core profession (irrespective of which hand they are equipped in)**
> > > Warrior: 9
> > > Guardian: 9
> > > Ranger: 8
> > > Mesmer: 7
> > > Necromancer: 6
> > > Revenant: 5
> > > Elementalist: 4
> > > Thief: 4
> > > Engineer: 3
> > >
> > > **Weapon _skills_ available (counting combos as one skill)**
> > > Elementalist: 60
> > > Warrior: 39 (or 46 if you want to include Burst Skills, which are weapon-specific)
> > > Guardian: 30 (note that Guardian has fewer skills than warrior with the same number of weapons due to all three main hand weapons being main hand only)
> > > Ranger: 29
> > > Mesmer: 24
> > > Thief, Necromancer and Revenant: 20
> > > Engineer: 12 (excluding kits; if you want to include them, add 35 to get a total of 47)
> > >
> > > **Skills available in the 1-5 slots at any given time (e.g., within a single combat)**
> > > Elementalist: 20 (potentially more if they want to use their version of kits)
> > > Necromancer: 15 (counting shroud skills -- not tied to a weapon, but then again neither are kits)
> > > Warrior: 12 (or 10, not counting burst skills)
> > > Thief, Mesmer, Guardian, Revenant, Ranger: 10
> > > Engineer: 5 (plus kit skills, number will vary)
> > >
> > > I'm not entirely sure what to make of all that, but I have to believe that any view of Engineers as disadvantaged are solely rooted in the number of weapons stat. As far as build diversity tied to the number 1-5 skill slots, they are no worse of than a lot of other professions. As to Revenant, the profession doesn't seem any worse off with regard to weapon or weapon skill diversity than some other professions.
> > >
> > > I agree with Tzarakiel that core builds for Engineer, Revenant and Guardian lack the weapon options he cites. It's worth noting, though, that Elite Specs are supposed to fill in holes in the core professions. That said, even with the existing Elite Specs, Guardian still lacks a condition ranged weapon choice.
> >
> > This is propagandistic against engineers. Their kits uniquely function as weapons, so they effectively have way more skills than you imply here.
> >
> > Revenants are by far the class with the fewest skill options and most limited build flexibility.
>
> IndigoSundown specifically stated that engineer kits gave them a lot more skills.
>
> When taking about the number of weapon skills professions have, for example:
> "Engineer: 12 (excluding kits; if you want to include them, add 35 to get a total of 47)"
Yeah I missed that on my first read along with the second part at the bottom of the post. Getting too zealous.
-
> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:
> I was surprised by the following.
>
> **Weapons available (non-aquatic)**: 16
>
> **Land weapons available to each core profession (irrespective of which hand they are equipped in)**
> Warrior: 9
> Guardian: 9
> Ranger: 8
> Mesmer: 7
> Necromancer: 6
> Revenant: 5
> Elementalist: 4
> Thief: 4
> Engineer: 3
>
> **Weapon _skills_ available (counting combos as one skill)**
> Elementalist: 60
> Warrior: 39 (or 46 if you want to include Burst Skills, which are weapon-specific)
> Guardian: 30 (note that Guardian has fewer skills than warrior with the same number of weapons due to all three main hand weapons being main hand only)
> Ranger: 29
> Mesmer: 24
> Thief, Necromancer and Revenant: 20
> Engineer: 12 (excluding kits; if you want to include them, add 35 to get a total of 47)
>
> **Skills available in the 1-5 slots at any given time (e.g., within a single combat)**
> Elementalist: 20 (potentially more if they want to use their version of kits)
> Necromancer: 15 (counting shroud skills -- not tied to a weapon, but then again neither are kits)
> Warrior: 12 (or 10, not counting burst skills)
> Thief, Mesmer, Guardian, Revenant, Ranger: 10
> Engineer: 5 (plus kit skills, number will vary)
>
> I'm not entirely sure what to make of all that, but I have to believe that any view of Engineers as disadvantaged are solely rooted in the number of weapons stat. As far as build diversity tied to the number 1-5 skill slots, they are no worse of than a lot of other professions. As to Revenant, the profession doesn't seem any worse off with regard to weapon or weapon skill diversity than some other professions.
>
> I agree with Tzarakiel that core builds for Engineer, Revenant and Guardian lack the weapon options he cites. It's worth noting, though, that Elite Specs are supposed to fill in holes in the core professions. That said, even with the existing Elite Specs, Guardian still lacks a condition ranged weapon choice.
This is propagandistic against engineers. Their kits uniquely function as weapons, so they effectively have way more skills than you imply here.
Revenants are by far the class with the fewest skill options and most limited build flexibility.
-
> @"Steve The Cynic.3217" said:
> > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:
> > so I'd rather say that the main reason we didn't get new weapon types (like sunspear spears or 2h axe) is that it'd require to introduce alot of new weapon skills which wouldhave to be balanced and they'd be needed for every class because imagine outcry if they have introduced 2h axes as for example - warrior only weapon
>
> I'm pretty sure that what you say here is *exactly* the reason why.
That's not a good reason - they add a full set of new weapon skills for each class every expansion anyway. We're coming to a point where they really should be adding them as new weapon types for flavor reasons.
-
> @"Ardid.7203" said:
> And the same postulate again. "Since it is in most MMO games, it should be in GW2". I don't consider that a valid reason. Please stop trying to make GW2 like the proverbial generic game it is NOT.
What, by adding more weapon options? What a silly argument, lol.
-
It's really long past time they actually added new weapons to the game, rather than just passing around existing ones to new classes.
-
> @"ThenCameThree.4163" said:
> When you look at this from a business stand point, the whole expansion was designed for this one moment. Ask yourself were is the new RAID, Legendary Weapons, WvW Map, and Spvp map? When you think about it we were given the bare minimum in order to get mounts in the game. A new Pve zone, a story for the new zone, and the new specs because if not then people would riot. Games that run this RNG cash shop model only make expansion that continue to feed the RNG cash model no game has broken away from that. Look at POF and ask yourself whats really coming next expansion. If you want to go back in history look at games expansion before RNG was a thing and after the RNG. Hate to mention World of Warcraft but there patch was bigger then POF, for a small price of 15 month, and im pretty sure majority of gw2 players spend atleast 10 a month.
Yeah. Anet still needs to up their game quite a bit with expansions. Simply put, neither HoT or PoF offered enough content. In the 6 years since launch we have only a handful of new dungeons, two raids, no new weapon types, no new races, one new class, more or less no pvp modes, and one or two new maps.
The only thing that's been released at a reasonable pace are new PvE maps. And that's just not enough.
-
> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:
> > @"Selminus.1490" said:
> > Seems a little odd.
>
> Because when the game was designed, it didn't make the cut. Since adding a new weapon type is a ridiculous amount of effort for the amount of fun it would bring, it is extremely unlikely to be added to the game at any point.
>
> The best you are likely to see is a skin for something existing that looks like an axe, but ... that may be challenging what with the whole animation differences and stuff...
It isn't, though. It's just been parroted this way. They're under no obligation to provide dozens and dozens and dozens of skins for new weapon types, and that's really the only impediment I can think of other than designing new skills, which they do anyway for new elite specs. I would be fine if new weapon types were just given a few basic skins with more being developed gradually over time.
I think the fact that we haven't gotten new weapon types, instead of existing ones being passed around ad nauseam (such as the ax-wielding librarian mentioned above) is asinine.
-
> @"Khisanth.2948" said:
> a 2h axe as a condi weapons would be a disappointing outcome
That doesn't even make sense. For one, it wouldn't have the same role for every class. For two, you couldn't possibly know whether or not the outcome would be "disappointing".
-
> @"Khisanth.2948" said:
> > @"lokh.2695" said:
> > Because the game doesn't need them.
>
> best answer :)
No, it's not a good answer. The game doesn't "need" anything. That doesn't mean there aren't things that would benefit the game. Many, many people want to see new weapon types - especially considering there are very standard and iconic ones we don't have, such as polearms.
-
Early on it was assumed they would be adding new weapon types over time, and I believe they even more or less stated that was their intent. For whatever reason, it got sidelined and we've never gotten new weapon types, which I honestly think is .... not ideal. If I was in charge of the game I would probably have added 5 or 6 by now.
I think part of the problem (like with many areas of the game) comes from over-commitment with some of the game's system. In this case, with the way they design and release new skins. They release themed skins for every weapon in the game all at once very frequently through the BL system, which I think is kind of a bad paradigm and most certainly acts as a disincentive to ever adding new weapon types.
Frankly, I think it would make a lot more sense to add new weapon types and to change the BL system so that it contained more weapon-unique skins and fewer all-weapon skins. I believe this would actually increase the desirability of BL weapon skins and Anet would make more money from it, and it would remove one of the most major impediments to adding new weapon types. Because, let's face it, weapon skills are one of the most questionable design aspects of this game - it's designed in a way that's far too restrictive. We need new weapon types AND new skills added for each existing weapon.
I think the game needs this for both flavor and mechanical reasons. Not introducing land spears with Elona was a HUUUUUUGGGGEEEE and unfortunate missed opportunity and a perfect example of how Anet just needs to do better with their expansions.
-
There's clearly something off about the way they set up armor models in this game. It should not take massive amounts of effort to develop a single set of armor skins, and we should have way more available than we do now. Outfits are dumb. They worked in GW1 because it was effectively a single player game. They don't work nearly as well in an MMO.
-
I think GW2 is the superior game overall, but I think it has three major issues relative to GW1:
a.) They tried to restrict customization for the sake of balance. This is a common tactic in MMOs and, IMO, it's rarely a good idea. People will always complain about balance, and balancing a game is never easy, so let people have fun with it. Locking down a full half of your skills based on what weapon you have equipped (and then never introducing more weapons) is quite lame. Additionally, it's lame that there is no system of profession blending so create your own unique loadout. Stuff like this is very important particularly if you aren't going to have ongoing vertical progression.
b.) the storytelling is very above average in GW1 and very below average in GW2, even by MMO standards. Too much lore can only be experienced outside of the game. The PS was very poorly executed, probably because a.) it was too spread out and light in content, b.) they tried to do too much with branching paths, and c.) there were very few references to any story content outside of the individual instances. Consequently, the story and all the NPCs felt very generic and forgettable. The writing is generally of middling quality even if it has improved since the PS. The story is far too focused around your character as "the boss" - because this is for some reason arbitrarily considered important even though it's an MMO.
c.) they seem to have designed the framework of the game without future development in mind, so it's needlessly cumbersome to do things like reintroduce stories, add new armor skins, or add new playable races - things that are important to do for an MMO.
-
> @"OriOri.8724" said:
> I am not a fan of repeatable hearts. If they have to exist, just make the vendor be permanently unlocked after you finish the heart once, instead of having to complete the heart every day you want to use the vendor. That's just tedious
They should be repeatable, but vender unlock should be permanent. It shouldn't be that hard to do.
I also agree with the personality bars and LW season 1. They could even revise LW1 as a way to bring in other races.
-
To be honest I would have liked those elves above more than sylvari.
Supporting LGBT logo of GW2
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @"Aodlop.1907" said:
> I don't mind gay and trans people as individuals.
> I do despise the LGBT movement though.
>
> I'm pretty sure people who used to like or at least tolerate gay people started disliking them because of the LGBT movement. So sick if this propaganda. As if the whole "help refugees" thing in PoF wasn't enough.
I'm curious, what is it about the movement that you despise?