WvW Change Requests

[Voltekka.2375]

> @"Neural.1824" said:

> tl:dr: Please focus on the WvW changes you talked about, especially allowing guilds to play on the same team.

>

> Look, I get it. PvE/Raids/Fractals are the meat of the game when it comes to giving people reasons to buy gems. We've had two expansions over 6 years so far. Both of them added a lot of things to the game. Glinding and Mounts both are really well implemented mechanically, and overall I have enjoyed the content provided by GW2 currently. In fact, it should be pretty clear by now that the problems I have with Guild Wars 2 are more about you, not your game.

>

> That said, I want to bring up a sore point. Whether you intended it or not, the choices you made on removing the Gift of Battle from an NPC vendor *look* like you attempted to sneak it in to get as little coverage as possible so players wouldn't be able to jump into WvW and spend all their badges and stock up on GoBs.

>

> Being a core component of Legendary Crafting, this has hindered a lot of people from moving forward with their goals. I realize that there is some vision that is held that people need to participate in various parts of the game to be able to craft a legendary weapon. I recall the days when map completion in WvW was part of the requirement for the Gift of Exploration. I also recall the problems that arose from that due to the way server match ups worked. Some people had to wait months for their server to have the right color so they could get points of interest or vistas that otherwise were inaccessible. Obsidian Sanctum was a haven for trolls who were well versed in the PvP aspects of WvW that simply waited to kill any PvE players that showed up, always making sure to find a way to communicate to said PvE players such pleasantries as how they should also kill themselves in RL.

>

> I myself have supported the return of the NPC vendor for the Gift of Battle, but, being understanding of the vision behind legendary crafting, I have thought for a long time about what the real problem could be. It's not that I think it's too hard to get Badges of Honor. Every GoB that I purchased from that vendor was purchased with badges that I picked up while participating in WvW activities, and they do tend to pile up. Frankly I'm probably still doing the WvW "Big Spender" daily using badges I gathered from doing world completion back when the maps were required.

>

> The main issues I see with what is going on, based on observation not just in GW2 but years of playing MMOs as well as talking with other players, are as follows:

>

> 1. The Abusive nature of PvP or PvP related game modes is a big factor for a lot of casual players. You provide a large game with several different modes, and then want people to play those modes in order to obtain a given cosmetic item. That's fine, but requiring someone to subject themselves to an environment of abuse and harassment, especially from one's own server, is contradictory to the inclusiveness you have touted with GW2. Asking a person to play a game mode they don't like in order to get the weapon skin is fine. Asking them to suffer days of verbal abuse is not.

>

> 2. World vs. World is *not* social. At one point in the history of the game, there was a social aspect to WvW that made it enjoyable, even under the system that was in place. Things have spiraled downward over the years (especially after allowing f2p accounts into WvW). Most of my experience recently is WvW in regards to chat is primarily flatlined. The conversation is rarely pleasant for more than a few minutes before someone starts insulting the commanders, or just generally trying to ruin the mood. People who play primarily PvE that have issues with the problems in point 1, are not necessarily going to be motivated to jump into WvW when they don't know anyone.

>

> The WvW changes you proposed months ago, in my opinion, are the solution to these issues.

>

> You can't filter all the trolls that shows up in WvW and PvP, that much has been demonstrated quite clearly, but one area that you *do* have control over should be used to its full potential: Guilds.

>

> When people join a guild in game, it is, by large majority, through the PvE environment (yes, there are exceptions). They get to know the guild members, make solid friendships, learn to deal with members who have different viewpoints, etc. Guild missions, events, and so on create a buffer that emboldens people. When people are with their friends, they tend to be more motivated. Take on a champ solo? Maybe, but if they have 5 of their guild friends there with them to back them up if it goes badly, they're going to go for it and even if they get destroyed, the mood of the situation will be a lot better (assuming the guildmates present are decent people also). What might be humiliating in one instance, can be a point of fun and learning in another. This psychology is played out daily in real life. People, for the most part, like doing things with their friends.

>

> But... if you want a Gift of Battle currently, you have to play with people you don't know (you may even be playing against your own guild).

>

> Making guilds matter in WvW, in my opinion, would make obtaining the Gift of Battle less of a monolithic challenge for many people. I would love to see it happen. I'm fine obtaining it as things currently are, but I'd love to play with everyone in my guild being on the same team. If anything, it would take some of the boredom out of it. I love running with a zerg, but it gets monotonous after a while.

>

> I can't speak for the rest of the "filthy casuals" out there, but for me personally, these changes would not only make obtaining the Gift of Battle less mind-numbing, but would actually make WvW worth playing just to have fun or obtain other goals like backpacks, skins, etc.

>

> So, seriously. Please get some focus on the proposed changes. WvW is long overdue for it's own expansion.

>

>

 

Everything in this post is a gross exaggeration of GoB, WvW and the alliances restructure (what does the alliances restructuring have to do with GoB, anyway?)

[kurfu.5623]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

>

> Players had about two months to prepare for it.

 

The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

If Anet wants me to afk most of the time while cashing out my participation and take spot on borders from people who want to actually play WvW, so be it. We must accept the fact that Anet knows best :)

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

> >

> > Players had about two months to prepare for it.

>

> The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

 

And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.

[Deimos.4263]

I'm about as filthy a casual as it gets but I've never understood the hangup some people have with Gifts of Battle. I don't think they're *difficult* to acquire, so much as *annoying*. Should there be another way to get a Gift of Battle? Probably. This game is all about playing how you want to play, after all.

 

[Cristalyan.5728]

> @"kurfu.5623" said:

> They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

 

Indeed, in my opinion also, this was the real reason behind this change. In ANet vision any little thing favoring the players should be erased and replaced with something wasting the players time.

I cannot understand how some people can defend an action taking something from the players and replacing it with something wasting your playtime, not because they enjoy the new method giving them less for the same amount of time (they had the same playtime in WvW, receiving Badges fog GoB **and** completing a reward track) but because they enjoy the fact that other players **d'ont enjoy** the new method.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> Dear Anet: Keep the gift of battle the same. Oh... and after repeating the track 10 times, allow a vendor swap of GoB with the Gift of exploration. Because doing GoB 10 times is still less than one GoE.

>

> K thnx.

Are you serious or this is a joke? 10 times GoB = 80 hours. Do you indeed need 80 hours for a map completion?

 

But is OK you brought this into discussion. What about a kind of "reward track" for the Gift of Exploration? Something you trigger and as long as it is active you cannot make progress to any collection, or achievement? No JP counting for achievement, no Googles jumps counting, no items dropping for the collections, no rewards or XP for events not related to a heart? What do you think?

Not forever, of course. Only as long as the GoE reward track is active.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Cristalyan.5728" said:

> > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

>

> Indeed, in my opinion also, this was the real reason behind this change. In ANet vision any little thing favoring the players should be erased and replaced with something wasting the players time.

> I cannot understand how some people can defend an action taking something from the players and replacing it with something wasting your playtime, not because they enjoy the new method giving them less for the same amount of time (they had the same playtime in WvW, receiving Badges fog GoB **and** completing a reward track) but because they enjoy the fact that other players **d'ont enjoy** the new method.

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > Dear Anet: Keep the gift of battle the same. Oh... and after repeating the track 10 times, allow a vendor swap of GoB with the Gift of exploration. Because doing GoB 10 times is still less than one GoE.

> >

> > K thnx.

> Are you serious or this is a joke? 10 times GoB = 80 hours. Do you indeed need 80 hours for a map completion?

>

> But is OK you brought this into discussion. What about a kind of "reward track" for the Gift of Exploration? Something you trigger and as long as it is active you cannot make progress to any collection, or achievement? No JP counting for achievement, no Googles jumps counting, no items dropping for the collections, no rewards or XP for events not related to a heart? What do you think?

> Not forever, of course. Only as long as the GoE reward track is active.

 

Honestly it gets tiring to hear the same complaints about GoB since the change that was announced in patch notes 2 months prior to inplementation. And the complaints are still happening more than 2 years later.

 

The guild/guild hall changes were worse, and people got over them.

 

It's a 6.5 hour track.

 

Honestly, I wish Gift of exploration returned to needing WvW map completion as well.

[Stalkingwolf.6035]

i did it 2 weeks ago and did it in about 6-7 hours .

i changed maps until found a commander and then followed him/joined his squad. repaired every wall.

 

yes the community is broken. Some of them wants you to join Teamspeak. No Teamspeak = no squad. If the squad changes the map you are lost.

best part they did not revive me because i was not in the squad /headshake

[Vash.2386]

> @"Palador.2170" said:

> > @"Vash.2386" said:

> > Wow such a dramatic post. Leave the GoB as it is.

> >

> > Fractals and raids are way more toxic than wvw has ever been.

>

> They're not asking for the GoB to be changed, they're asking for ANet to hurry up and put in the changes they've talked about so players can make it a more social environment. (At least, that's what I get from it.)

 

Then what does it have to do with GoB then if he's just wants wvw social changes in place?

 

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Vash.2386" said:

> > @"Palador.2170" said:

> > > @"Vash.2386" said:

> > > Wow such a dramatic post. Leave the GoB as it is.

> > >

> > > Fractals and raids are way more toxic than wvw has ever been.

> >

> > They're not asking for the GoB to be changed, they're asking for ANet to hurry up and put in the changes they've talked about so players can make it a more social environment. (At least, that's what I get from it.)

>

> Then what does it have to do with GoB then if he's just wants wvw social changes in place?

>

 

Using it to build support for their real issue. Their request would probably have been ignored by most on here had they not included GoB. Almost a bait and switch.

[JDub.1530]

The problem I have with the OP is the implication that ANet is not focusing on the WvW changes. They've already said designing the new system will take time and input. Just because there is content coming out in other areas does not mean WvW is shelved. They have different devs teams working on different areas (and I assume a WvW team is among them). Because of that, we can't really know where there focus is behind the scenes. I wouldn't expect the WvW changes until fall at the earliest. But they may not even come this year.

[dolcolax.1268]

> @"Cristalyan.5728" said:

> > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

>

> Indeed, in my opinion also, this was the real reason behind this change. In ANet vision any little thing favoring the players should be erased and replaced with something wasting the players time.

> I cannot understand how some people can defend an action taking something from the players and replacing it with something wasting your playtime, not because they enjoy the new method giving them less for the same amount of time (they had the same playtime in WvW, receiving Badges fog GoB **and** completing a reward track) but because they enjoy the fact that other players **d'ont enjoy** the new method.

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > Dear Anet: Keep the gift of battle the same. Oh... and after repeating the track 10 times, allow a vendor swap of GoB with the Gift of exploration. Because doing GoB 10 times is still less than one GoE.

> >

> > K thnx.

> Are you serious or this is a joke? 10 times GoB = 80 hours. Do you indeed need 80 hours for a map completion?

>

> But is OK you brought this into discussion. What about a kind of "reward track" for the Gift of Exploration? Something you trigger and as long as it is active you cannot make progress to any collection, or achievement? No JP counting for achievement, no Googles jumps counting, no items dropping for the collections, no rewards or XP for events not related to a heart? What do you think?

> Not forever, of course. Only as long as the GoE reward track is active.

 

i only have one toon with map completion. and since they added some stuff since then, hea probably at 99% now. i tried leveling the usual way(events, hearts, exploring) for a few toons and got like 5 of them to 30-40% map completion. that was 3 years ago... i havent done any map completion in core ever since. so yeah 80 hours for map completion maybe not enough. whereas the last wvw weekend event, i popped a laurel booster on, completed 3 reward tracks in less than 24 hours. sunday afternoon popped some more laurel boosters, plus guild reward track bonus(i dont even have the wvw reward track enrichment) i finished another 3 reward tracks shortly before the event ended. well you could say that this coming week(maybe starts tomorrow? check the announcements) theres a wvw event that gives 25% bonus to reward tracks for the entire week. so i guess this is your chance to get many as you need/want.

[Rauderi.8706]

> @"Palador.2170" said:

> Also, as someone that HATES WvW and can't seem to make decent progress on the GoB for the Bolt I'm trying to create... I reluctantly say that the reward track is the right way to go... the FIRST TIME. If someone clears the whole track and still doesn't enjoy WvW, then having a different way to get the second+ GoBs might not be a bad idea.

 

Probably the most salient point. If the goal is to get players to *try* WvW, the design is sound. If by the end of the first GoB track, a player isn't invested, *then WvW has failed that player and the player is not going to be interested.*

I am one such player. Tried it. Hated it. Too much walking, not enough point-gains or rewards, and certainly not enough to be dealing with mobs of cheap-build enemy players and commanders puttering around or deliberately porting everywhere just to be a nuisance. Nothing but zerg or covert cheating as "strategy". Criticisms are many, benefits are few, so why not allow those who finish a track to buy or exchange for GoB?

 

 

[Dami.5046]

Well if your asking for the Gift of Battle to be brought straight off, then I want factual drops to be brought straight off too, maybe with factual relics so I can farm the lowest one without having to pug for it.

I just wish at times I could clear down my chat log, but I just tend to ignore people with nothing else better to do in wvw/spvp.

[Shostie.6435]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> Has it actually hindered **anyone** from getting their legendary?

>

> No really, I am curious if anyone spent like 1500 gold, got to the WvW stage and saw that they had to play WvW for like... a couple of days... and that's when they just said *"kitten it aint doing this kitten I am throwing away my precursor this isnt worth it I'm not making this legendary anymore"* and just gave up on it.

>

> *Anyone care to step forward?*

 

It's not the only factor, but the WvW requirement has been a significant obstacle for me. Throwing away a precursor is stupid hyperbole, but I've got precursors that have been sitting in the bank for years (I wasn't in a rush, I was taking my time). I've got the materials and funds on hand to build a couple legendaries, but I have no interest in playing WvW, whatsoever. I haven't complained about it because ArenaNet makes the rules, but it is frustrating. I was planning on spending the several thousand Badges of Honor I have on Gifts of Battle (could have bought 10+), but the vendor was removed and I had no idea that was going to happen. Chastise me for not knowing about the change if you want, but I've got too much going on in my life to devote much attention to GW2 news and rumors.

[Shostie.6435]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

> > >

> > > Players had about two months to prepare for it.

> >

> > The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

>

> And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.

I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Shostie.6435" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

> > > >

> > > > Players had about two months to prepare for it.

> > >

> > > The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

> >

> > And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.

> I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

 

Out of curiosity, for Guilds that DO play WvW, and had created a guild that allowed them to claim structures in WvW, (which for the uninitiated is a huge problem) was their inability to do it post HoT an issue for you?

 

As it is, it's a huge gold sink, and forced many small WvW guilds out. But hey, that's just WvW.

 

And don't ask whether people posted about it. Search the old forums if you want proof.

 

You got WAY more insight into the GoB change than guilds did about their ability to function in WvW post HoT.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Shostie.6435" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

> > > >

> > > > Players had about two months to prepare for it.

> > >

> > > The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

> >

> > And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.

> I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

 

There will always be people that ignore information updates given to them or are just so far removed from anything to do with the game outside the game itself that they don’t see it. There’s nothing that can be done if people are unwilling to keep up to date on the game.

 

That said, it was announced that gifts would go to a WvW reward track. There was coverage on it from the typical media that routine cover the game. Players had about two months to purchase the gifts.

[Shostie.6435]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Shostie.6435" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

> > > > >

> > > > > Players had about two months to prepare for it.

> > > >

> > > > The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

> > >

> > > And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.

> > I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

>

> Out of curiosity, for Guilds that DO play WvW, and had created a guild that allowed them to claim structures in WvW, (which for the uninitiated is a huge problem) was their inability to do it post HoT an issue for you?

>

> As it is, it's a huge gold sink, and forced many small WvW guilds out. But hey, that's just WvW.

>

> And don't ask whether people posted about it. Search the old forums if you want proof.

>

> You got WAY more insight into the GoB change than guilds did about their ability to function in WvW post HoT.

I don't understand why you're being hostile.

[ugrakarma.9416]

i wonder what the need for 'interact' in Wvw. when i discovered WvW, i just joined a EOtm map, then a blob and zerged mindless for hours. Its so relaxing like any "casual" pve enviroment.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Shostie.6435" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Shostie.6435" said:

> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > > > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Players had about two months to prepare for it.

> > > > >

> > > > > The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

> > > >

> > > > And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.

> > > I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

> >

> > Out of curiosity, for Guilds that DO play WvW, and had created a guild that allowed them to claim structures in WvW, (which for the uninitiated is a huge problem) was their inability to do it post HoT an issue for you?

> >

> > As it is, it's a huge gold sink, and forced many small WvW guilds out. But hey, that's just WvW.

> >

> > And don't ask whether people posted about it. Search the old forums if you want proof.

> >

> > You got WAY more insight into the GoB change than guilds did about their ability to function in WvW post HoT.

> I don't understand why you're being hostile.

 

Ahh. Wasn't being hostile. Maybe you read too much into it?

[STIHL.2489]

I could support a PvE reward Track System, that gave GoB, as well as Access to all Legendary Items/gifts, and parts and pieces, say after you maxed out the PvE Mastries, you get the option to run Reward Tracks, that can give the rewards from all other game modes and content.

 

They could also add in things for the WvW players, like Map Completion Mastery Line, and the like, so that players who like WvW but not PvE, could still complete all legendary items by playing WvW.

 

I could get behind that process.

 

It would allow people to play what they enjoy and work towards the tokens they want, at a slower pace of course, and perhaps have many tiered reward tracks. Like for example, a Player would first need to complete a Edge of the Mist Reward Track Line before they unlock the Battle Grounds Reward Track Line, and then need to do something like "Green Battle Ground Map Completion" reward Track, then Red, then Blue, then Eternal, then Obsidian Sanctum... and the FINALLY they would unlock the Reward Track for the GoB.. but they could then repeat that line.. so the second one would be easier then the first.

 

There is some room for this.. if Anet wants to go in this direction. After all, I don't want to drag someone into WvW that does not want to be there, if they are just going to farm pips or reward tracks, and only do PvE stuff, I don't see how that helps the game mode.

[Shostie.6435]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Shostie.6435" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

> > > > >

> > > > > Players had about two months to prepare for it.

> > > >

> > > > The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

> > >

> > > And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.

> > I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

>

> There will always be people that ignore information updates given to them or are just so far removed from anything to do with the game outside the game itself that they don’t see it. There’s nothing that can be done if people are unwilling to keep up to date on the game.

>

> That said, it was announced that gifts would go to a WvW reward track. There was coverage on it from the typical media that routine cover the game. Players had about two months to purchase the gifts.

 

Your use of the words "ignore" and "unwilling" imply a level of awareness and intent that simply does not exist for most players.

 

There is always something that can be done. The question is not whether or not "something" can be done. It's whether or not "something" is worth doing. In this case, ArenaNet could have informed people of the currency changes through in-game mail, which is without a doubt viewed by far more players than external sources.

[MithranArkanere.8957]

I see no problem in making players participate in a mode to get a legendary weapon. And it doesn't take too long to get one.

There's a problem but it isn't that.

 

The problem is actually in PvP. While one has to do WvW to get a legendary weapon, they can skip PvP altogether.

 

To make it fair and reasonable, the Gift of the Mists should either require participating in **all** of the mists, or not require any of it.

 

Right now the Gift of the Mists requires:

* Gift of Battle : Reward track

* Gift of War : 250 Battle Memories,

* Gift of Glory : 250 Shards of Glory

* Cube of stabilized dark energy : Dark energy + 75 stabilizing matrices.

 

So you can skip pvp and PvE altogether for it.

 

To make the Gift of the Mists make sense and be fair across all game modes, it should have been:

 

* Gift of War: 250 battle memories + Gift of Battle.

* Gift of Glory: 250 shards of glory + Perfect Mists Core

* Gift of Fractals: 250 +2 infusions, + Fractal Journal

* Cube of stabilized dark energy : Dark energy + 75 stabilizing matrices.

 

This way there's both things you can buy, and items you have to obtain yourself. And it requires actually playing in all of the mists.

 

To not force anyone to play any game mode it would have to be something like this instead:

 

* Gift of War: 250 battle memories

* Gift of Glory: 250 shards of glory

* Gift of Fractals: 250 +2 infusions,

* Cube of stabilized dark energy : Dark energy + 75 stabilizing matrices.

 

But then where would the "legendary" be?

 

[Shostie.6435]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Shostie.6435" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Shostie.6435" said:

> > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > > @"kurfu.5623" said:

> > > > > > > > They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Players had about two months to prepare for it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

> > > > >

> > > > > And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.

> > > > I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

> > >

> > > Out of curiosity, for Guilds that DO play WvW, and had created a guild that allowed them to claim structures in WvW, (which for the uninitiated is a huge problem) was their inability to do it post HoT an issue for you?

> > >

> > > As it is, it's a huge gold sink, and forced many small WvW guilds out. But hey, that's just WvW.

> > >

> > > And don't ask whether people posted about it. Search the old forums if you want proof.

> > >

> > > You got WAY more insight into the GoB change than guilds did about their ability to function in WvW post HoT.

> > I don't understand why you're being hostile.

>

> Ahh. Wasn't being hostile. Maybe you read too much into it?

If you started conversations with strangers in person by assigning opinions to them, then arguing against those opinions you invented, would they view you as hostile? I could be wrong, but I think most people would.

 

I don't even know what you're talking about, much less have an opinion on the issue you brought up.