User talk:Auron/gtawow

I agree wholeheartedly, but none of this will happen because ANet does not care. I'd like it if ANet would stop kidding themselves and just release the source code so a group of non-shitters could get together and make things not suck again, but they'll never do that because the moment somebody else opens a server, theirs will be empty because of how terrible it is. &mdash;Jette  09:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gold Sink'd be pretty difficult to implement, because GW stands on the idea of gold =/= valuable. Now, I approve of this, but you make a fairly nice argument, so here what I'd suggest:
 * Make stuff like DoA, Dungeons, etc, cost. You know how FoW asks for 1k to grant entrence? A 10k price (per player, not per party) would pretty much drain the excess gold from the fattened purses.
 * Dungeons (especially high end stuff like slavers) can have adjusting costs that can be adjusteed via NM/HM.
 * This also reduces the number of solo farmers and bad PvE builds. Just a thought. -- NUKLEAR  [[Image:User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg|19x19px]] IIV  16:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gods, I hope they adress this some day-- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.png anguard  16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Guild Wars programmers apparently know about as much about programming as I do, so it's pretty unlikely. Actually less, since at least I know you could do it in like a week with MySquirrels.  &mdash;Jette  [[Image:User_Jette_awesome.png|19px]] 17:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Being someone who plays WoW but not quite at the top of the spectrum yet (jusssst started raiding), I have to agree with everything here, honestly. Hopefully this is all stuff they consider for GW2 since it'll be more MMORPGy. Blizzard seems to be moving more towards vanity items as gold sinks I think tho, in Cataclysm they're removing the concept of buying spell ranks (they level up as you do, you just buy the skill itself) and a lot of stuff you buy as you level up your character (Dual Wielding, etc) and no need for Hunter's to buy ammo etc, keeping it just to repair bills - gear - vanity, which I don't see going too well since there's simply a group of people who don't care about vanity items...they'll be constantly loaded since even if you raid often you can make money quite easily from dailies from what I see. Either way, the PvE in that game is superb and ArenaNet needs to take more than a few notes from it.
 * Something else that I'm looking forward to in WoW when it comes out is the Guild Leveling system, and I hope that's something ArenaNet looks at for GW2 as well. Making guilds more "together" and less fragmented, give people a reason to stick around instead of just guild hop, etc. Rewarding guilds with minor non-combat affecting bonuses for advancing together is an awesome concept. DarkNecrid 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Skill Separation: This is in a way like the restriction on Smiting Prayers that exists on Peace and Harmony, correct? Perhaps you could reference this in the article, since the concept already exists in the game, albeit in a deformed manner.

Economy: I don't see this as a problem. The last thing I want is for economic issues to get in the way of gameplay, forcing me to grind for money. In the current design, those who don't care about vanity items are not bothered by the economic issues, and those who do already have a variety of armors and weapons to purchase. The example of the 50-in-the-world item that you offered can be an issue, but isn't really a result of the supposed gold overflow in the game; no matter how much or how little money people have, the 50 items will always go to the top 50 active players who care about that vanity item, ranked by how much they are willing to pay for the item. Whether this price winds up being 50 ectos or 5000 ectos does not change the fact that the 51st player is not willing to pay that much.

Death: You offhandedly remark about the mechanic of applying death penalties that exist outside of the instance (that is to say, more "permanent" penalties) as being a good idea, but I think that may not be the best for this game. My understanding is that by punishing failure, you believe people will be pressured to learn how to improve their gameplay - the better one plays, the less often one has to stop to remove the penalties. However, punishing players in this way for failure actually can *reward* bad play. This is because it applies a penalty to anyone wishing to experiment with a new mechanic, skill, build, or strategy, since, unless you are a proverbial wizard of gaming, you will fail at some point while testing the waters. This could lead to, among other things, increased requests for runs, increased use of gimmick builds, and more over-reliance on broken mechanics as a substitute for playing better. In short, players will take fewer risks. Players are already punished in any game for failure simply for the loss of time, and with temporary DP in this game as well - they don't need to be punished further. Perhaps for an extreme example, if I had to draw 25 large pentagons on the screen every time I died in I Wanna Be The Guy to grind myself an extra life, I would probably have quit the game in disgust long before reaching the first boss, Mike Tyson.

I hope at least some of this can serve as food for thought. 66.36.230.228 07:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)