We’re pleased to announce that from June 17 onward, you’ll be able to buy custom arenas with gold instead of gems!
We have always seen custom Arenas as an important tool for bringing the PvP community together. This change will make it much easier for groups of players to pool their resources and work together to create and maintain a custom arena.
In the Heart of the Mists, you’ll find a new vendor called The Arena Vendor who will offer custom arena starter kits for 200 gold and time tokens for 2 gold.
Remember that you can use a custom arena time token on any custom arena that you are playing in, regardless of who owns that arena. If there’s a custom arena that you really enjoy or call home, you can support that arena and its owner by adding time to it!
but gold is gems aint it? you just cant buy time directly with gems anymore. Should make it cheaper tho right? neato!
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
At least to keep it going. Atm starter kit is 1600 gems, which at the current rate is kinda close to 200g (in fact, I think it would leave you with a few gems to spare), but the time tokens are 24-30, depending on how many you get at once, and 2g currently gets you only 16 gems, which you can buy one at a time instead of bulks of 5 at 150 or 20 at 480.
Am I missing something here or is the new system somehow tangibly worse than what we have now, which is that if you don't log in and see the content it simply vanishes?
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Am I missing something here or is the new system somehow tangibly worse than what we have now, which is that if you don't log in and see the content it simply vanishes?
It's better.
But everything in this game should be free forever and ever.
Am I missing something here or is the new system somehow tangibly worse than what we have now, which is that if you don't log in and see the content it simply vanishes?
I don't understand how missing content forever is better than the option to experience missed content.
The incentive of greater gem store revenue affects development choices. When they started selling finishers, shortly afterwards they introduced PvE mobs that had to be stomped; when they saw how many people pay gems to transfer because of WvW, they introduced season rewards based on your server's placement. If temporary content is a potential source of gem store revenue, they have more reason to make content temporary.
You're comparing temporary content you can pay to play once it's gone to temporary content that's gone forever. We're comparing temporary content you can pay to play once it's gone to permanent content, and permanent content is what the playerbase has been asking for since forever.
If season two actually does have permanent expansion-like content I'll be happy, but based on everything Anet has said and done so far I'm not exactly brimming with confidence. What's more near as I can tell the same people are in charge of living story as last time...
Am I missing something here or is the new system somehow tangibly worse than what we have now, which is that if you don't log in and see the content it simply vanishes?
I don't understand how missing content forever is better than the option to experience missed content.
Okay, let's see if we can resolve this on an "agree to disagree" level.
There are two camps here:
Camp Better-than-Before
Camp Better-than-Before (or CBtB from here on out) says "well, if the change is better than before, what is the problem?"
CBtB sees only 2 possible outcomes: every part of the announced change is implemented, or none of it is. If they like the plan on balance, then they like the whole thing. CBtB folks see any complaining about something that to them constitutes an overall improvement as dumb. They think "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." They see all this in terms of net gain, end of story.
Camp How-it-Should-Be
Camp How-it-Should-Be (or CHiSB) says "these changes aren't what we asked for when we asked for this feature. These changes are like asking for a puppy and being given a dead puppy instead. It's technically what we wanted, but the life and soul is gone."
CHiSB does not see 2 possible outcomes, they see infinite possible outcomes: every design change than ANet could possibly make, not just Old Way vs. New Way. That's why when they look at New Way, they don't stop their analysis at "New Way>Old Way" like CBtB does. They keep going on to "My Way>New Way>Old Way", where "My Way" is the change they wanted in the first place (the puppy).
CHiSB sees the dead puppy as a betrayal of ANet's stated goals and ideals. CBtB sees it as better than no puppy at all. And they are both right, they just CARE about different aspects more.
No one in CHiSB is arguing that this change is strictly worse than the status quo, they are arguing that the status quo shouldn't be the point of comparison in the first place. And no one in CBtB is arguing that this is the best of all possible outcomes, because they don't consider any other possible outcomes to even BE possible outcomes.
CBtB sees the glass as slightly more than half empty and calls it a win over half empty. CHiSB sees the nearly half empty glass and says "where the fuck is the rest of my juice???"
These two groups will never agree because it's a matter of perception. You can't take your worldview out of your head and implant it in someone else's brain. (If you could, internet arguments would be a lot shorter). Each side sees their arguments as being the most rational. And they are both right, given their perception and values.
Personally, I'm in a position where these changes were never going to hurt me in the first place--but I knew right off the bat they would drive off members of the community I care about. That's why I'm judging these changes in highly emotional terms--because I know that's what's going to matter to the people most at risk of giving up on this game. If the changes FEEL like they made the game worse (if they give you dead-puppy-vibes), that's enough for some people.
However, I am relieved to see that the majority of the community appears to be in CBtB, even though that's not how I see things myself. It means they'll stick around, and that's good for the community.
I do hope we won't lose too many people over this, but I'm afraid we'll only see the effects over a long period of time---people who normally drift in and out of the game, the next time they drift back they may very well see a paywall and drift on out again, assuming they're in CHiSB. But for now it seems that things will go on mostly as usual.
One hope I *do* have is that Season 2 will be substantially better than Season 1. They have a year's worth of our reactions to content behind them and they know what we like. We already know we're getting at least one new permanent zone, and that any non-story content added will be totally permanent. New zones and permanent content were high on everyone's wish list, so we know they're listening. If they can knock Season 2 story out of the park, that may be enough to convert even the most indignant members of CHiSB. And that's what I'm crossing my fingers for.
I'm willing to agree to disagree, but also, I disagree. The two camps have room for overlap; I recognize that this is not ideal or even an elegant solution, but it is better than before.
I'm in the "better than before" camp, but this doesn't mean they can't or won't improve in the future. There's too many issues to have opinions over, so I'd prefer to keep it simple. I still enjoy the game, and something like this is a small benefit so I'd see it as a positive move for now with potential to see better improvements in the future.
For those who are perhaps not as content with the game, this can be seen as another reason to dislike the direction of the game, team, etc. Those individuals are really hoping for something very significant in terms of game improvements. It could be permanent content, more/less gear treadmills, more activities or zones, and those folks will probably not be satisfied until they see those issues addressed with actions, not words. It's simply tougher to convince someone unhappy to be happy with a product with a non-significant or major beneficial change to the game in their mind.
I can see either current argument and it makes complete sense to me. In the end, I think this is a step in the right direction and I hope to see more of them. If I wasn't enjoying the game, I don't this would have changed my viewpoint of the game and I wouldn't continued to be unhappy with the game and finding other things to spend my time on.
I don't usually play a mmo for this long, especially after all my rl friends left in the first 6 months. It's the folks here that make the game enjoyable for me. Thanks to Sage and co for leading Saturday guild missions, thanks to Goldshield and co for running Sunday missions, thanks to Yougottawanna and Mojo for running wvw nights and thanks to the other folks who run dungeons or fractals or LS stuff with me. It continues to be fun by virtue of the NICE community here for me.
I guess if Arenanet starts pulling some really scummy bullshit then this could conceivably be a real issue to get angry about.
But if it's like, they release another Southsun Cove and you miss the LS event but the zone is permanent and you can go there and adventure regardless, and you would have to pay gems to revisit whatever stupid festival or invasion that they cooked up to celebrate its launch, that's not a big deal to me. If they throw up big road-blocks and somehow go "errp you can't even go in this zone" then that would indeed be gross.
I think a lot of the season 1 stuff was fairly low quality content that I wouldn't want to revisit even if I could, so It's hard to imagine feeling compelled to go back and play around in Lion's Arch under siege or my own private Queen's Pavillion or whatever. I guess if the type of content they produce for season 2 is dramatically different then my feelings might change, but I'll have to see how they handle it.
Is the PA guild for this game still going strong? I re-downloaded the game a few days ago and was planning on going back and beating the dungeons that I never got around to playing. There's probably even new content which I don't even know about to beat too. I'm going to need a group that's a little nicer than the average speed racer pugs since i'm a bit rusty.
Godofallu.2935 if anyone wants to add me and do some dungeon runs.
What I seem to be getting out of Season 2 is that the episodes you buy are personal story missions that can "permanently alter your character".
Having gone through the original story, I can't say I'm all that excited for more of it. But they did take out/hide personality from our characters in the April 15th update, so if that's a hint that they're reworking it from the ground up to actually, you know, do something, then I'll be really happy. Personality could have been a really awesome system if it was done correctly, but unfortunately it ended up as flavoring. Cheap flavoring, at that.
I think the actual text was that the personal story "permanently alter[ed] your character." and that was why there were no plans of letting people replay personal story missions. I don't think they've said anything about the kind of choices you can make in the new LS (assuming you can make any) and what could happen because of it.
Foefaller on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2014
One of those camps is a gross oversimplification and the other, the one you are in Kylindra, is given loving attention to detail.
Also I reject the idea that there are two "camps". There's no reason to segregate discussion into a traditional Left versus Right or Us vs Them dichotomy.
It's too simplistic and it unnecessarily restricts the framework of a discussion.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
It might be nice if updates you didn't log in even once during were free to backfill, but come on, calling this a dead puppy is completely ridiculous.
+2
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
I've never been bothered enough by Guild Wars story to want to pay to redo the living story stuff. Or do the living story stuff at all.
Did they announce anything at E3?
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2014
I want reaccess to one of the updates so I can keep getting my halo.
I didn't play enough to get it during the time.
Also it means limited things like that mean I can just keep on going in my own time without stressing about playing for hours when I don't want to. Even if it takes me a few months.
I like both these things.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Is the PA guild for this game still going strong? I re-downloaded the game a few days ago and was planning on going back and beating the dungeons that I never got around to playing. There's probably even new content which I don't even know about to beat too. I'm going to need a group that's a little nicer than the average speed racer pugs since i'm a bit rusty.
Godofallu.2935 if anyone wants to add me and do some dungeon runs.
Yes, the guild is still a thing. We run guild missions weekly and there is also some organized WvW and so forth. Dungeons seems to happen with a fair bit of frequency as well.
I'll send you a re-invite to the guild since you probably got culled. Welcome back!
Also I reject the idea that there are two "camps". There's no reason to segregate discussion into a traditional Left versus Right or Us vs Them dichotomy.
It's too simplistic and it unnecessarily restricts the framework of a discussion.
There is actually a reason--and the reason is to offer the discussion a framework.
The discussion started off with lots of "I feel this way!" followed by "your feelings are invalid because I don't share them!". We then made some progress toward a shared framework briefly with the discussion of perception. I was fine with leaving it there, but then it seemed like we were moving backwards to "people are having reactions that I don't share and I therefore conclude that they are wrong". That's when I felt the need to post this.
A dichotomous framework, while simple, is a way to take the discussion to a more productive place. It isn't "too simplistic", it's exactly as simple as it needs to be. Enumerating all the possible viewpoints is too complex to be a useful framework. A dichotomy gives people something to identify with ("I'm in Camp A!") or react against ("I think I'm in both Camps!"). In other words, it is a functional framework for the discussion.
You may not agree with everything laid out in the framework, but that isn't the point. The point is to move the discussion forward from "I feel this way" vs "I don't so you're wrong".
You say I wasn't fair to the viewpoint of Camp BtB. That's unavoidable, as I don't share it and clearly can't do it justice. Why not try your hand at it? I'd love to hear what you have to say.
Details aren't released yet but I think some are seriously overestimating how much content is going to be sold.
LS1 was overwhelmingly open world content, with a handful of dungeons and some very short story instances. I doubt you are going to pay to reserve your own private pavillion or marionette or what not, instances which only make sense with large groups of players; even dungeons would be problematic with the 5 player requirement. (You pay for a dungeon, except no-one is around in LFG to do it...) Instead think of the "story steps" like, entering toxic kessix hills for the first time, or smashing the boss at the top of the nightmare tower, or finishing off Scarlet. Meanwhile the nightmare tower itself is that open-world content that is likely to be permanent and freely accessible to everyone (albeit they will have to tell different kinds of stories to keep it permanent...)
Like most F2P games, GW2's monetization has not been one to align content value with the effort require to produce it. They spend the majority of their resources on new zones and features, but make that money back with a bunch of skins and minor conveniences that don't take anywhere near the effort to produce as they make back. The free content however aims to convert a fair number of people to buy the skins, and gives the buyers more bodies to play along with. LS2 is likely to follow a similar model, where the majority of content is open-world, which in turn is there to try and sell people on paying for access to the relatively minor story parts that make sense of new zones.
Even then I suspect this is less about milking returning players, and more about doing exactly what some are complaining about: creating a softer penalty that still entices people to log in. They get more people to drop $10 every two weeks on cosmetic toys than those that come back after a few months and spend $60 on 6 toys in a shot instead of buying an actual game. This IMO has been the entire financial drive behind temporary content, as it is always paired with simultaneous gem store updates. Anyway the incentive/aversion doesn't have to be huge to encourage logins is the point; consider how much aetherblades were run while the temporary achievements were around. So they can afford to let free/late players enjoy the majority of content, as they can in fact make good money from monetizing a desirable minority exactly as they have been doing so far.
What is probably a bigger issue is that it sounds like the equivalent of meta-achievements will also be locked behind this story system; I suspect these aren't just story-instance achievements, but achievements for open world zones that relate to the story, the kinds of things we've seen in LS1, and we've been told to expect more than just APs for many of these. So whether it be titles or backpieces, APs, ascended mats or whatever, if you return from a hiatus, you'd have to pay for the privilege to grind them out. For some people this might be the only real motivation for playing through new content in the first place, and it's not sounding very free for returning players.
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Also I reject the idea that there are two "camps". There's no reason to segregate discussion into a traditional Left versus Right or Us vs Them dichotomy.
It's too simplistic and it unnecessarily restricts the framework of a discussion.
There is actually a reason--and the reason is to offer the discussion a framework.
The discussion started off with lots of "I feel this way!" followed by "your feelings are invalid because I don't share them!". We then made some progress toward a shared framework briefly with the discussion of perception. I was fine with leaving it there, but then it seemed like we were moving backwards to "people are having reactions that I don't share and I therefore conclude that they are wrong". That's when I felt the need to post this.
I did not read this like you did. I think it is unnecessary.
A dichotomous framework, while simple, is a way to take the discussion to a more productive place. It isn't "too simplistic", it's exactly as simple as it needs to be. Enumerating all the possible viewpoints is too complex to be a useful framework. A dichotomy gives people something to identify with ("I'm in Camp A!") or react against ("I think I'm in both Camps!"). In other words, it is a functional framework for the discussion.
You may not agree with everything laid out in the framework, but that isn't the point. The point is to move the discussion forward from "I feel this way" vs "I don't so you're wrong".
You say I wasn't fair to the viewpoint of Camp BtB. That's unavoidable, as I don't share it and clearly can't do it justice. Why not try your hand at it? I'd love to hear what you have to say.
You seem to have difficulty with the concept of "Agree to disagree" don't you?
Listen mate, I'll lay it out for you.
"Some things can't be discussed other than to just understand that this person is going to disagree with you and there is nothing you can do to change their mind."
It's a reality of the world. All points are valid, all points are allowed, there is no right, no wrong.
Your dichotomy does nothing to change, nothing to help, and nothing to dissolve this reality.
It just makes it seem like a debate, where it is possible to win.
It's not possible to win, mate.
You can't.
This is a purely personal matter and no amount of logic will help you.
The way to resolve this is to explain so that others understand that it is alright for other people to have these opposing points of view and that no more discussion needs to be said. We learn to live and let live.
There's nothing wrong with that.
This is not a problem that needs to be "fixed".
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
It just makes it seem like a debate, where it is possible to win.
That is not the intent.
The intent is to show that there is more than one way of perceiving the issue, and that both are valid, and that any discussion about the issue needs to get past the stage of where it seems to keep getting mired so far, which is "I don't feel the way you do so your feelings are invalid."
I don't know why you think I'm trying to "win" anything. I clearly don't have a horse in this race and I really just want people to stop invalidating each other's viewpoints with faux-clueless questions.
"Agree to disagree" doesn't necessitate ignoring the issue and never discussing it again. It means realizing that different people can do the same math problem and get different answers but both be right if they're starting from different axioms and assumptions. My intention was to highlight what I saw as the differences in the underlying assumptions and hopefully forestall any additional pointless exercises in going through the actual math.
These two groups will never agree because it's a matter of perception. You can't take your worldview out of your head and implant it in someone else's brain. (If you could, internet arguments would be a lot shorter). Each side sees their arguments as being the most rational. And they are both right, given their perception and values.
I'm not sure which part of that you thought was intended to incite conflict. If anything, I'm trying to make some peace here. You don't like my framework for reaching understanding, and you've made that pretty clear. I disagree with you that framing an existing debate in dichotomous terms is necessarily an incitation to further conflict. I think it can be helpful to take a step back and look at exactly where people are parting ways and why.
You may think that "agree to disagree" is shorthand for "let's stop talking about this". But I think "agree to disagree" is best used to mean "let's realize why we disagree, realize that it's a fundamental difference in assumptions, and therefore realize that any further discussions need to take that into account."
It is possible to discuss something that you disagree with someone about without it being an argument, or being about "winning". You can instead decide to simply share your viewpoints or discuss mutually beneficial possibilities.
Every argument is a disagreement. But not every disagreement is an argument.
It just makes it seem like a debate, where it is possible to win.
That is not the intent.
The intent is to show that there is more than one way of perceiving the issue, and that both are valid, and that any discussion about the issue needs to get past the stage of where it seems to keep getting mired so far, which is "I don't feel the way you do so your feelings are invalid."
I don't know why you think I'm trying to "win" anything. I clearly don't have a horse in this race and I really just want people to stop invalidating each other's viewpoints with faux-clueless questions.
"Agree to disagree" doesn't necessitate ignoring the issue and never discussing it again. It means realizing that different people can do the same math problem and get different answers but both be right if they're starting from different axioms and assumptions. My intention was to highlight what I saw as the differences in the underlying assumptions and hopefully forestall any additional pointless exercises in going through the actual math.
These two groups will never agree because it's a matter of perception. You can't take your worldview out of your head and implant it in someone else's brain. (If you could, internet arguments would be a lot shorter). Each side sees their arguments as being the most rational. And they are both right, given their perception and values.
I'm not sure which part of that you thought was intended to incite conflict. If anything, I'm trying to make some peace here. You don't like my framework for reaching understanding, and you've made that pretty clear. I disagree with you that framing an existing debate in dichotomous terms is necessarily an incitation to further conflict. I think it can be helpful to take a step back and look at exactly where people are parting ways and why.
You may think that "agree to disagree" is shorthand for "let's stop talking about this". But I think "agree to disagree" is best used to mean "let's realize why we disagree, realize that it's a fundamental difference in assumptions, and therefore realize that any further discussions need to take that into account."
It is possible to discuss something that you disagree with someone about without it being an argument, or being about "winning". You can instead decide to simply share your viewpoints or discuss mutually beneficial possibilities.
Every argument is a disagreement. But not every disagreement is an argument.
Alright, fair enough.
The other reason I don't like your dichotomy is because individual variation on this issue is better represented by a skewed bell curve. Like someone said earlier, there is going to be huge overlap, to the point where you are unlikely to find many people who find your camps all that meaningful or identify strongly with one except yourself.
Which is why one camp was so detailed and one was not. The detailed one is your view. It's only really useful to yourself and those people who agree with you. I don't agree with either of your options, for example. I don't fit. I doubt I'm the only one.
I don't find it useful to try and create another "camp", since the whole idea of creating segregate opinion bases actually restricts discussion when opinions are so varied. You get caught in the model and stop thinking outside of it. We tend to over focus on what we can easily see/comprehend and are less likely to think of alternative options when a model has already been presented to us. We like explanations and don't really care too much if they are fully accurate as long as they explain it well enough. We definitely prefer a half finished or incomplete explanation to a lack of one.
We also have a massive bias towards simplicity and consider simple good, even when that isn't true.
I agree with your intent, but this dichotomy you have presented will encourage people to try and shape their view to fit into the model you have presented. Those who don't agree at all will simply reject it.
What you want to do is simply say: Hey, all views are viable. Let's freely present and discuss our individual takes in a non confrontational manner.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
It might be nice if updates you didn't log in even once during were free to backfill, but come on, calling this a dead puppy is completely ridiculous.
Compared to a paid expansion model?
Factions was released on the one year anniversary of GW1. It had two new entire professions and an entire continent. It also had a bunch of new skills for existing classes. Now, I think the professions existing are pretty decent, but I'd sure as hell like to see more than one unique skill per class in a year. Adding say, a new weapon type to each profession, along with, say, 2 utility skills and one elite wouldn't be an unreasonable addition.
I have high hopes (despite a lack of any evidence they are justified) for LS2, but I would absolutely characterize the first year of new GW2 content as a dead puppy in comparison to GW1. And that's awful, because its release content was so much better. GW2 is miles ahead of Prophecies, IMHO.
GW2 was my favorite MMO when it came out, and it still does things better than the entire rest of the genre (not having an account wide wallet in Wildstar sucks and is simply unjustifiably bad design, period, now that GW2 has proven there is a superior alternative), but it has been treading water for way too long in terms of content.
Tournament rewards for the World vs. World Spring 2014 Tournament will be available in the June 17th build. Once that build is live, you will be able to speak to the Battle Historian in any WvW map to get an updated tournament chest that has the correct rewards and number of tickets for your placement. Previously issued tickets will be voided with the build. Feel free to open any chests that you have already received now.
To thank you for your patience while we sorted out this bug, all players who completed the meta achievement will receive an additional 100 tickets.
Thank you once again for your understanding.
Looks like we will finally be getting our tickets this Tuesday. I believe the extra 100 tickets would put us at 550, just shy of two mistforged hero's weapon skins.
0
mojojoeoA block off the park, living the dream.Registered Userregular
It might be nice if updates you didn't log in even once during were free to backfill, but come on, calling this a dead puppy is completely ridiculous.
GW2 was my favorite MMO when it came out, and it still does things better than the entire rest of the genre (not having an account wide wallet in Wildstar sucks and is simply unjustifiably bad design, period, now that GW2 has proven there is a superior alternative), but it has been treading water for way too long in terms of content.
this. so much this.
mojojoeo on
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
It just feels like anet used the first year to set up the recurring content (festivals and stuff) I can hope that because they don't have to spend as much time on all the festivals we will finally see some more content.
If Anet puts tengu in the game everything will be forgiven.
FINALLY got Liadri (on my ele too, none of this resorting to life steal or warriors). I can enjoy parts of the game that aren't bashing head against wall now
I hope the new challenges aren't gimick on a specific class!
... warriors are supposed to have an easy time with Liadri? This is news to me, how's that happen?
They also fixed the life steal exploit by having Liadri regen during phase 1, so you couldn't have used that to win.
I actually did mine with grenade kit, which is actually easier than it sounds thanks to Flash Grenade, as the visions can't one-shot you if they are blinded, and I think I actually got a rally near the end when one of them blew up blinded from the grenades I threw just before I was downed.
Posts
but gold is gems aint it? you just cant buy time directly with gems anymore. Should make it cheaper tho right? neato!
But everything in this game should be free forever and ever.
I don't understand how missing content forever is better than the option to experience missed content.
Steam: TimIsOnSteam
Battle.net: TimIsOnBnet#1745
Switch: SW-7012-4788-7410
PSN: TimIsOnTheNet
You're comparing temporary content you can pay to play once it's gone to temporary content that's gone forever. We're comparing temporary content you can pay to play once it's gone to permanent content, and permanent content is what the playerbase has been asking for since forever.
If season two actually does have permanent expansion-like content I'll be happy, but based on everything Anet has said and done so far I'm not exactly brimming with confidence. What's more near as I can tell the same people are in charge of living story as last time...
Okay, let's see if we can resolve this on an "agree to disagree" level.
There are two camps here:
Camp Better-than-Before
Camp Better-than-Before (or CBtB from here on out) says "well, if the change is better than before, what is the problem?"
CBtB sees only 2 possible outcomes: every part of the announced change is implemented, or none of it is. If they like the plan on balance, then they like the whole thing. CBtB folks see any complaining about something that to them constitutes an overall improvement as dumb. They think "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." They see all this in terms of net gain, end of story.
Camp How-it-Should-Be
Camp How-it-Should-Be (or CHiSB) says "these changes aren't what we asked for when we asked for this feature. These changes are like asking for a puppy and being given a dead puppy instead. It's technically what we wanted, but the life and soul is gone."
CHiSB does not see 2 possible outcomes, they see infinite possible outcomes: every design change than ANet could possibly make, not just Old Way vs. New Way. That's why when they look at New Way, they don't stop their analysis at "New Way>Old Way" like CBtB does. They keep going on to "My Way>New Way>Old Way", where "My Way" is the change they wanted in the first place (the puppy).
CHiSB sees the dead puppy as a betrayal of ANet's stated goals and ideals. CBtB sees it as better than no puppy at all. And they are both right, they just CARE about different aspects more.
No one in CHiSB is arguing that this change is strictly worse than the status quo, they are arguing that the status quo shouldn't be the point of comparison in the first place. And no one in CBtB is arguing that this is the best of all possible outcomes, because they don't consider any other possible outcomes to even BE possible outcomes.
CBtB sees the glass as slightly more than half empty and calls it a win over half empty. CHiSB sees the nearly half empty glass and says "where the fuck is the rest of my juice???"
These two groups will never agree because it's a matter of perception. You can't take your worldview out of your head and implant it in someone else's brain. (If you could, internet arguments would be a lot shorter). Each side sees their arguments as being the most rational. And they are both right, given their perception and values.
Personally, I'm in a position where these changes were never going to hurt me in the first place--but I knew right off the bat they would drive off members of the community I care about. That's why I'm judging these changes in highly emotional terms--because I know that's what's going to matter to the people most at risk of giving up on this game. If the changes FEEL like they made the game worse (if they give you dead-puppy-vibes), that's enough for some people.
However, I am relieved to see that the majority of the community appears to be in CBtB, even though that's not how I see things myself. It means they'll stick around, and that's good for the community.
I do hope we won't lose too many people over this, but I'm afraid we'll only see the effects over a long period of time---people who normally drift in and out of the game, the next time they drift back they may very well see a paywall and drift on out again, assuming they're in CHiSB. But for now it seems that things will go on mostly as usual.
One hope I *do* have is that Season 2 will be substantially better than Season 1. They have a year's worth of our reactions to content behind them and they know what we like. We already know we're getting at least one new permanent zone, and that any non-story content added will be totally permanent. New zones and permanent content were high on everyone's wish list, so we know they're listening. If they can knock Season 2 story out of the park, that may be enough to convert even the most indignant members of CHiSB. And that's what I'm crossing my fingers for.
Steam: TimIsOnSteam
Battle.net: TimIsOnBnet#1745
Switch: SW-7012-4788-7410
PSN: TimIsOnTheNet
For those who are perhaps not as content with the game, this can be seen as another reason to dislike the direction of the game, team, etc. Those individuals are really hoping for something very significant in terms of game improvements. It could be permanent content, more/less gear treadmills, more activities or zones, and those folks will probably not be satisfied until they see those issues addressed with actions, not words. It's simply tougher to convince someone unhappy to be happy with a product with a non-significant or major beneficial change to the game in their mind.
I can see either current argument and it makes complete sense to me. In the end, I think this is a step in the right direction and I hope to see more of them. If I wasn't enjoying the game, I don't this would have changed my viewpoint of the game and I wouldn't continued to be unhappy with the game and finding other things to spend my time on.
I don't usually play a mmo for this long, especially after all my rl friends left in the first 6 months. It's the folks here that make the game enjoyable for me. Thanks to Sage and co for leading Saturday guild missions, thanks to Goldshield and co for running Sunday missions, thanks to Yougottawanna and Mojo for running wvw nights and thanks to the other folks who run dungeons or fractals or LS stuff with me. It continues to be fun by virtue of the NICE community here for me.
But if it's like, they release another Southsun Cove and you miss the LS event but the zone is permanent and you can go there and adventure regardless, and you would have to pay gems to revisit whatever stupid festival or invasion that they cooked up to celebrate its launch, that's not a big deal to me. If they throw up big road-blocks and somehow go "errp you can't even go in this zone" then that would indeed be gross.
I think a lot of the season 1 stuff was fairly low quality content that I wouldn't want to revisit even if I could, so It's hard to imagine feeling compelled to go back and play around in Lion's Arch under siege or my own private Queen's Pavillion or whatever. I guess if the type of content they produce for season 2 is dramatically different then my feelings might change, but I'll have to see how they handle it.
Godofallu.2935 if anyone wants to add me and do some dungeon runs.
Having gone through the original story, I can't say I'm all that excited for more of it. But they did take out/hide personality from our characters in the April 15th update, so if that's a hint that they're reworking it from the ground up to actually, you know, do something, then I'll be really happy. Personality could have been a really awesome system if it was done correctly, but unfortunately it ended up as flavoring. Cheap flavoring, at that.
Also I reject the idea that there are two "camps". There's no reason to segregate discussion into a traditional Left versus Right or Us vs Them dichotomy.
It's too simplistic and it unnecessarily restricts the framework of a discussion.
Did they announce anything at E3?
I didn't play enough to get it during the time.
Also it means limited things like that mean I can just keep on going in my own time without stressing about playing for hours when I don't want to. Even if it takes me a few months.
I like both these things.
Yes, the guild is still a thing. We run guild missions weekly and there is also some organized WvW and so forth. Dungeons seems to happen with a fair bit of frequency as well.
I'll send you a re-invite to the guild since you probably got culled. Welcome back!
Edit: TZ beat me to it, your invite has gone out.
There is actually a reason--and the reason is to offer the discussion a framework.
The discussion started off with lots of "I feel this way!" followed by "your feelings are invalid because I don't share them!". We then made some progress toward a shared framework briefly with the discussion of perception. I was fine with leaving it there, but then it seemed like we were moving backwards to "people are having reactions that I don't share and I therefore conclude that they are wrong". That's when I felt the need to post this.
A dichotomous framework, while simple, is a way to take the discussion to a more productive place. It isn't "too simplistic", it's exactly as simple as it needs to be. Enumerating all the possible viewpoints is too complex to be a useful framework. A dichotomy gives people something to identify with ("I'm in Camp A!") or react against ("I think I'm in both Camps!"). In other words, it is a functional framework for the discussion.
You may not agree with everything laid out in the framework, but that isn't the point. The point is to move the discussion forward from "I feel this way" vs "I don't so you're wrong".
You say I wasn't fair to the viewpoint of Camp BtB. That's unavoidable, as I don't share it and clearly can't do it justice. Why not try your hand at it? I'd love to hear what you have to say.
LS1 was overwhelmingly open world content, with a handful of dungeons and some very short story instances. I doubt you are going to pay to reserve your own private pavillion or marionette or what not, instances which only make sense with large groups of players; even dungeons would be problematic with the 5 player requirement. (You pay for a dungeon, except no-one is around in LFG to do it...) Instead think of the "story steps" like, entering toxic kessix hills for the first time, or smashing the boss at the top of the nightmare tower, or finishing off Scarlet. Meanwhile the nightmare tower itself is that open-world content that is likely to be permanent and freely accessible to everyone (albeit they will have to tell different kinds of stories to keep it permanent...)
Like most F2P games, GW2's monetization has not been one to align content value with the effort require to produce it. They spend the majority of their resources on new zones and features, but make that money back with a bunch of skins and minor conveniences that don't take anywhere near the effort to produce as they make back. The free content however aims to convert a fair number of people to buy the skins, and gives the buyers more bodies to play along with. LS2 is likely to follow a similar model, where the majority of content is open-world, which in turn is there to try and sell people on paying for access to the relatively minor story parts that make sense of new zones.
Even then I suspect this is less about milking returning players, and more about doing exactly what some are complaining about: creating a softer penalty that still entices people to log in. They get more people to drop $10 every two weeks on cosmetic toys than those that come back after a few months and spend $60 on 6 toys in a shot instead of buying an actual game. This IMO has been the entire financial drive behind temporary content, as it is always paired with simultaneous gem store updates. Anyway the incentive/aversion doesn't have to be huge to encourage logins is the point; consider how much aetherblades were run while the temporary achievements were around. So they can afford to let free/late players enjoy the majority of content, as they can in fact make good money from monetizing a desirable minority exactly as they have been doing so far.
What is probably a bigger issue is that it sounds like the equivalent of meta-achievements will also be locked behind this story system; I suspect these aren't just story-instance achievements, but achievements for open world zones that relate to the story, the kinds of things we've seen in LS1, and we've been told to expect more than just APs for many of these. So whether it be titles or backpieces, APs, ascended mats or whatever, if you return from a hiatus, you'd have to pay for the privilege to grind them out. For some people this might be the only real motivation for playing through new content in the first place, and it's not sounding very free for returning players.
You seem to have difficulty with the concept of "Agree to disagree" don't you?
Listen mate, I'll lay it out for you.
"Some things can't be discussed other than to just understand that this person is going to disagree with you and there is nothing you can do to change their mind."
It's a reality of the world. All points are valid, all points are allowed, there is no right, no wrong.
Your dichotomy does nothing to change, nothing to help, and nothing to dissolve this reality.
It just makes it seem like a debate, where it is possible to win.
It's not possible to win, mate.
You can't.
This is a purely personal matter and no amount of logic will help you.
The way to resolve this is to explain so that others understand that it is alright for other people to have these opposing points of view and that no more discussion needs to be said. We learn to live and let live.
There's nothing wrong with that.
This is not a problem that needs to be "fixed".
That is not the intent.
The intent is to show that there is more than one way of perceiving the issue, and that both are valid, and that any discussion about the issue needs to get past the stage of where it seems to keep getting mired so far, which is "I don't feel the way you do so your feelings are invalid."
I don't know why you think I'm trying to "win" anything. I clearly don't have a horse in this race and I really just want people to stop invalidating each other's viewpoints with faux-clueless questions.
"Agree to disagree" doesn't necessitate ignoring the issue and never discussing it again. It means realizing that different people can do the same math problem and get different answers but both be right if they're starting from different axioms and assumptions. My intention was to highlight what I saw as the differences in the underlying assumptions and hopefully forestall any additional pointless exercises in going through the actual math.
I'm not sure which part of that you thought was intended to incite conflict. If anything, I'm trying to make some peace here. You don't like my framework for reaching understanding, and you've made that pretty clear. I disagree with you that framing an existing debate in dichotomous terms is necessarily an incitation to further conflict. I think it can be helpful to take a step back and look at exactly where people are parting ways and why.
You may think that "agree to disagree" is shorthand for "let's stop talking about this". But I think "agree to disagree" is best used to mean "let's realize why we disagree, realize that it's a fundamental difference in assumptions, and therefore realize that any further discussions need to take that into account."
It is possible to discuss something that you disagree with someone about without it being an argument, or being about "winning". You can instead decide to simply share your viewpoints or discuss mutually beneficial possibilities.
Every argument is a disagreement. But not every disagreement is an argument.
It needs to have a steady income from microtransactions for both server support, and further development (not to mention the company's next projects).
And that's called "B2P" or Buy to Play.
I mean, "top men" created these acronyms. You'd better well use them!
Alright, fair enough.
The other reason I don't like your dichotomy is because individual variation on this issue is better represented by a skewed bell curve. Like someone said earlier, there is going to be huge overlap, to the point where you are unlikely to find many people who find your camps all that meaningful or identify strongly with one except yourself.
Which is why one camp was so detailed and one was not. The detailed one is your view. It's only really useful to yourself and those people who agree with you. I don't agree with either of your options, for example. I don't fit. I doubt I'm the only one.
I don't find it useful to try and create another "camp", since the whole idea of creating segregate opinion bases actually restricts discussion when opinions are so varied. You get caught in the model and stop thinking outside of it. We tend to over focus on what we can easily see/comprehend and are less likely to think of alternative options when a model has already been presented to us. We like explanations and don't really care too much if they are fully accurate as long as they explain it well enough. We definitely prefer a half finished or incomplete explanation to a lack of one.
We also have a massive bias towards simplicity and consider simple good, even when that isn't true.
I agree with your intent, but this dichotomy you have presented will encourage people to try and shape their view to fit into the model you have presented. Those who don't agree at all will simply reject it.
What you want to do is simply say: Hey, all views are viable. Let's freely present and discuss our individual takes in a non confrontational manner.
I finally heard back from teamspeak licensing so the server swap is happening tomorrow.
There will be a new IP. Stay tuned for more information!
New IP: 66.135.55.177:9999 password is still the same.
Compared to a paid expansion model?
Factions was released on the one year anniversary of GW1. It had two new entire professions and an entire continent. It also had a bunch of new skills for existing classes. Now, I think the professions existing are pretty decent, but I'd sure as hell like to see more than one unique skill per class in a year. Adding say, a new weapon type to each profession, along with, say, 2 utility skills and one elite wouldn't be an unreasonable addition.
I have high hopes (despite a lack of any evidence they are justified) for LS2, but I would absolutely characterize the first year of new GW2 content as a dead puppy in comparison to GW1. And that's awful, because its release content was so much better. GW2 is miles ahead of Prophecies, IMHO.
GW2 was my favorite MMO when it came out, and it still does things better than the entire rest of the genre (not having an account wide wallet in Wildstar sucks and is simply unjustifiably bad design, period, now that GW2 has proven there is a superior alternative), but it has been treading water for way too long in terms of content.
Looks like we will finally be getting our tickets this Tuesday. I believe the extra 100 tickets would put us at 550, just shy of two mistforged hero's weapon skins.
this. so much this.
If Anet puts tengu in the game everything will be forgiven.
August
I hope the new challenges aren't gimick on a specific class!
They also fixed the life steal exploit by having Liadri regen during phase 1, so you couldn't have used that to win.
I actually did mine with grenade kit, which is actually easier than it sounds thanks to Flash Grenade, as the visions can't one-shot you if they are blinded, and I think I actually got a rally near the end when one of them blew up blinded from the grenades I threw just before I was downed.