Ashen.2907 Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 > @"Lonami.2987" said: > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > Outfits should be exclusive to Eventful skins, such as Grenth, etc. Armors should be armors, because that's how an rpg works, you have a thing called ARMORS. > > Agree, many of the outfits are just armor sets disguised as outfits. > > Outfits should be for single-piece dresses and such, the kind of things that can't be regular armor sets. > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > @"Lonami.2987" said: > > > most outfits could be transformed into armor easily. > > This contradicts what the developers have stated. > > > > > I think ArenaNet needs to move to a custom wardrobe system, **where you design your own outfits**, merging both skins and outfits for good. Let me elaborate: > > Ignoring the expense of create such a system and the change in revenue model it would require, "design your own outfit" doesn't affect the fact that outfits are cheaper to produce (in fact it implicitly supports the concept). Custom outfits, in and of themselves, aren't new armor skins. > > > > > * Helms, shoulders, gloves, and boots can be combined freely, with no restrictions. > > This requires updating all helms, shoulders, and gloves to work together, across the current weights. > > > > > * Some pieces can cover multiple slots. We already see this ingame with some chests that hide your shoulders automatically. This approach will be applied for outfits that have single pieces that can't be split for mix and matching, like some of the dresses. > > This isn't quite correct: some pieces appear to cover multiple slots; that doesn't mean that the skins themselves are designed to do so. That's another expense to retrofit existing designs. > > > > > * Anyone can use any skin from any weight. You can have a necromancer wearing heavy armor skins if that's what you want. > > Another major design expense. > > > > > * Some helm skins can be combined, letting you wear a hat with sunglasses. > > That requires designing new skins where these things are actually combined or inventing a new system that separates out headgear into multiple components. I like the idea a lot, but it's going to be expensive and require retrofitting existing pieces to work that way. > > > > > * Hairstyles become part of this system as well. You need to buy each hairstyle before using it, just like a skin. Self-style hair kits would become hairstyle unlocks, and permanent hair stylist contracts would become permanent total makeover kit contracts. > > This distracts from the concept for me. Although I suppose it fits in with the idea that headgear is two or more components, as you suggested earlier. > > > > > This is the best solution for the future, in my opinion. > > If it were free to implement any system we wanted, then maybe it would be "best" (at least for some people). Given the number of mechanics/system/database changes this would require means that the cost:benefit is very steep. So it might not be the "best" option to implement. > > > > Why do you quote every line one by one? Just use bullet points, it's easier to read and reply to, and takes less work. > > * The developers don't always tell the truth, they have to defend their business interests. That's why you have things like Glint's masks in three different colors sold separately, instead of one that can be dyed with any color you want. > * Helms, shoulders, gloves, and boots require no upgrade to work together across weights, they use the same model foundation. Only chests and legs have a different setup. > * Any skin can be combined with each other, it's always been possible. They all fit together well, except chests and legs which might clip horribly when combining different weights. Was doable for a long time in the preview panel, before they blocked it. You can stack skins perfectly too. There's no expense and no cost here, they only need to place some restrictions to avoid ugly broken combinations, and even that's a design decision, not a technical problem. > * Most of your "expenses" are just excuses, and cheap ones for that matter. You should dedicate some time to learn 3D basics, you would be surprised with many of your previous assumptions. > > The proposed system ain't only easy to implement, it would also bring much more money, since it would solve many of the problems with outfits and make them a more attractive product. You should put a bigger effort on making the game better, instead of making constant excuses to keep it stale and unable to grow. If it would be easy to implement while also bringing in much more money, as you say, with ANet's past statements against your assertions being merely a matter of defending their business interests, as you state, then your claims seem to be contradictory. Doing easy things that bring in a lot more money are in the company's business interest. If the the company's statements which contradict some of the claims are in the business' interest then the opposite cannot be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abakk.9176 Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 I am a big fan of outfits... the reason beeing that you can equipt new armor without having to constantly reskin it, which is an expensive 'hobby' for someone that enjoys leveling many alts and prefers their character to look the part all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Another thing y’all should think about is that making more armor for LS episodes doesn’t necessarily mean a larger total amount of armor made. If cost and time constrain armor production then making and releasing armor for inbetween expansions would mean less armor for expansions. Since armor is one of the main rewards for buying an expansion then losing that reward would hurt sales and decrease ANet’s profits, leaving less money for new content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > And I think outfits are plenty creative. Are they the level of personal custom character creation as the likes of perhaps City of Heroes? No, it never was, but for what it's for (making a great looking character), it works, IMO. > > > > > > Plenty creative how? Because of its four dye slots? > > > > Plenty creative on the developer's side. That is, they can be more creative when making them rather than designing inside of the box that armor pieces forces them to design around. > > > > > You know what game you're playing, right? A game where you'd normaly have six armor pieces all seperately dyeable. > > > > When the majority of those 6 pieces look bad or the same as dozens of other pieces for that slot, what creativity are you talking about? > > > > >Outfits gimps the fashion potential of this game, the ONLY two arguments for outfits worth anything in this debate is the fact that it's easier for Anet to make them and sell them, and they give players an option for an alternative look to switch forth and back between without transmuting or changing the armor. > > > > > > > How about that the outfits look more polished, detailed and varied compared to a set of armor? > > > > > That being said, the worst offense with this new dervish outfit is how the bones literally stick to and stretch with the cloths of the outfit. In the original game, those bones behaved independently. How can they make an outfit look worse in a sequel 11 years after the original was made. > > > > It's a good question. None of it relates to outfits, but gear design as a whole in GW2. Personally, I'd prefer they focus on making races varied and interesting and let us put outfits on them rather than trying to design more intricate armor sets that ultimately come off as overly designed. Again, if this were FFXIV where they have fewer race body types to fit armor on, they could likely make amazing looking sets. But we don't and they can't. > > The box that forces them how to design is a box they have put themselves into. This is certainly true but being true doesn't help your point at all. They designed armor in such a way that there are 3 separate weights to them with different anchors. In hindsight, that was not a good decision. Heck, it was a bad decision to make armor weight matter for stats when they could have left it as pure cosmetic. It doesn't change the fact that that limitation is now in play. They also created the charr and asura as playable races which have drastically different models and animations than humans thus requiring design consideration when creating cosmetics for them. In hindsight, that was not a good decision for the likes of those that value armor skins more than playing different races of characters. Had they only the male human and female human models to worry about (if they really wanted charr in there, they could have made them taller humans with horns, furry ears and a tail) they could make more and better looking armor... But not only that, they went the extra mile and made even the human model shaped races have unique armor designs as well. They also created a system with 6 parts (head, shoulders, hands, torso, legs and feet). In hindsight, with all of the above, had they gone a simpler route with maybe just 4 parts, maybe it wouldn't be such an involved task to make a set of armor? They also created this bizarre parity system where when they introduce a set of armor created around a motif, they have to make 3 variations using the same motif regardless of if it makes sense or looks good rather than choose the motif that fits the weight of armor. In hindsight, they make a lot of design decisions that uses a motif that doesn't have a distinct direction (although I bet feel some of the PoF sets were well made, but the sets also didn't look like they were counter parts to another set either). Armor design variety is affected because of this. Lastly, (and this is more in regards to the expectations of those requesting armor) the desire for armor skins is only considered being catered to when an entire set of 6 pieces x 3 weights is introduced. Regardless of if they could do good things by just releasing parts like gloves, helms or boots, it doesn't count if it's not a full set and it's a strike when parity is not preserved. >Still, there are good armor pieces out there, and they give you a much better variety of looks than any of the outfits do. That depends on your definition of variety. If I want my warrior to have a more barbarian look with a loincloth, some shoulder protectors, and specifically a body armor that looks more like cloth wraps or bandages, I'm just not creative enough to make such a character exist. But if I want a simple winter climate look that makes sense for the snowy mountains... Still not creative enough to pull that off either... But I can use an outfit for the latter, at least. I understand what you're getting at, making this OCs that look unique and special and cool, but frankly, none of that matters if you don't actually have creative freedom to actually make what you want and this 6-pieces-connected-to -stats system won't allow *actual* creative freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper Cutter.9376 Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 > @"Liewec.2896" said: > **"They can't be broken apart!"** > not true, before the wardrobe update all outfits were split into parts. > for example Mad King's Outfit was made up of Mad King's Boots, Mad King's Coat, Mad King's Gloves etc, > all separate parts had their own icons just like armour does. Leaving aside that this is only true of the handful of outfits that existed as town clothes before they abolished that system, they were also broken into pieces in a completely different (and much stupider) way than armor was. > Allowing outfits to be purchased as both Outfits and Armour would be a colossal treasure trove of cash for Anet, they'd make soooo much money. Clearly Anet doesn't agree, or they'd be doing that to rake in all that hypothetical money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zin Dau.1749 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 If they wanted easy way out, just stick with 2D games, and never touch 3D. There, much less work for your artists. But if they want to keep making 3D games, they just have to suck it up and put in the effort to make items that players want. Yet there is no excuse to blame hard work, when they can create such extravagant maps and levels. The effort they put into these maps is just as time consuming as gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 > @"Zin Dau.1749" said: > If they wanted easy way out, just stick with 2D games, and never touch 3D. There, much less work for your artists. But if they want to keep making 3D games, they just have to suck it up and put in the effort to make items that players want. > > Yet there is no excuse to blame hard work, when they can create such extravagant maps and levels. The effort they put into these maps is just as time consuming as gear. I share the same stance when it comes to suggesting anything for the game (you will find my posts like that in "new race" threads), but when the argument is "stop doing that thing I don't like and do what I DO like instead" is where we will cross. I like a lot of the outfits and while I'm not a huge fan of the majority of the armor sets, I wouldn't outright suggest they stop making armor and make more outfits (unless I'm expressing my ideal pie-in-the-sky scenario). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deminisis.3698 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 There are several outfit pieces that i wish i could mix and match with existing armor, but i can't due to the way outfits work. For this reason, I've never purchased a gem store outfit, and likely never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liewec.2896 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > The problem is that armor costs about 10 times more to make than outfits and takes far longer to make. The time to make a set of armor for 5 races and 2 sexes is about 9 months and that is not appreciably reduced just because they have an outfit to look at while making the armors. but they have already designed the outfits for both genders for all races... literally all that is left to do is separate them into parts. and as i said, weird cut off points isn't an issue because we already have armours with weird cut of points that work well when used correctly. take the outfit, split it into parts, done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 > @"Liewec.2896" said: > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > The problem is that armor costs about 10 times more to make than outfits and takes far longer to make. The time to make a set of armor for 5 races and 2 sexes is about 9 months and that is not appreciably reduced just because they have an outfit to look at while making the armors. > > but they have already designed the outfits for both genders for all races... > literally all that is left to do is separate them into parts. > and as i said, weird cut off points isn't an issue because we already have armours with weird cut of points that work well when used correctly. > > take the outfit, split it into parts, done. Obviously it’s a lot more than separating them into parts. It’s a several month process (as quoted above) and having a look is only the first step. Again >Regina B >Armor is one of the most expensive things in the game to create. **Armor is complicated and needs to be created with many considerations in mind**, and these considerations may not be easily apparent or describable to fan armor designers. (snip) >ANet mattp >Armor sets are one of (if not actually) the most time expensive things we make for GW2. **Each set has an incredible amount of detail and customization, and then has to be fit to very disparate rigs.** >Mike-OBrien-ArenaNet >Armor sets are by far the most expensive reward we can make. **A full set** includes heavy, medium, light, times five races, times two sexes, so it’s like developing 30 sets. It **takes nine months to develop.** If it was so easy don’t you think they’d be making more armor? The reason they’re making outfits is because armor is so expensive and time consuming to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czerwoni.9563 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > I have purchased a few outfits, and might have purchased others where the only thing stopping me was the shoulders, if they could be unchecked. grenth shoulders ick lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 > @"Liewec.2896" said: > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > The problem is that armor costs about 10 times more to make than outfits and takes far longer to make. The time to make a set of armor for 5 races and 2 sexes is about 9 months and that is not appreciably reduced just because they have an outfit to look at while making the armors. > > but they have already designed the outfits for both genders for all races... > literally all that is left to do is separate them into parts. > and as i said, weird cut off points isn't an issue because we already have armours with weird cut of points that work well when used correctly. > > take the outfit, split it into parts, done. If that were the process involved, that would be the process they use to make armor, i.e. design a costume, render it, split it into parts and code it into the wardrobe. Again, you're ignoring the fact that light, medium and heavy are separate classifications with separate design goals (blame the devs for that), so they don't want to just take, for example, the Balthazar's Regalia outfit and make it available for light or medium (ignoring the different anchor points of those classifications). And it's not that there are "weird cut off points", it's that for a lot of the outfits (ex: again Balthazar's Regalia) there are no cut off points. I'm not arguing that outfits MUST NEVER be split into armor skins, just pointing out that it's not as easy, quick or possibly finacially advantateous as you say it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 > @"czerwoni.9563" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > I have purchased a few outfits, and might have purchased others where the only thing stopping me was the shoulders, if they could be unchecked. > > grenth shoulders ick lol As a proponent of outfits, I always advocate for better custom options for outfits. But since most are on the "All armor or bust" bandwagon, it's hard to actually get enough support to make a loud enough suggestions. It's a very realistic request, to ask the devs for the option to turn parts of outfits off (we can already do this with headgear). Since there is also an option for armor to turn off the shoulders, it can't be insurrmountable to suggest something similar for outfits as well. Further still, since they specifically design some outfits with certain dye channels, toggle-able headgear and such, why not create the outfits from the outset to have certain parts you can turn off and on? While I'm sure there would be more time required for such an additional feature, it can become minimalized once you streamline the feature over time. Just imagine: the devs finally release an outfit that is a swimsuit. For your female, it's a 2-piece with a loose open-buttoned long-sleeve shirt with the sleeves rolled up and a pair of flip-flops. For swimwear, that might be too much...but in the outfits screen, there are separate toggles to turn off the shirt and the sandals. It'd not only be something you have more creative freedom to work with, but it would be an inherent feature that you can utilize to down-grade your attire just as you would real clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liewec.2896 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > you're ignoring the fact that light, medium and heavy are separate classifications with separate design goals (blame the devs for that), so they don't want to just take, for example, the Balthazar's Regalia outfit and make it available for light or medium (ignoring the different anchor points of those classifications). And it's not that there are "weird cut off points", it's that for a lot of the outfits (ex: again Balthazar's Regalia) there are no cut off points. as i pointed out, there is no thematic weights anymore, outfits have already seen to that i also pointed out that there are plenty of armours already in the game with random looking cut off points because they are designed to be used as a set. (no cut off points) > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: >Armor sets are one of (if not actually) the most time expensive things we make for GW2. **Each set has an incredible amount of detail and customization, and then has to be fit to very disparate rigs.** > > >Mike-OBrien-ArenaNet > >Armor sets are by far the most expensive reward we can make. **A full set** includes heavy, medium, light, times five races, times two sexes, so it’s like developing 30 sets. It **takes nine months to develop.** like i said they have already fitted the outfits on the rigs for every race and both genders, they already fit whatever race and gender you can make. and they aren't "taking nine months making heavy medium and light armours for 2 genders and 5 races" because again, they've already made them! you want Balthazaars chest armour on your female char ele? its already been designed and fitted, it just needs separating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 Another compromise suggestion if splitting outfits into pieces (which is the same as making them as armor) is too resource intensive: + Outfits already come in two parts (we can turn off the helmet). + Sell outfits two ways, with the helmet and without it. + If the player chooses the outfit skin without the helmet, but leaves the helmet option on in the equipment panel, s/he sees the actual helmet skin. After all, if we turn the helmet off, we see the character's hair/head leaves despite wearing an outfit. While this would not meet the OP's (and others') desires to have six individual outfit pieces, it would meet the needs of the many who've asked to be able to display a helmet skin other than the outfit's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 > @"Liewec.2896" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > you're ignoring the fact that light, medium and heavy are separate classifications with separate design goals (blame the devs for that), so they don't want to just take, for example, the Balthazar's Regalia outfit and make it available for light or medium (ignoring the different anchor points of those classifications). And it's not that there are "weird cut off points", it's that for a lot of the outfits (ex: again Balthazar's Regalia) there are no cut off points. > > as i pointed out, there is no thematic weights anymore, outfits have already seen to that > i also pointed out that there are plenty of armours already in the game with random looking cut off points because they are designed to be used as a set. (no cut off points) > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > >Armor sets are one of (if not actually) the most time expensive things we make for GW2. **Each set has an incredible amount of detail and customization, and then has to be fit to very disparate rigs.** > > > > >Mike-OBrien-ArenaNet > > >Armor sets are by far the most expensive reward we can make. **A full set** includes heavy, medium, light, times five races, times two sexes, so it’s like developing 30 sets. It **takes nine months to develop.** > > > like i said they have already fitted the outfits on the rigs for every race and both genders, they already fit whatever race and gender you can make. > and they aren't "taking nine months making heavy medium and light armours for 2 genders and 5 races" > because again, they've already made them! you want Balthazaars chest armour on your female char ele? its already been designed and fitted, > it just needs separating. You’re making the assumption that a onesie is fitted on the character models the same way that 6 individual pieces of armors are. I doubt that very much. It’s set up to be worn simultaneously with armor so it undoubtedly has different attachments. You’re also making the assumption that cutting up a onesie would convert the pieces into armor and completely set them up to fit on all the different character models. I doubt this very much also. If I was as easy as you say it is then the Devs would be doing it already. It’s most unlikely that such an obvious solution would be something they wouldn’t know, especially since multiple people have already suggested this very idea on the forum over the years. No matter how many times you say that all they need to do is cut up the onsies and they’ll have armor, it won’t make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 > @"Liewec.2896" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > you're ignoring the fact that light, medium and heavy are separate classifications with separate design goals (blame the devs for that), so they don't want to just take, for example, the Balthazar's Regalia outfit and make it available for light or medium (ignoring the different anchor points of those classifications). And it's not that there are "weird cut off points", it's that for a lot of the outfits (ex: again Balthazar's Regalia) there are no cut off points. > > as i pointed out, there is no thematic weights anymore, outfits have already seen to that > i also pointed out that there are plenty of armours already in the game with random looking cut off points because they are designed to be used as a set. (no cut off points) > Unfortunately, there are thematic weights. Some armor skins cannot be mixed with other skins of other armor weights. I've heard there were means to view armor weight mixing in the preview window (but its been patched or something?) and it wasn't so bad in a lot of the skins, but I'm just expressing the limits the system has, not if they are inadaquate to you or me. I bet if they really wanted to, Anet might be able to make some of the outfits work as armor skins if sectioned off and remade as such but you still have the issues with parity and their goals to keep light, medium and heavy themes separate. While some sets, like the Iron Clad outfit, could be created as armor pieces for heavy armor, you might start to see shift in parity as more outfits would be categorized as light and heavy than medium. And you're really not getting the whole "cut off point" thing...not to mention that "cut off points" differ with the armor weights. The gloves, boots, shoulders and helms are likely the same but the body and legs are not shared across weights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazze.9870 Posted April 29, 2018 Share Posted April 29, 2018 > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > What kind of mmo gets no armor sets in a span of 24+ months? > > > > > > > > > > Except Path of Fire came out with new armor sets and Path of Fire came out a little more than six months ago so... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > Yea, but before that, how many armors did you get? Not to mention that your six months is a boatload of time without a single armor set. > > > > > > I provide evidence to counter your claim and you move the goal post. I'm not surprised. > > > > > > I'm done here. > > > > He didn't move the goal post, he said 24+ months. How many months between HoT and PoF? > > > > Exactly. He's spot on. > > [Heart of Thorns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Heart_of_Thorns): October 23 2015 > [Path of Fire](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Path_of_Fire): September 22 2017 > > I count the time between the two expansions as 23 months. Oh yeah, because at that point, when we're talking about 20+ months between the release of new armors sets in an mmo with fashion and skin as the real end game reward, a matter of a month one way or the other really matters? Stop kidding yourself. His point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted April 29, 2018 Share Posted April 29, 2018 > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > What kind of mmo gets no armor sets in a span of 24+ months? > > > > > > > > > > > > Except Path of Fire came out with new armor sets and Path of Fire came out a little more than six months ago so... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > Yea, but before that, how many armors did you get? Not to mention that your six months is a boatload of time without a single armor set. > > > > > > > > I provide evidence to counter your claim and you move the goal post. I'm not surprised. > > > > > > > > I'm done here. > > > > > > He didn't move the goal post, he said 24+ months. How many months between HoT and PoF? > > > > > > Exactly. He's spot on. > > > > [Heart of Thorns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Heart_of_Thorns): October 23 2015 > > [Path of Fire](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Path_of_Fire): September 22 2017 > > > > I count the time between the two expansions as 23 months. > > Oh yeah, because at that point, when we're talking about 20+ months between the release of new armors sets in an mmo with fashion and skin as the real end game reward, a matter of a month one way or the other really matters? > > Stop kidding yourself. His point still stands. It does matter if you’re making a factually incorrect claim. If you’re going to say things that are false then someone is going to point out where you are wrong, If you don’t want to be corrected then I suggest you check your facts first before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazze.9870 Posted April 29, 2018 Share Posted April 29, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: this 6-pieces-connected-to -stats system won't allow *actual* creative freedom. > GW2 is actually probably *the* game I've come across with the best system allowing you to customize your look without "outfits" or "layered armor skins". They lack quantity in armors and in some cases better variety (coats for medium armors etc). One reason for that is their focus on making outfits instead. No one can ever convince me that a bunch of outfits, half of them looking terrible, are ever any better than the actual system they have for customization. They're good for a quick changeover or a decent look while leveling. Releasing part skins may not "count", but they still count for something. Like I said, every skin they add, even if it's just one part, adds to the customization that is already there. We're talking about a system that benefits from mixing skins in the first place. (I ignore the big chunk of your reply because you don't have to tell me the reasons why things are as they are, I played this franchise since 2006, I knew the moment they introduced races that even with shared armor weights they would produce fewer sets over the years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazze.9870 Posted April 29, 2018 Share Posted April 29, 2018 > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > > What kind of mmo gets no armor sets in a span of 24+ months? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except Path of Fire came out with new armor sets and Path of Fire came out a little more than six months ago so... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > > > Yea, but before that, how many armors did you get? Not to mention that your six months is a boatload of time without a single armor set. > > > > > > > > > > I provide evidence to counter your claim and you move the goal post. I'm not surprised. > > > > > > > > > > I'm done here. > > > > > > > > He didn't move the goal post, he said 24+ months. How many months between HoT and PoF? > > > > > > > > Exactly. He's spot on. > > > > > > [Heart of Thorns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Heart_of_Thorns): October 23 2015 > > > [Path of Fire](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Path_of_Fire): September 22 2017 > > > > > > I count the time between the two expansions as 23 months. > > > > Oh yeah, because at that point, when we're talking about 20+ months between the release of new armors sets in an mmo with fashion and skin as the real end game reward, a matter of a month one way or the other really matters? > > > > Stop kidding yourself. His point still stands. > > It does matter if you’re making a factually incorrect claim. If you’re going to say things that are false then someone is going to point out where you are wrong, If you don’t want to be corrected then I suggest you check your facts first before posting. No. It doesn't matter one bit because the bottom line of his comment still stands. The wider the window of new armors, the less that one month off matters. 20+ months are a lot. In the context of this discussion, 23 or 24 months are just nitpicking that serves nothing. And you know it. Is 24 months "factually wrong"? Sure. Was it far enough off to make a dent to his point? No. Not even a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted April 29, 2018 Share Posted April 29, 2018 > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > > > What kind of mmo gets no armor sets in a span of 24+ months? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except Path of Fire came out with new armor sets and Path of Fire came out a little more than six months ago so... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yea, but before that, how many armors did you get? Not to mention that your six months is a boatload of time without a single armor set. > > > > > > > > > > > > I provide evidence to counter your claim and you move the goal post. I'm not surprised. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm done here. > > > > > > > > > > He didn't move the goal post, he said 24+ months. How many months between HoT and PoF? > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. He's spot on. > > > > > > > > [Heart of Thorns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Heart_of_Thorns): October 23 2015 > > > > [Path of Fire](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Path_of_Fire): September 22 2017 > > > > > > > > I count the time between the two expansions as 23 months. > > > > > > Oh yeah, because at that point, when we're talking about 20+ months between the release of new armors sets in an mmo with fashion and skin as the real end game reward, a matter of a month one way or the other really matters? > > > > > > Stop kidding yourself. His point still stands. > > > > It does matter if you’re making a factually incorrect claim. If you’re going to say things that are false then someone is going to point out where you are wrong, If you don’t want to be corrected then I suggest you check your facts first before posting. > > No. It doesn't matter one bit because the bottom line of his comment still stands. The wider the window of new armors, the less that one month off matters. 20+ months are a lot. > > In the context of this discussion, 23 or 24 months are just nitpicking that serves nothing. And you know it. Nope. This is not the “feels before reals” forum. If you don’t want to be corrected then check your facts before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazze.9870 Posted April 29, 2018 Share Posted April 29, 2018 > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > > > > What kind of mmo gets no armor sets in a span of 24+ months? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except Path of Fire came out with new armor sets and Path of Fire came out a little more than six months ago so... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yea, but before that, how many armors did you get? Not to mention that your six months is a boatload of time without a single armor set. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I provide evidence to counter your claim and you move the goal post. I'm not surprised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm done here. > > > > > > > > > > > > He didn't move the goal post, he said 24+ months. How many months between HoT and PoF? > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. He's spot on. > > > > > > > > > > [Heart of Thorns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Heart_of_Thorns): October 23 2015 > > > > > [Path of Fire](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Path_of_Fire): September 22 2017 > > > > > > > > > > I count the time between the two expansions as 23 months. > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, because at that point, when we're talking about 20+ months between the release of new armors sets in an mmo with fashion and skin as the real end game reward, a matter of a month one way or the other really matters? > > > > > > > > Stop kidding yourself. His point still stands. > > > > > > It does matter if you’re making a factually incorrect claim. If you’re going to say things that are false then someone is going to point out where you are wrong, If you don’t want to be corrected then I suggest you check your facts first before posting. > > > > No. It doesn't matter one bit because the bottom line of his comment still stands. The wider the window of new armors, the less that one month off matters. 20+ months are a lot. > > > > In the context of this discussion, 23 or 24 months are just nitpicking that serves nothing. And you know it. > > Nope. This is not the “feels before reals” forum. If you don’t want to be corrected then check your facts before posting. Are you serving the actual discussion with this nitpicking garbage? No, you're not. You actual just point out how idiotic it is to try and make a point about being one month off when we're talking about a span on well above 20+ months between the releases of new armor skins in an mmo that has "fashion" as one of its endgames. As I pointed out in my last comment, I have no problems admitting 24 months is "factually wrong", but his point still stands. If you can't see past the difference of estimates and an argument, that's on you. His estimate was close enough, that's all that matters. He probably based it on Anet's idea of releasing a new expansion every 2nd year anyway. Are you gonna start nitpicking if it turns out the next expansion releases in October next year and the correct amount of months would be 25 instead of 23? Of course you're not. That one IRRELEVANT month just happened to swing your way this time. Besides, my initially reply to you wasn't about being corrected, it was that the point of the argument is still valid. Which it is and which you haven't adressed at all. Unless you're gonna argue that one month matters and makes his argument completely irrelevant. In that case, you're wrong and a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted April 29, 2018 Share Posted April 29, 2018 > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > > > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > > > > > What kind of mmo gets no armor sets in a span of 24+ months? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except Path of Fire came out with new armor sets and Path of Fire came out a little more than six months ago so... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yea, but before that, how many armors did you get? Not to mention that your six months is a boatload of time without a single armor set. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I provide evidence to counter your claim and you move the goal post. I'm not surprised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm done here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He didn't move the goal post, he said 24+ months. How many months between HoT and PoF? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. He's spot on. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Heart of Thorns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Heart_of_Thorns): October 23 2015 > > > > > > [Path of Fire](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Path_of_Fire): September 22 2017 > > > > > > > > > > > > I count the time between the two expansions as 23 months. > > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, because at that point, when we're talking about 20+ months between the release of new armors sets in an mmo with fashion and skin as the real end game reward, a matter of a month one way or the other really matters? > > > > > > > > > > Stop kidding yourself. His point still stands. > > > > > > > > It does matter if you’re making a factually incorrect claim. If you’re going to say things that are false then someone is going to point out where you are wrong, If you don’t want to be corrected then I suggest you check your facts first before posting. > > > > > > No. It doesn't matter one bit because the bottom line of his comment still stands. The wider the window of new armors, the less that one month off matters. 20+ months are a lot. > > > > > > In the context of this discussion, 23 or 24 months are just nitpicking that serves nothing. And you know it. > > > > Nope. This is not the “feels before reals” forum. If you don’t want to be corrected then check your facts before posting. > > Are you serving the actual discussion with this nitpicking garbage? No, you're not. You actual just point out how idiotic it is to try and make a point about being one month off when we're talking about a span on well above 20+ months between the releases of new armor skins in an mmo that has "fashion" as one of its endgames. > > As I pointed out in my last comment, I have no problems admiting 24 months is "factually wrong", but his point still stands. If you can't see past the difference of estimates and an argument, that's on you. His estimate was close enough, that's all that matters. He probably based it on Anet's idea of releasing a new expansion every 2nd year anyway. Are you gonna start nitpicking if it turns out the next expansion releases in October next year and the correct amount of months would be 25 instead of 23? I don’t see a post where you admit 24 months is “factually wrong”. All I see are claims I’m nitpicking. But yes I do have a point. Facts and precision are important when making an argument. If you say something that is factually incorrect then your argument is flawed. Factually incorrect information that’s not corrected is picked up and used in other arguments, which means those arguments are also flawed and incorrect. The proper response by anyone who sees incorrect facts on a forum which are used to support an argument is to post the correct facts. All you had to do when you saw my correction is say ok. I was wrong. and there would have been no follow up but instead you decided to double down and argue that being correct is unimportant. I disagree that being factually incorrect when making an argument is irrelevant. Check your facts and you won’t be corrected. Good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazze.9870 Posted April 29, 2018 Share Posted April 29, 2018 > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > > > > > > @"Lazze.9870" said: > > > > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"TheOrlyFactor.8341" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Nuka Cola.8520" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > What kind of mmo gets no armor sets in a span of 24+ months? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except Path of Fire came out with new armor sets and Path of Fire came out a little more than six months ago so... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yea, but before that, how many armors did you get? Not to mention that your six months is a boatload of time without a single armor set. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I provide evidence to counter your claim and you move the goal post. I'm not surprised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm done here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He didn't move the goal post, he said 24+ months. How many months between HoT and PoF? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. He's spot on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Heart of Thorns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Heart_of_Thorns): October 23 2015 > > > > > > > [Path of Fire](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2:_Path_of_Fire): September 22 2017 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I count the time between the two expansions as 23 months. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, because at that point, when we're talking about 20+ months between the release of new armors sets in an mmo with fashion and skin as the real end game reward, a matter of a month one way or the other really matters? > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop kidding yourself. His point still stands. > > > > > > > > > > It does matter if you’re making a factually incorrect claim. If you’re going to say things that are false then someone is going to point out where you are wrong, If you don’t want to be corrected then I suggest you check your facts first before posting. > > > > > > > > No. It doesn't matter one bit because the bottom line of his comment still stands. The wider the window of new armors, the less that one month off matters. 20+ months are a lot. > > > > > > > > In the context of this discussion, 23 or 24 months are just nitpicking that serves nothing. And you know it. > > > > > > Nope. This is not the “feels before reals” forum. If you don’t want to be corrected then check your facts before posting. > > > > Are you serving the actual discussion with this nitpicking garbage? No, you're not. You actual just point out how idiotic it is to try and make a point about being one month off when we're talking about a span on well above 20+ months between the releases of new armor skins in an mmo that has "fashion" as one of its endgames. > > > > As I pointed out in my last comment, I have no problems admiting 24 months is "factually wrong", but his point still stands. If you can't see past the difference of estimates and an argument, that's on you. His estimate was close enough, that's all that matters. He probably based it on Anet's idea of releasing a new expansion every 2nd year anyway. Are you gonna start nitpicking if it turns out the next expansion releases in October next year and the correct amount of months would be 25 instead of 23? > > I don’t see a post where you admit 24 months is “factually wrong”. All I see are claims I’m nitpicking. > > But yes I do have a point. > The proper response by anyone who sees incorrect facts on a forum which are used to support an argument is to post the correct facts. All you had to do when you saw my correction is say ok. I was wrong. and there would have been no follow up but instead you decided to double down and argue that being correct is unimportant. > > I disagree that being factually incorrect when making an argument is irrelevant. > > Check your facts and you won’t be corrected. > > Good day. Well, first of all, you still haven't realized I don't care about whether I was corrected or not. I care about the relevance for the actual argument. Second of all, you didn't check properly. Which comes as a surprise from someone arguing about the importance of being precise. _"In the context of this discussion, 23 or 24 months are just nitpicking that serves nothing. And you know it. Is 24 months "factually wrong"? Sure. Was it far enough off to make a dent to his point? No. Not even a bit."_ Which was why I replied to you in the first place. Not because "oh, how dare you correct me?", but because in the end, that correction doesn't change the weight of his argument. And no, that doesn't mean being precise isn't important, but you clearly have some hard time separating the two. > The proper response by anyone who sees incorrect facts on a forum which are used to support an argument is to post the correct facts. All you had to do when you saw my correction is say ok. I was wrong. and there would have been no follow up but instead you decided to double down and argue that being correct is unimportant. The proper response from anyone making a correction is to follow up with why that correction matters. You're just being precise for the sake of it. The thing is, Anet's schedule is 2 years between every expansion. 24 months are what is to be expected. We're talking about recurring releases of armor sets that are planned to be released about every 24 month or so. We're not talking about that one time where it took 23 months between the release of armor sets. You know what's important besides being precise when having an argument? Knowing what's relevant. Do 23 months support the argument any less than the 24 months did? No. Because the release windows between armor skin releases are still huge. Your corrected facts support the same argument. That's why I'm calling it nitpicking, and at the end of the day unimportant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now