"Now, if you (or anyone else) play as bad as you're able,"

"(Napoleon is spelled with an "o" btw. I apologize in advance in case your "lifestyle challenges" prevent you from knowing how to spell "Napoleon" as well as fail to prevent you from referencing things you don't know much about.),"

You're definitely just fishing for drama with this, but I will say:

Anet has deliberately set up game mechanics so that casual, unprofessional players cannot be excluded from top, end-game content.  I think most of us who played the Beta and will play the game see this as a welcome change from other games that were all about elitist exclusivity, embrace our unprofessional fellows, and will do our best to take on events and WvWvW with each other without pointing fingers and laying blame.

Sure, there's always going to be those that point fingers and lay blame, and maybe even rightfully so, but they can just deal with it, because this game isn't designed so they can do anything about it - and we all know this going in. If you don't like it, play a game where you can exclude those that don't play up to your standards.

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Meleagar

l I said was that I'm not held personally responsible for my playstyle shortcomings and real-life challenges in such a scenario 

Ok, i read your post again.

 

Here is EXACTLY what you said:

(i can)  "play as good or as bad as I was able ... without putting anyone else at risk or ruining anyone else's game. "

 

Now, if you (or anyone else) play as bad as you're able, do you not think that this results in the event having less chance of succeeding?  For example, events spawn for 20 people.  If the other 19 people are just barely completing their part, but you fail at yours, do you not think that you're in some way responsible for the group's failure?    

 

You, by participating in a dynamic event are directly responsible for the event scaling up to the number of people participating.  If 10 people are present and 9 go afk, the other person will have to defeat an event scaled to 10 people.  That person will most certainly fail, do you not think those 9 people are in some way responsible for that failure?  After all, if that person was alone, he'd only have a 1-person event to fight and his chances at success would be much greater.

 

On the flipside, if the game is indeed designed so that events are SO easy that 10-person events can be beaten by 1 if the others are slacking off, well, then I was correct in the first place.  

 

If me pointing out that people should be respectful of others and take responsibility for their actions somehow makes me a tactical genius,  i'll take that as a compliment.  (Napoleon is spelled with an "o" btw. I apologize in advance in case your "lifestyle challenges" prevent you from knowing how to spell "Napoleon" as well as fail to prevent you from referencing things you don't know much about.),

 

When you share a world with others, your actions generally have an effect on them whether you like it or not.  Just because the game absolves you of any need to actually communicate with people, doesn't mean that what you do does not matter to them.  Sorry.

 

There is no such word as, "i'll."

1 is spelled, "one," when used in a sentence.

10 is spelled, "ten," when used in a sentence.

There is no such word as, "i."

You might want to work on proper use of punctuation, such as the use of commas in conjunction with quotation marks, in a sentence.

You might want to revisit basic sentence structure guidelines available in any high-school text.

You are correct about the proper spelling of Napoleon, though that is not the original spelling of the name.

Now, going beyond basic grammar and spelling, you might want to consider reviewing the logic of expressing something as, "almost certainly," in the absence of supporting data. A purely hypothetical supposition, completely lacking in supporting data, exists in a state of complete lack of certainty. Such a situation is nearly the opposite of certainty, as opposed to close to it as, "almost," implies in your statement.

You are welcome.

Originally posted by Ashen_X

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Meleagar

l I said was that I'm not held personally responsible for my playstyle shortcomings and real-life challenges in such a scenario 

Ok, i read your post again.

 

Here is EXACTLY what you said:

(i can)  "play as good or as bad as I was able ... without putting anyone else at risk or ruining anyone else's game. "

 

Now, if you (or anyone else) play as bad as you're able, do you not think that this results in the event having less chance of succeeding?  For example, events spawn for 20 people.  If the other 19 people are just barely completing their part, but you fail at yours, do you not think that you're in some way responsible for the group's failure?    

 

You, by participating in a dynamic event are directly responsible for the event scaling up to the number of people participating.  If 10 people are present and 9 go afk, the other person will have to defeat an event scaled to 10 people.  That person will most certainly fail, do you not think those 9 people are in some way responsible for that failure?  After all, if that person was alone, he'd only have a 1-person event to fight and his chances at success would be much greater.

 

On the flipside, if the game is indeed designed so that events are SO easy that 10-person events can be beaten by 1 if the others are slacking off, well, then I was correct in the first place.  

 

If me pointing out that people should be respectful of others and take responsibility for their actions somehow makes me a tactical genius,  i'll take that as a compliment.  (Napoleon is spelled with an "o" btw. I apologize in advance in case your "lifestyle challenges" prevent you from knowing how to spell "Napoleon" as well as fail to prevent you from referencing things you don't know much about.),

 

When you share a world with others, your actions generally have an effect on them whether you like it or not.  Just because the game absolves you of any need to actually communicate with people, doesn't mean that what you do does not matter to them.  Sorry.

 

 

 

There is no such word as, "i'll."

1 is spelled, "one," when used in a sentence.

10 is spelled, "ten," when used in a sentence.

There is no such word as, "i."

You might want to work on proper use of punctuation, such as the use of comma's in conjunction with quotation marks, in a sentence.

You might want to revisit basic sentence structure guidelines available in any high-school text.

You are correct about the proper spelling of Napoleon, though that is not the original spelling of the name.

 

Now, going beyond basic grammar and spelling, you might want to consider reviewing the logic of expressing something as, "almost certainly," in the absence of supporting data. A purely hypothetical supposition, completely lacking in supporting data, exists in a state of complete lack of certainty. Such a situation is nearly the opposite of certainty, as opposed to close to it as, "almost," implies in your statement.

 

You are welcome.

 

Lol! Oh, snap!

This thing is getting off topic, but I like this guy's correction/statement. Some actual intelligence for once.

On topic: I don't think GW2 will be "revolutionary". It's an MMO after all; just as iterative as any other. But there will be some much needed improvements to the formulae of the industry in question. Like the OP said, I believe the social interactions are one of those improvements and will serve the game well, but it's hardly the revolution that it's claimed to be.

Great game! Wanna play it now! I just don't think it needs all this hype... Over hyping the game will only lead you to disappointment.

No more 3 fucking months of grinding to get a piece of gear!

Originally posted by Ashen_X

 

You might want to work on proper use of punctuation, such as the use of comma's in conjunction with quotation marks, in a sentence.

 

Sorry. Really sorry. I had to. It's Your own fault for making me do so. But...

"comma's" is exactly the wrong use of apostrophe there... unless You wanted to say "comma is". *cough*

As for the actual topic however - It's true that you won't ever need to group with other people for just playing thorugh zones, and most of non [Group] tagged events can be soloed if you know how to play your class and best use the tools avalible to you (no matter the weapons currently equipped), but for the prestige of nice looking "prestige" armour sets You will have to go deep into dungeons, preferably on hard mode, and tackle the challenges there. 

Those things will require some level of coordination and preparation. Maybe ven some min-maxing in terms of making sure you got as wide spread of conditions and boons avalible as possible. That you have neough raw power to take down some bosses, enough AoE for others, and plenty of mobility for all the traps and other hazards. 

It is however, like with a lot of stuff in GW1, more of a personal challenge than actual "boost" for character. You will have maxed stats by the second you buy 80 lvl gear from a nearby karma vendor... but it sure is sweet to have a different look you achieved. 

Originally posted by Ezhae

Originally posted by Ashen_X

 

You might want to work on proper use of punctuation, such as the use of comma's in conjunction with quotation marks, in a sentence.

 

Sorry. Really sorry. I had to. It's Your own fault for making me do so. But...

"comma's" is exactly the wrong use of apostrophe there... unless You wanted to say "comma is". *cough*

 

As for the actual topic however - It's true that you won't ever need to group with other people for just playing thorugh zones, and most of non [Group] tagged events can be soloed if you know how to play your class and best use the tools avalible to you (no matter the weapons currently equipped), but for the prestige of nice looking "prestige" armour sets You will have to go deep into dungeons, preferably on hard mode, and tackle the challenges there. 

Those things will require some level of coordination and preparation. Maybe ven some min-maxing in terms of making sure you got as wide spread of conditions and boons avalible as possible. That you have neough raw power to take down some bosses, enough AoE for others, and plenty of mobility for all the traps and other hazards. 

It is however, like with a lot of stuff in GW1, more of a personal challenge than actual "boost" for character. You will have maxed stats by the second you buy 80 lvl gear from a nearby karma vendor... but it sure is sweet to have a different look you achieved. 

You are absolutely correct. That is hilarious.

I guess I need to proof read my posts in the future.

That said, I agree with your on topic points as well. 

"On topic: I don't think GW2 will be "revolutionary". It's an MMO after all; just as iterative as any other. But there will be some much needed improvements to the formulae of the industry in question. Like the OP said, I believe the social interactions are one of those improvements and will serve the game well, but it's hardly the revolution that it's claimed to be."

I guess it depends on your perspective. From my perspective - a casual player that quit playing, bored and fed up with such games about 4 years ago because of the strict min-max, three-role, end-game exclusive gear-grind raiding structure, GW2 is incredibly revolutionary.  I can build my character however I want with an immensely deep options system, play however I want - again, with a fundamentally diverse battle option system and multiple pathways through the game, and there's no way others can exclude me from end-game content or top-notch rewards simply because I don't fit some consensus ideal.  And that kind of inclusivity is what Anet deliberately wanted to create.

So, I can see why a lot of players might think GW2 is not revolutionary, especially if they've never been on the butt end of that game-mechanic and social exclusivity.  To them, it's no big deal. For me, and I think a lot of casual players like me, it's the big change we've been waiting for ever since EQ came out and introduced us to what became the MMOG standard system of exclusivity. 

GW2 brought me out of a 4-year MMOG retirement.  I suspect it's going to bring in a lot of others as well.

Originally posted by BadSpock

I sometimes felt bad helping other players get their kills and tagging mobs etc. but than I realized I could do NOTHING in PvE that would hurt another player in any way, and I instantly began to completely LOVE the changes Anet made with GW2.

Randomly running into a large group escorting  a couple of NPC's with wave after wave of Centaur.

Didn't have to ask to be invited, wasn't "hurting" anyone and was able to significantly impact and help the group through crowd control, damage, and healing.

Beautiful.

Players actually talked, we rezzed each other and people said "thanks" and even naturally found a rythem in skill/profession combos to help smooth things along (like Ele dropping a fire wall and ranged sticking behind it etc.)

Best part of the game, hands down.

 

must agree with the spock man here.

Originally posted by Ashen_X

Now, going beyond basic grammar and spelling, you might want to consider reviewing the logic of expressing something as, "almost certainly," in the absence of supporting data. A purely hypothetical supposition, completely lacking in supporting data, exists in a state of complete lack of certainty. Such a situation is nearly the opposite of certainty, as opposed to close to it as, "almost," implies in your statement.

you're grasping at straws here and making the assumption that just because no data is being cited, that none exists.  In actuality, the hypothetical example given is based on a multitude of past experiences (i.e. data) in which the result was always the same as the one being proposed.  So while something always being true in the past does not "certainly" result in it being true in the future, the qualifier "almost" before "certainly" sufficiently softens the expression to be an accurate representation of what i am trying to convey.

regarding spelling and grammar:  there is a difference between not knowing and not using.  my forum posts are not academic texts and as such i use language in a way that i consider to be most suited and acceptable for the medium.  if you look up "the internet", i'm almost certain (yay!) that you will eventually find a variety of articles relating to the changing nature of language and grammar in regard to their common use in the digital medium.   while you may disagree with this practice, i do not.  also, please do not mistake my meaning as saying that my posts are grammatically correct - they are not.  i only mean that, for the most part, this is done intentionally.  If the OP's use of "Napolean" was also intentional and was meant as "leetspeak" or another form of common internet usage, then please consider this as a sincere apology for my ignorance of it.    

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Ashen_X

Now, going beyond basic grammar and spelling, you might want to consider reviewing the logic of expressing something as, "almost certainly," in the absence of supporting data. A purely hypothetical supposition, completely lacking in supporting data, exists in a state of complete lack of certainty. Such a situation is nearly the opposite of certainty, as opposed to close to it as, "almost," implies in your statement.

you're grasping at straws here and making the assumption that just because no data is being cited, that none exists.  In actuality, the hypothetical example given is based on a multitude of past experiences (i.e. data) in which the result was always the same as the one being proposed.  So while something always being true in the past does not "certainly" result in it being true in the future, the qualifier "almost" before "certainly" sufficiently softens the expression to be an accurate representation of what i am trying to convey.

 

regarding spelling and grammar:  there is a difference between not knowing and not using.  my forum posts are not academic texts and as such i use language in a way that i consider to be most suited and acceptable for the medium.  if you look up "the internet", i'm almost certain (yay!) that you will eventually find a variety of articles relating to the changing nature of language and grammar in regard to their common use in the digital medium.   while you may disagree with this practice, i do not.  also, please do not mistake my meaning as saying that my posts are grammatically correct - they are not.  i only mean that, for the most part, this is done intentionally.  If the OP's use of "Napolean" was also intentional and was meant as "leetspeak" or another form of common internet usage, then please consider this as a sincere apology for my ignorance of it.    

No straws, or assumptions (on my part at least), there at all. How many GW2 dynamic events in which nine of ten participants went AFK are included in your data ? Is it a statistically significant sample ? Considering the number of variables present in such a situation I would expect that tests numbered in at least the hundreds would be needed to qualify as a minimally viable data base from which to begin the process of determining degrees of certainty. As you used a somewhat vague qualifier for your statement of certainty hundreds of samples should be sufficient, though I would, under ideal circumstances, want several thousand at the minimum, for anything approaching a truly conclusive result. 

Please keep in mind that the term, "supporting data," as used in my post, specifically means data that has been provided to support a conclusion. You did not provide the data and so there is no supporting data. Of course you are free to provide corroborated samples of dynamic events in GW2 for which the circumstances match the circumstances of your conclusion. I personally would be delighted by the opportunity to explore more statistically significant data than I could possibly have generated for myself in a single beta event. Once such data is available for examination my previous statement regarding supporting data will, of course, no longer be accurate. Until that time, however, such is not the case.

As to the changing nature of language and grammar in their common use in the digital medium:

B.S.

The language has been used improperly in pretty much the exact ways you demonstrate for generations preceding the development of the computer. This is not some new phenomenon derived from a new medium and the evolution of the language. It is simply very informal, or poor, use of the language as has been commonplace among those unwilling, or perhaps unable, to do otherwise for centuries.

To be honest I do not particularly care about spelling and grammar on the internet or casual conversation. In general, at least in informal circumstances, I believe that if your audience understands what you have written, you are using the language well (enough). I just find it funny when a poster whose own post is rife with errors points out a single spelling error (particlarly in a proper noun) in another's post. This is exactly why I was so amused when another poster pointed out an error in the very post where I pointed out yours.

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Amjoco

 

You are being nit picky.

As far as his spelling, figure this out from one of your own posts. "' pretty sure all of TSW was built from the ground up to be an MMO.  So i expect there to be a lot less discreptancy between that and the rest of the world.  "

You must be bored.

I wasn't so much concerned with his spelling as i found it ironic that he didn't know the name of...

lol at the Olympic level back pedalling ;)

Or unless the person starts acting like an ass and nitpicking things.

 erm... Pot, meet kettle?

You going back through my posts to look for a spelling error is also amusing

Yes, yes it was :)

Originally posted by oubers

Originally posted by BadSpock

I sometimes felt bad helping other players get their kills and tagging mobs etc. but than I realized I could do NOTHING in PvE that would hurt another player in any way, and I instantly began to completely LOVE the changes Anet made with GW2.

Randomly running into a large group escorting  a couple of NPC's with wave after wave of Centaur.

Didn't have to ask to be invited, wasn't "hurting" anyone and was able to significantly impact and help the group through crowd control, damage, and healing.

Beautiful.

Players actually talked, we rezzed each other and people said "thanks" and even naturally found a rythem in skill/profession combos to help smooth things along (like Ele dropping a fire wall and ranged sticking behind it etc.)

Best part of the game, hands down.

 

must agree with the spock man here.

I too agree.

It will take some just longer to flick the mental switch though I am afraid... and some never will :(

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by oubers

Originally posted by BadSpock

I sometimes felt bad helping other players get their kills and tagging mobs etc. but than I realized I could do NOTHING in PvE that would hurt another player in any way, and I instantly began to completely LOVE the changes Anet made with GW2.

Randomly running into a large group escorting  a couple of NPC's with wave after wave of Centaur.

Didn't have to ask to be invited, wasn't "hurting" anyone and was able to significantly impact and help the group through crowd control, damage, and healing.

Beautiful.

Players actually talked, we rezzed each other and people said "thanks" and even naturally found a rythem in skill/profession combos to help smooth things along (like Ele dropping a fire wall and ranged sticking behind it etc.)

Best part of the game, hands down.

 

must agree with the spock man here.

 

I too agree.

It will take some just longer to flick the mental switch though I am afraid... and some never will :(

GW2 in almost all features is a evolution from other games but in this aspect GW2 is no doubt a revolution. dont exist any other MMORPG with this gameplay philosophy is just awesome.

this was what i like more in BW, just amazing to see people during big bosses DE give up of doing dps and try revive someone, i even see people enter in big red circles (obvious they die too xD) to try revive other player . show me  other game where we can see this? DONT EXIST.

in this aspect is no doubt a big REVOLUTION

Originally posted by Ashen_X   

No straws, or assumptions (on my part at least), there at all. How many GW2 dynamic events in which nine of ten participants went AFK are included in your data ? Is it a statistically significant sample ? Considering the number of variables present in such a situation I would expect that tests numbered in at least the hundreds would be needed to qualify as a minimally viable data base from which to begin the process of determining degrees of certainty. As you used a somewhat vague qualifier for your statement of certainty hundreds of samples should be sufficient, though I would, under ideal circumstances, want several thousand at the minimum, for anything approaching a truly conclusive result. 

Please keep in mind that the term, "supporting data," as used in my post, specifically means data that has been provided to support a conclusion. You did not provide the data and so there is no supporting data. Of course you are free to provide corroborated samples of dynamic events in GW2 for which the circumstances match the circumstances of your conclusion. I personally would be delighted by the opportunity to explore more statistically significant data than I could possibly have generated for myself in a single beta event. Once such data is available for examination my previous statement regarding supporting data will, of course, no longer be accurate. Until that time, however, such is not the case.

As far as I know, this forum is not a scientific test site and does not require the inclusion of specific data points to support one's assumptions about an upcoming game.  I can provide (as per your chosen standards) 1000 corroborated examples of users of this forum NOT providing 1000 corroborated supporting data points to support their posts.   

Can you provide 1000 examples of people on this forum providiving 1000 data points to support their assumptions about upcoming games in this forum?  I would guess (though i do not know) that you would be hard-pressed to find even 1 such data example.

Until such time as your prove it otherwise, I will hold on to my assertion that my understanding of this site's standards for reference data provision is correct, while yours is well... insane.

BTW, here is the first example:  in one of your earlier posts, you state as fact that:  "The only way for a consumer to make a stand against mediocre products is to refuse to buy them."  Yet you fail to provide 1000 corroborated data points to support this.   I mean, really, it is the ONLY way?  ( I kid of course and for the most part agree with you.)  However, if this was a masters thesis or title of a scientific journal article, i would expect you to have done quite a bit of research and to provide data points.  It isn't that though, it's a forum post and though phrased as a fact, it remains your opinion.  You know - don't believe everything you read on the internet!

---

Originally posted by sonoggi

---

Originally posted by Xzen
I found it almost impossible to solo. Every time I tried to do a quest there were a bunch of people there helping me and there was nothing I could do about it. I couldn't play solo if I wanted to.

---

you get solo play through personal story, which is like all of TOR. what more could people want? they can have their personal RPG experience, but MMO's are really meant to be played in a community. the ISSUES in other games were: trinity (LF healer/tank lulz), gear requirements (grind moar to play with us), and community-destroying LFG tools. GW2 doesnt have such issues, so even the soloers should be out there having fun. no reason not to, ANet made it so easy to group.

---

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by oubers

Originally posted by BadSpock

I sometimes felt bad helping other players get their kills and tagging mobs etc. but than I realized I could do NOTHING in PvE that would hurt another player in any way, and I instantly began to completely LOVE the changes Anet made with GW2.

Randomly running into a large group escorting  a couple of NPC's with wave after wave of Centaur.

Didn't have to ask to be invited, wasn't "hurting" anyone and was able to significantly impact and help the group through crowd control, damage, and healing.

Beautiful.

Players actually talked, we rezzed each other and people said "thanks" and even naturally found a rythem in skill/profession combos to help smooth things along (like Ele dropping a fire wall and ranged sticking behind it etc.)

Best part of the game, hands down.

must agree with the spock man here.

I too agree.

It will take some just longer to flick the mental switch though I am afraid... and some never will :(

So why don't people do this in other games?  This isn't some new paradigm really.  I can help others in RIFT without hurting their rewards.  I can help others in EQ2, if they allow it, without hurting them.  I can help others in public instances in STO without hurting them.  Why is it now you're willing to have a mind shift, but not in other games that don't punish others for helping them?

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Ashen_X   

No straws, or assumptions (on my part at least), there at all. How many GW2 dynamic events in which nine of ten participants went AFK are included in your data ? Is it a statistically significant sample ? Considering the number of variables present in such a situation I would expect that tests numbered in at least the hundreds would be needed to qualify as a minimally viable data base from which to begin the process of determining degrees of certainty. As you used a somewhat vague qualifier for your statement of certainty hundreds of samples should be sufficient, though I would, under ideal circumstances, want several thousand at the minimum, for anything approaching a truly conclusive result. 

Please keep in mind that the term, "supporting data," as used in my post, specifically means data that has been provided to support a conclusion. You did not provide the data and so there is no supporting data. Of course you are free to provide corroborated samples of dynamic events in GW2 for which the circumstances match the circumstances of your conclusion. I personally would be delighted by the opportunity to explore more statistically significant data than I could possibly have generated for myself in a single beta event. Once such data is available for examination my previous statement regarding supporting data will, of course, no longer be accurate. Until that time, however, such is not the case.

As far as I know, this forum is not a scientific test site and does not require the inclusion of specific data points to support one's assumptions about an upcoming game.  I can provide (as per your chosen standards) 1000 corroborated examples of users of this forum NOT providing 1000 corroborated supporting data points to support their posts.   

 

Can you provide 1000 examples of people on this forum providiving 1000 data points to support their assumptions about upcoming games in this forum?  I would guess (though i do not know) that you would be hard-pressed to find even 1 such data example.

 

Until such time as your prove it otherwise, I will hold on to my assertion that my understanding of this site's standards for reference data provision is correct, while yours is well... insane.

 

BTW, here is the first example:  in one of your earlier posts, you state as fact that:  "The only way for a consumer to make a stand against mediocre products is to refuse to buy them."  Yet you fail to provide 1000 corroborated data points to support this.   I mean, really, it is the ONLY way?  ( I kid of course and for the most part agree with you.)  However, if this was a masters thesis or title of a scientific journal article, i would expect you to have done quite a bit of research and to provide data points.  It isn't that though, it's a forum post and though phrased as a fact, it remains your opinion.  You know - don't believe everything you read on the internet!

There is a great deal of straw-man arguing present in that post.

I made no assertion that people on these forums provide, "1000 data points to support their assumptions," so why would I need to provide examples to support such ?

I made no assertion as to, "this site's standards for reference data," either. How can an an assertion that does not exist be insane ?

I asked for your data merely because you stated that it was an assumption on my part that you had not provided it. I had, in fact, made no such assumption. I made my point that your own was not a certainty, and so, of course, was speculation, an opinion. You claimed, both directly and through implication, that the opposite was true. Only after you portrayed my point as an assumption, again implying the existence of data to support your position, did I make any request to see said data. If you don't want people to ask for it don't hint, imply, whatever, that you have it. I had no interest in any data you might have collected, no desire for you to share it, until you made a point of the possibility of its existence and relevance.

I had the opportunity, during the GW2 beta event, to play through very few dynamic events. In only one of them did I face a situation even remotely similar to the one you described. I am intrigued by the interactions of quantity based difficulty increase (where the number of characters present escalates difficulty rather than the actual participation of those characters) that you describe. Claimed degree of certainty, and statistically viable sample size, aside, I am very interested in your data. Perhaps, given that I am likely to have much more time available for testing in the next beta event, I might build upon your data in order to generate some solid numbers.

I would very much like to be able to answer these questions:

1) To what degree (if any) does the mere presence (without participation) of additional players in the vicinity of a dynamic event affect event difficulty ?

2) To what degree does additional character participation in a dynamic event affect event difficulty ?

3) How is event difficulty scaled ?

4) Does event difficulty scale in a different manner based on character participation vs presence ?

5) What factors are considered in measuring character participation in a dynamic event for purposes of scaled difficulty ?

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by oubers

Originally posted by BadSpock

I sometimes felt bad helping other players get their kills and tagging mobs etc. but than I realized I could do NOTHING in PvE that would hurt another player in any way, and I instantly began to completely LOVE the changes Anet made with GW2.

Randomly running into a large group escorting  a couple of NPC's with wave after wave of Centaur.

Didn't have to ask to be invited, wasn't "hurting" anyone and was able to significantly impact and help the group through crowd control, damage, and healing.

Beautiful.

Players actually talked, we rezzed each other and people said "thanks" and even naturally found a rythem in skill/profession combos to help smooth things along (like Ele dropping a fire wall and ranged sticking behind it etc.)

Best part of the game, hands down.

must agree with the spock man here.

I too agree.

It will take some just longer to flick the mental switch though I am afraid... and some never will :(

So why don't people do this in other games?  This isn't some new paradigm really.  I can help others in RIFT without hurting their rewards.  I can help others in EQ2, if they allow it, without hurting them.  I can help others in public instances in STO without hurting them.  Why is it now you're willing to have a mind shift, but not in other games that don't punish others for helping them?

Maybe because researchers found another Mayan calendar and the world isn't going to end, so now everyone is in a super-happy mood? Just a thought....

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by oubers

Originally posted by BadSpock

I sometimes felt bad helping other players get their kills and tagging mobs etc. but than I realized I could do NOTHING in PvE that would hurt another player in any way, and I instantly began to completely LOVE the changes Anet made with GW2.

Randomly running into a large group escorting  a couple of NPC's with wave after wave of Centaur.

Didn't have to ask to be invited, wasn't "hurting" anyone and was able to significantly impact and help the group through crowd control, damage, and healing.

Beautiful.

Players actually talked, we rezzed each other and people said "thanks" and even naturally found a rythem in skill/profession combos to help smooth things along (like Ele dropping a fire wall and ranged sticking behind it etc.)

Best part of the game, hands down.

must agree with the spock man here.

I too agree.

It will take some just longer to flick the mental switch though I am afraid... and some never will :(

So why don't people do this in other games?  This isn't some new paradigm really.  I can help others in RIFT without hurting their rewards.  I can help others in EQ2, if they allow it, without hurting them.  I can help others in public instances in STO without hurting them.  Why is it now you're willing to have a mind shift, but not in other games that don't punish others for helping them?

Cause they want you to believe that GW2 is the second coming of Christ.  Frankly the second coming of Hype.

I have to agree with the OP in that I enjoyed this last beta weekend a great deal.  It just clicked in so many ways and it is still BETA!  That means, far more often than not, that things will just improve!

Looking forward to the stress test, the next beta events and release with an excitment I haven't felt since I was in the WoW beta.  Having cut my teeth on DAoC and then enjoyed WoW for a time, I have been patiently (well maybe not so much...) waiting for something exactly like what this game has to offer to renew that spirit again. 

((Heading over to check out the Haven of Heroes site now))