I prefer PoF to HoT

[Lucius.2140]

> @"Diak Atoli.2085" said:

> Heart of Thorns was a fiasco? Huh, you learn something new every day...

>

> I prefer the Heart of Thorns metas over Path of Fire's, yet I prefer the open maps of PoF more. I find the mobs in both maps to be of equal difficulty. Personally, they should continue to release content inspired by both.

>

> As always, your opinions may vary.

>

> _Edit for spellcheck._ :#

 

I do agree it wasnt in the long run, however:

 

Financially we know it was below expectations and also lower than the behavior that PoF has demostrated, specially over time. Also, Pof should have had less profits than Hot if we go by the flow.

Without a doubt the finance continuity of PoF its impacted by mounts, but still the general perception is that Pof is the better one.

 

The problem with Hot was that in pve it was centered in new features when the game had too little content in too much time and that started grindly. Plus at the start it killed most of replayable dungeons and fractals (gold and rewards nerf), later they added raids and fixed in part the rewards.

In pvp it sucefully halved the population and finally in wvw it hitted it like a truck.

This created a powerfull financial impact.

 

Hot was an expansion that gained with time because of fixes, PoF is one that started well, hope it continue like that.

[Lucius.2140]

Personally if we could have a formula for open world, i will mantain this:

 

Dynamic events, secret ones, fail events, enemy champ/vet event, group events, chained events, meta events, map meta event.

Hearts replayable

Chests

Hero points replayables

Exploration of zones

Point of interests, way points

Guild events

Medium verticallity yo max verticality

Collectables to find

Gliding and ley lines gliding.

Jumping mushrooms

Bounty boards

Mounts

Races, adventures, minigames

Gliding puzzles, jumping puzzles and mount jump puzzles and minidungeons.

World bosses (since vainilla, not in Pof, end meta map in Hot dont count as such, the world bosses should ahve a chain of events but not be the conclusion of the map, in LS3).

 

Pd: Its long, If i forgot something, please tell me.

[Lucius.2140]

And i will add:

 

Instanced bosses (1-5 players mini bosses instances with timer and prizes).

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"misterman.1530" said:

> > @"Diak Atoli.2085" said:

> > Heart of Thorns was a fiasco? Huh, you learn something new every day...

> >

> > I prefer the Heart of Thorns metas over Path of Fire's, yet I prefer the open maps of PoF more. I find the mobs in both maps to be of equal difficulty. Personally, they should continue to release content inspired by both.

> >

> > As always, your opinions may vary.

> >

> > _Edit for spellcheck._ :#

>

> The strange thing is, the vet hydras in PoF maps are more difficult than the champs you fight. It's crazy. Especially when they get involved in a bounty.

 

There's a trick to those hydras. You've probably noticed that when you damage them by 33% of their health they lose a head and become stunned. If you have sufficient burst, you can simply chain stun them to death and never have to deal with all the annoying knockdowns they put out! This is similar to HoT enemies like the veteran stonehead. It also does a lot of knockdowns and charges around if you let it, but break its defiance bar and apply sufficient burst and you can take them down without allowing them to make a move.

 

Just for fun, how about this for a bounty? A Legendary hydra where the heads you remove regenerate into veteran hydras!

 

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

I have to say PoF maps are beautiful. There is one map I dont like that much in both exoantions (desolation and tangeled depths). Sadly the only time i return to pof maps is when I am getting new elite specialization because there is 0 reason to come back there. On the other hand I am returning to hot quite often. I get that map wide metaevents might be annoing but i would say one map in pof with dragonstand like meta would be great addition.

[Fenella.2634]

> @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> The one downside is no non-meta maps, so casual explorers are kind of left out.

This has been said by several people and I admit I don't get it. :) How do the meta events prevent players from exploring? Aside from DS, of course.

I didn't even know there was a meta event at TD until I had practically finished map completion anyway. Very few POIs are locked by events from time to time, but that happens in core Tyria and in the PoF maps, too, and to a similar degree.

So, what exactly is stopping explorers on the HoT maps specifically?

 

[GenghisKhan.7842]

I left when HoT released, despite playing actively, because I HATED that the base expansion included a new profession, but didn't include a character slot

I returned playing 5 months ago and bought both expansions

Both do some things right and some wrong, it's a stretch saying HoT was a fiasco

On the other hand, currently I am not positive on buying the next expansion

[Vayne.8563]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

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

> > > > Considering the claims that PoF maps are dead and that HoT maps are thriving...

> > > >

> > > > PoF maps may have appealed to some players, HoT maps are healthier for the game.

> > >

> > > You're welcome to the opinion that HoT maps are healthier for the game. However, I would suggest that HoT maps are conducive to a particular play-style, that of congregating in large groups. PoF maps are more conducive to exploration, and going it alone. It would seem to me that what is healthy for the game as a whole is a mix of large group and solo/small group content, not all of one or all of the other. Maybe what ANet can do going forward is to present an expansion that includes both, rather than one that is mostly A or mostly B.

> > >

> > > As to the thread topic... No, PoF was not an apology. It was, instead, a reaction to many players complaints about HoT. In the same way, the Istan meta is a reaction to complaints about lack of/unrewarding meta events on PoF maps.

> > >

> >

> > The HoT maps are healthy in a sense that they keep players playing the game compared to PoF maps which can quickly be completed with no reason to go back. Pretty much the same as the other LS maps with exception to Istan. The way that the OP presents PoF is an exaggeration.

>

> And yet, I play in the PoF maps a lot, and see a lot of other players there. In fact, I see more there than I do in HoT maps when I go there, unless I taxi to the active map. The truth as I see it is that map metas keep _some_ of the players playing the game. Likewise, exploration maps keep different players occupied. You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone who plays is playing for the best return in rewards. It's a natural assumption, because those people tend to be vocal about rewards. It's still an assumption, though.

 

Very much this. This fantasy that POF maps are dead is based on comparing a timed meta where everyone shows up at one time with a huge map that has no fixed schedule. People are all over the place on PoF maps, just not all at the same place at 2pm. There are always people on PoF maps, every hour I've been there, and as an Australian I've been there all sorts of hours.

 

What you don't generally see is 100 people doing the same thing at the same time. Some of us are doing Griffon obstacle courses, some small bounty groups, but then, some of us prefer not to zerg. It's a perfectly valid way to play the game.

 

For the record, I prefer HoT maps to PoF maps, and I prefer HoT in general. I never felt I was grinding masteries. I felt leveling masteries, until the very end, anyway, felt organic. Sure to max out the masteries in HoT was work, but it did keep people in those zones for longer. For me, that was a good thing. Your mileage may vary.

[phs.6089]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> Considering the claims that PoF maps are dead and that HoT maps are thriving...

>

> PoF maps may have appealed to some players, HoT maps are healthier for the game.

 

How are they the alive outside of metas? dozen players doing events to farm currency and achievements? Well PoF has same. Dry Top has same! If Anet buffs reward on PoF metas, they also will be 'lively'.

 

But Anet doesn't know what best of both mixed together is, just like Valve doesn't know how to count to 3.

 

E.G

* Dead dungeons

* 4 tiers of fractals with 2 layes in each tier

* Single difficulty raids

 

Talking about 2 things anet cares the most, forget of pvp and wvw.

Open world and instanced PVE

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Fenella.2634" said:

> > @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> > The one downside is no non-meta maps, so casual explorers are kind of left out.

> This has been said by several people and I admit I don't get it. :) How do the meta events prevent players from exploring? Aside from DS, of course.

> I didn't even know there was a meta event at TD until I had practically finished map completion anyway. Very few POIs are locked by events from time to time, but that happens in core Tyria and in the PoF maps, too, and to a similar degree.

> So, what exactly is stopping explorers on the HoT maps specifically?

>

 

They don't. But good luck getting people who never visit HoT to understand that. For some reason, they believe that the meta is the only reason to be there an that you can't accomplish anything as a solo player. As you say, this is only true of DS. But this view persists among HoT haters for I really have no idea what reason.

[Algreg.3629]

> @"battledrone.8315" said:

> > @"Goettel.4389" said:

> > Let's see: HoT maps are usually pretty full, PoF is a desert (punt intended).

> > Do the math OP :-)

>

> if it was that good, it would be stupid to change it...but they did..do the math

> furthermore, if it was so successful, as you claim, you can bet that they would already had made more like it

> money talks, bull... walks

 

so, maybe they were wrong in changing it? Especially if Goettel is correct with his claim? Do you even know PoF? Are you back to be a fervent player now that PoF is the new standard? Or does your relationship with the game still boil down to jumping into threads ocassionaly to tell everyone how the game sucks for you and how you stopped playing and how good SWTOR is in comparison?

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"battledrone.8315" said:

> "well designed meta events"....lol...carrying supply boxes from A to B is some EPIC gameplay

 

As opposed to the casino meta where players run around collecting coins and then all stack and DPS a boss that doesn’t fight back. Truly epic but regarded as a well designed meta to some.

 

Edit: Oh, it’s also on a fixed timer too even though people complained about that sort of thing with HoT metas.

 

[nosleepdemon.1368]

PoF is Arena Net taking a step back and realising that they weren't making a game for gamers, but for people who like to feel good for a minimal amount of effort.

 

My impression is that HoT was what they *wanted* to make, and PoF is what they *had* to make.

 

Verdant Brink was an absolutely epic zone, you are immediately thrown into this chaotic and dire situation and it is very obvious that the success of the campaign now weighs on the shoulders of you and the rest of the team. You are on your back foot reeling from a surprise attack from a cunning and powerful adversary.

 

The intro to PoF on the other hand requires you to throw buckets of water and save lazy villagers who fell asleep.

 

So... Yeah. Go go OP and the status quo of lacklustre, simply laid out single layered map design.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"buntalanlucu.4036" said:

> The PoF expansion breath new life for GW2 with it's highly accesible content for everyone and buck the trend of zone wide Meta Events from HoT , a game design that truly ignore the majority of MMORPG players which is solo explorer / casuals.

>

> Is PoF change of direction came from Arena.Net's realization that not everyone enjoy group-only content and endless meta event ala HoT ? From the soloable Heroic Points in PoF , a reverse of the foolish design decision to gate HoT's HP in group content (the combat HP , not the Commune HP).. The easy to level Mount Masteries compared to HoT incredibly hard to level masteries for casual players , masteries in HoT are geared for group players doing meta events , in which one can get fast leveling.. but alas casual players will get bored with the mastery gating before they QUIT the whole game.

>

> Another example is the first zone of expansion. PoF started with very casual friendly and very explorer friendly zone in the Oasis , while HoT started in the most incredibly annoying and mastery gated Verdant Brink zone..

>

> I hope this will be the trend for the next GW2 expansion , cater for the casual players which is the majority of MMORPG players including GW2.. Add a single map for zone wide meta event players that a casual dont need to join to enjoy the expansion.

>

> cheers

 

I didnt like the HoT maps but found the HP to be soloable.

[Rhyse.8179]

I see a few people asking why HOT was considered a fiasco. It's important to remember that HOT today is very different from what it was like at release.

 

**The Hype**

1. Elite Specs were pushed hard as the core feature of the expansion, and everyone wanted theirs. They even had a "sample weekend" before launch, where pre-orders could try out the elite specs before the release. People loved them - it's what everyone wanted.

2. Then, when release came, it was learned that not only did the specs had to be unlocked (this was never stated before release) and that it took 500 hero points to do it. 500 is literally every single HP in the entire expansion. Core Only has 380 or something, so even if you had 100% core map completion it didn't help much. Basically, for every character you wanted to espec you had to 100% map complete the entire expansion. Including every alt.

3. In addition, map completion was locked behind the masteries, and locked hard. Many POIs or HP's were in poison fields for example, that you need Nuhoch 7 mastery to enter. There was no possible way to get this without the mastery, not even mesmers could help.

4. Masteries took 5x (not a typo) more XP then they do today. It easily took a month of grinding the expansion content (remember, you can't get HOT mastery xp unless in HOT maps) before you could fully unlock your espec. Truly hardcore grinders could maybe do it in 3 weeks, but for most people it was over a month. I remember personally running VB for an entire week before I could unlock bouncing mushrooms, which is a required step in the story.

5. People were PISSED. The one thing... ONE THING! ... they had expected from the expansion was hard locked behind a month of grinding.

 

**Meta Events:**

1. To make matters worse, running meta events required hours of commitment.

2. At the time, the events did not award by completion of events in the chain, but by "meta event progression" and "participation level." Say you did the VB Pact Encampment chain, and made it until all 3 leaders were found. That's about 20% completion, and entitles you to a pitiful reward. That would take about half an hour Remember, no one had especs unlocked yet, so power creep was limited and events took much longer.

3. To get 100% completion in VB for example, you had to start at the beginning and go all the way through the complete night meta.

4. In addition, you had to be actively running each event, or you'd get a low % of participation level, and lousy rewards. Explores got left in the lurch.

5. This meant that a 90 minute single play session was required to get the map rewards - and you had to be doing the events the entire time.

6. The event XP - vital to unlocking masteries and thus the coveted especs - was included in these meta rewards.

7. This is why people are saying that meta events lock out casual players or map explorers. Because, at the time, they actually did.

 

**All That Changed**

1. Especs now require 250 HPS, or about half the expac. It's just over two maps worth.

2. Meta events are now broken into sub-events that reward you as you go. You can play for half an our and get the full half an hour worth of map rewards.

3. Hard locked HP's in VB and AB were made accessible without the masteries. You still need them to 100% the expac (esp in Dragon Stand) but you can at least unlock your espec sooner.

4. Mastery XP requirements were reduced by 5x. Yes, literally 5x.

 

**Summary**

HOT was a hot mess when it launched. It was a horrible experience for anyone except the most hardcore players, and even they were mad because grinding was not what was advertised. Every complaint you hear about HOT was 100% justified. However, by the end of the year, Anet had fixed it. A lot of those complaints are not valid anymore. Nonetheless, it's what people who were there remember, especially if they quit before the fixes came out. HOT as it stands today is some of the best content in the game.

 

The problems with POF come down to Anet not remembering that their fixes to HOT *worked*. Instead of realizing that they had (eventually) found a winning formula they swung full round the other direction and lost everything they gained.

[Sieghilde.7632]

> @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> I see a few people asking why HOT was considered a fiasco. It's important to remember that HOT today is very different from what it was like at release.

 

Thanks for the perspective. I came back right before PoF launched and loved HoT, but damn the launch sounds awful.

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> I see a few people asking why HOT was considered a fiasco. It's important to remember that HOT today is very different from what it was like at release.

>

> **The Hype**

> 1. Elite Specs were pushed hard as the core feature of the expansion, and everyone wanted theirs. They even had a "sample weekend" before launch, where pre-orders could try out the elite specs before the release. People loved them - it's what everyone wanted.

> 2. Then, when release came, it was learned that not only did the specs had to be unlocked (this was never stated before release) and that it took 500 hero points to do it. 500 is literally every single HP in the entire expansion. Core Only has 380 or something, so even if you had 100% core map completion it didn't help much. Basically, for every character you wanted to espec you had to 100% map complete the entire expansion. Including every alt.

> 3. In addition, map completion was locked behind the masteries, and locked hard. Many POIs or HP's were in poison fields for example, that you need Nuhoch 7 mastery to enter. There was no possible way to get this without the mastery, not even mesmers could help.

> 4. Masteries took 5x (not a typo) more XP then they do today. It easily took a month of grinding the expansion content (remember, you can't get HOT mastery xp unless in HOT maps) before you could fully unlock your espec. Truly hardcore grinders could maybe do it in 3 weeks, but for most people it was over a month. I remember personally running VB for an entire week before I could unlock bouncing mushrooms, which is a required step in the story.

> 5. People were PISSED. The one thing... ONE THING! ... they had expected from the expansion was hard locked behind a month of grinding.

>

> **Meta Events:**

> 1. To make matters worse, running meta events required hours of commitment.

> 2. At the time, the events did not award by completion of events in the chain, but by "meta event progression" and "participation level." Say you did the VB Pact Encampment chain, and made it until all 3 leaders were found. That's about 20% completion, and entitles you to a pitiful reward. That would take about half an hour Remember, no one had especs unlocked yet, so power creep was limited and events took much longer.

> 3. To get 100% completion in VB for example, you had to start at the beginning and go all the way through the complete night meta.

> 4. In addition, you had to be actively running each event, or you'd get a low % of participation level, and lousy rewards. Explores got left in the lurch.

> 5. This meant that a 90 minute single play session was required to get the map rewards - and you had to be doing the events the entire time.

> 6. The event XP - vital to unlocking masteries and thus the coveted especs - was included in these meta rewards.

> 7. This is why people are saying that meta events lock out casual players or map explorers. Because, at the time, they actually did.

>

> **All That Changed**

> 1. Especs now require 250 HPS, or about half the expac. It's just over two maps worth.

> 2. Meta events are now broken into sub-events that reward you as you go. You can play for half an our and get the full half an hour worth of map rewards.

> 3. Hard locked HP's in VB and AB were made accessible without the masteries. You still need them to 100% the expac (esp in Dragon Stand) but you can at least unlock your espec sooner.

> 4. Mastery XP requirements were reduced by 5x. Yes, literally 5x.

>

> **Summary**

> HOT was a hot mess when it launched. It was a horrible experience for anyone except the most hardcore players, and even they were mad because grinding was not what was advertised. Every complaint you hear about HOT was 100% justified. However, by the end of the year, Anet had fixed it. A lot of those complaints are not valid anymore. Nonetheless, it's what people who were there remember, especially if they quit before the fixes came out. HOT as it stands today is some of the best content in the game.

>

> The problems with POF come down to Anet not remembering that their fixes to HOT *worked*. Instead of realizing that they had (eventually) found a winning formula they swung full round the other direction and lost everything they gained.

 

I completely agree with your closing statement. This is by no means the first thread of its kind, and you can see that quite a few players are of the opinion that HoT did a lot of things right. It's also pretty easy to see that not everyone enjoys HoT even now. Given that, it was a bit surprising that they didn't give us a mix of both but pretty much gave us core Tyria 2.0. I think it would have worked out better if they had.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> I see a few people asking why HOT was considered a fiasco. It's important to remember that HOT today is very different from what it was like at release.

>

> **The Hype**

> 1. Elite Specs were pushed hard as the core feature of the expansion, and everyone wanted theirs. They even had a "sample weekend" before launch, where pre-orders could try out the elite specs before the release. People loved them - it's what everyone wanted.

> 2. Then, when release came, it was learned that not only did the specs had to be unlocked (this was never stated before release) and that it took 500 hero points to do it. 500 is literally every single HP in the entire expansion. Core Only has 380 or something, so even if you had 100% core map completion it didn't help much. Basically, for every character you wanted to espec you had to 100% map complete the entire expansion. Including every alt.

> 3. In addition, map completion was locked behind the masteries, and locked hard. Many POIs or HP's were in poison fields for example, that you need Nuhoch 7 mastery to enter. There was no possible way to get this without the mastery, not even mesmers could help.

> 4. Masteries took 5x (not a typo) more XP then they do today. It easily took a month of grinding the expansion content (remember, you can't get HOT mastery xp unless in HOT maps) before you could fully unlock your espec. Truly hardcore grinders could maybe do it in 3 weeks, but for most people it was over a month. I remember personally running VB for an entire week before I could unlock bouncing mushrooms, which is a required step in the story.

> 5. People were PISSED. The one thing... ONE THING! ... they had expected from the expansion was hard locked behind a month of grinding.

>

> **Meta Events:**

> 1. To make matters worse, running meta events required hours of commitment.

> 2. At the time, the events did not award by completion of events in the chain, but by "meta event progression" and "participation level." Say you did the VB Pact Encampment chain, and made it until all 3 leaders were found. That's about 20% completion, and entitles you to a pitiful reward. That would take about half an hour Remember, no one had especs unlocked yet, so power creep was limited and events took much longer.

> 3. To get 100% completion in VB for example, you had to start at the beginning and go all the way through the complete night meta.

> 4. In addition, you had to be actively running each event, or you'd get a low % of participation level, and lousy rewards. Explores got left in the lurch.

> 5. This meant that a 90 minute single play session was required to get the map rewards - and you had to be doing the events the entire time.

> 6. The event XP - vital to unlocking masteries and thus the coveted especs - was included in these meta rewards.

> 7. This is why people are saying that meta events lock out casual players or map explorers. Because, at the time, they actually did.

>

> **All That Changed**

> 1. Especs now require 250 HPS, or about half the expac. It's just over two maps worth.

> 2. Meta events are now broken into sub-events that reward you as you go. You can play for half an our and get the full half an hour worth of map rewards.

> 3. Hard locked HP's in VB and AB were made accessible without the masteries. You still need them to 100% the expac (esp in Dragon Stand) but you can at least unlock your espec sooner.

> 4. Mastery XP requirements were reduced by 5x. Yes, literally 5x.

>

> **Summary**

> HOT was a hot mess when it launched. It was a horrible experience for anyone except the most hardcore players, and even they were mad because grinding was not what was advertised. Every complaint you hear about HOT was 100% justified. However, by the end of the year, Anet had fixed it. A lot of those complaints are not valid anymore. Nonetheless, it's what people who were there remember, especially if they quit before the fixes came out. HOT as it stands today is some of the best content in the game.

>

> The problems with POF come down to Anet not remembering that their fixes to HOT *worked*. Instead of realizing that they had (eventually) found a winning formula they swung full round the other direction and lost everything they gained.

 

It was 400 HP’s to fully unlock an elite spec.

 

Night meta was never required for 100% map completion of VB.

 

Map completion was only really needed for legendary weapons which required you to max out your masteries anyway.

 

I don’t recall mastery XP ever having been changed since HoT launch. The wiki page history doesn’t show it having been changed either.

 

There were players had all masteries maxed within a week. Not the three weeks you’re considering hardcore grinders were able to do it in.

 

It didn’t require hours of commitment. Maps typically had two cycles and the final reward would be rewarded at the end of each cycle. No single cycle lasted for hours.

 

Events progressed the same as they do now. They took no longer than similar events in the core game. Collection events did tend to have scaling issues though. Still do.

 

You did not have to go through the entire meta and night meta to get 100% completion. You could easily get it during the day. I think getting gold on five events was all that you needed for 100%. You could also grind out like 12 or so adventures to get there too. Exploring isn’t contributing to the meta so why should players receive or maintain participation?

 

Probably more that I could comment on.

 

Edit: Here what the meta was like before April 2015

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Map_meta_event

 

 

[Zola.6197]

I enjoyed HoTs. I’ve liked PoF more, but that’s because I think fantasy Africa/Middle East is way more interesting a setting.

 

I like that masteries are easier too. I still haven’t completed my HoTs masteries and most of them are inane and irritating. I have to gain masteries to trade with the locals on almost EVERY map??? Stupid. PoF did a much better job streamlining masteries and make MP easier to attain. I shouldn’t have to master a mini game to level up, essentially.

 

Otherwise, HoTs was fine.

[Dashingsteel.3410]

I prefer Pof maps to Hot maps. Metas make HoT maps more profitable thus drawing repeat customers.

 

 

[Algreg.3629]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> > I see a few people asking why HOT was considered a fiasco. It's important to remember that HOT today is very different from what it was like at release.

> >

> > **The Hype**

> > 1. Elite Specs were pushed hard as the core feature of the expansion, and everyone wanted theirs. They even had a "sample weekend" before launch, where pre-orders could try out the elite specs before the release. People loved them - it's what everyone wanted.

> > 2. Then, when release came, it was learned that not only did the specs had to be unlocked (this was never stated before release) and that it took 500 hero points to do it. 500 is literally every single HP in the entire expansion. Core Only has 380 or something, so even if you had 100% core map completion it didn't help much. Basically, for every character you wanted to espec you had to 100% map complete the entire expansion. Including every alt.

> > 3. In addition, map completion was locked behind the masteries, and locked hard. Many POIs or HP's were in poison fields for example, that you need Nuhoch 7 mastery to enter. There was no possible way to get this without the mastery, not even mesmers could help.

> > 4. Masteries took 5x (not a typo) more XP then they do today. It easily took a month of grinding the expansion content (remember, you can't get HOT mastery xp unless in HOT maps) before you could fully unlock your espec. Truly hardcore grinders could maybe do it in 3 weeks, but for most people it was over a month. I remember personally running VB for an entire week before I could unlock bouncing mushrooms, which is a required step in the story.

> > 5. People were PISSED. The one thing... ONE THING! ... they had expected from the expansion was hard locked behind a month of grinding.

> >

> > **Meta Events:**

> > 1. To make matters worse, running meta events required hours of commitment.

> > 2. At the time, the events did not award by completion of events in the chain, but by "meta event progression" and "participation level." Say you did the VB Pact Encampment chain, and made it until all 3 leaders were found. That's about 20% completion, and entitles you to a pitiful reward. That would take about half an hour Remember, no one had especs unlocked yet, so power creep was limited and events took much longer.

> > 3. To get 100% completion in VB for example, you had to start at the beginning and go all the way through the complete night meta.

> > 4. In addition, you had to be actively running each event, or you'd get a low % of participation level, and lousy rewards. Explores got left in the lurch.

> > 5. This meant that a 90 minute single play session was required to get the map rewards - and you had to be doing the events the entire time.

> > 6. The event XP - vital to unlocking masteries and thus the coveted especs - was included in these meta rewards.

> > 7. This is why people are saying that meta events lock out casual players or map explorers. Because, at the time, they actually did.

> >

> > **All That Changed**

> > 1. Especs now require 250 HPS, or about half the expac. It's just over two maps worth.

> > 2. Meta events are now broken into sub-events that reward you as you go. You can play for half an our and get the full half an hour worth of map rewards.

> > 3. Hard locked HP's in VB and AB were made accessible without the masteries. You still need them to 100% the expac (esp in Dragon Stand) but you can at least unlock your espec sooner.

> > 4. Mastery XP requirements were reduced by 5x. Yes, literally 5x.

> >

> > **Summary**

> > HOT was a hot mess when it launched. It was a horrible experience for anyone except the most hardcore players, and even they were mad because grinding was not what was advertised. Every complaint you hear about HOT was 100% justified. However, by the end of the year, Anet had fixed it. A lot of those complaints are not valid anymore. Nonetheless, it's what people who were there remember, especially if they quit before the fixes came out. HOT as it stands today is some of the best content in the game.

> >

> > The problems with POF come down to Anet not remembering that their fixes to HOT *worked*. Instead of realizing that they had (eventually) found a winning formula they swung full round the other direction and lost everything they gained.

>

> It was 400 HP’s to fully unlock an elite spec.

>

> Night meta was never required for 100% map completion of VB.

>

> Map completion was only really needed for legendary weapons which required you to max out your masteries anyway.

>

> I don’t recall mastery XP ever having been changed since HoT launch. The wiki page history doesn’t show it having been changed either.

>

> There were players had all masteries maxed within a week. Not the three weeks you’re considering hardcore grinders were able to do it in.

>

> It didn’t require hours of commitment. Maps typically had two cycles and the final reward would be rewarded at the end of each cycle. No single cycle lasted for hours.

>

> Events progressed the same as they do now. They took no longer than similar events in the core game. Collection events did tend to have scaling issues though. Still do.

>

> You did not have to go through the entire meta and night meta to get 100% completion. You could easily get it during the day. I think getting gold on five events was all that you needed for 100%. You could also grind out like 12 or so adventures to get there too. Exploring isn’t contributing to the meta so why should players receive or maintain participation?

>

> Probably more that I could comment on.

>

> Edit: Here what the meta was like before April 2015

>

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Map_meta_event

>

>

 

I mean, taste is subjective and this is a matter of taste ultimately, but a lot of those high tales are blown out of proportion. I did not grind masteries when I started HoT, I just followed the story and jumped into events when they were close and went through the whole affair up to Hearts & Minds. All grind for achievements, skins, additional points to max masteries that were not necessary to finish the story came after that - and by grind I just mean playing events and metas.

[artemis.6781]

> @"Dashingsteel.3410" said:

> I prefer Pof maps to Hot maps. Metas make HoT maps more profitable thus drawing repeat customers.

>

>

 

Exactly! Replayability of HoT is because those meta rewards are vastly superior to it's PoF counterpart.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

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

> > > > > Considering the claims that PoF maps are dead and that HoT maps are thriving...

> > > > >

> > > > > PoF maps may have appealed to some players, HoT maps are healthier for the game.

> > > >

> > > > You're welcome to the opinion that HoT maps are healthier for the game. However, I would suggest that HoT maps are conducive to a particular play-style, that of congregating in large groups. PoF maps are more conducive to exploration, and going it alone. It would seem to me that what is healthy for the game as a whole is a mix of large group and solo/small group content, not all of one or all of the other. Maybe what ANet can do going forward is to present an expansion that includes both, rather than one that is mostly A or mostly B.

> > > >

> > > > As to the thread topic... No, PoF was not an apology. It was, instead, a reaction to many players complaints about HoT. In the same way, the Istan meta is a reaction to complaints about lack of/unrewarding meta events on PoF maps.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The HoT maps are healthy in a sense that they keep players playing the game compared to PoF maps which can quickly be completed with no reason to go back. Pretty much the same as the other LS maps with exception to Istan. The way that the OP presents PoF is an exaggeration.

> >

> > And yet, I play in the PoF maps a lot, and see a lot of other players there. In fact, I see more there than I do in HoT maps when I go there, unless I taxi to the active map. The truth as I see it is that map metas keep _some_ of the players playing the game. Likewise, exploration maps keep different players occupied. You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone who plays is playing for the best return in rewards. It's a natural assumption, because those people tend to be vocal about rewards. It's still an assumption, though.

>

> I made no mention of rewards.

 

You mentioned that HoT keeps players playing, and asserted that PoF does not. If it helps, delete everything after, "You are making the mistake..." and you will find that you have provided nothing to counter my point, only my assumption as to the cause of that mistake.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

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

> > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

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

> > > > > > Considering the claims that PoF maps are dead and that HoT maps are thriving...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > PoF maps may have appealed to some players, HoT maps are healthier for the game.

> > > > >

> > > > > You're welcome to the opinion that HoT maps are healthier for the game. However, I would suggest that HoT maps are conducive to a particular play-style, that of congregating in large groups. PoF maps are more conducive to exploration, and going it alone. It would seem to me that what is healthy for the game as a whole is a mix of large group and solo/small group content, not all of one or all of the other. Maybe what ANet can do going forward is to present an expansion that includes both, rather than one that is mostly A or mostly B.

> > > > >

> > > > > As to the thread topic... No, PoF was not an apology. It was, instead, a reaction to many players complaints about HoT. In the same way, the Istan meta is a reaction to complaints about lack of/unrewarding meta events on PoF maps.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The HoT maps are healthy in a sense that they keep players playing the game compared to PoF maps which can quickly be completed with no reason to go back. Pretty much the same as the other LS maps with exception to Istan. The way that the OP presents PoF is an exaggeration.

> > >

> > > And yet, I play in the PoF maps a lot, and see a lot of other players there. In fact, I see more there than I do in HoT maps when I go there, unless I taxi to the active map. The truth as I see it is that map metas keep _some_ of the players playing the game. Likewise, exploration maps keep different players occupied. You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone who plays is playing for the best return in rewards. It's a natural assumption, because those people tend to be vocal about rewards. It's still an assumption, though.

> >

> > I made no mention of rewards.

>

> You mentioned that HoT keeps players playing, and asserted that PoF does not. If it helps, delete everything after, "You are making the mistake..." and you will find that you have provided nothing to counter my point, only my assumption as to the cause of that mistake.

 

And that statement is just screaming "rewards"? I wasn't countering the earlier part of a post because it was your observation.

[Rhyse.8179]

Who changed the thread title? Now it's duplicating the name of another thread.

 

Is the forum bugging out today?