Guild Wars 2

Behellagh.1468:

But lack of traditional quests was a selling point, I just recently watched the Gamescon presentation from 2010. As for seamless zones, that’s a day 1 design decision on both the server and client side.

I know they tried to use it as a selling point and I think that was a mistake. If you look at how they announces the events (maybe also in that 2010 GamesCom presentation?) they talked about how it would make the world feel alive, how you had an impact on the world, how it would not be like events where you kill 5 of x and 5 of y.
Problem is that events did not manage to live up to that. With a traditional quest you even feel more like you made a change / you had an impact because it’s something that completed. When you talk to an NPC after you completed its quest, it will react different to you. The events are just happening again and again. As soon as you notice that events start to feel useless.
Also almost all events still are basically kill x and kill y just with the difference that now the sum counts instead of having to kill 5 of x and 5 of y, 10 of any will do as well.
Biggest problem however is that the traditional quest were also able to tell a story. They were not all kill 5 of x and 5 of y. Some told a nice story, made you feel connected to the world and the NPC. Quest-chains where a good way to earn fun / good unique reward. Anet has been struggling from the beginning to deliver this, but events just did not manage to do this. So the big positive about quests is not delivered by events.
I still remember some of the stories from NPC’s I did meet in other MMO’s and once went back to an NPC after they changed that zone to know where the NPC was now and if the text had changed. That is a connection that you do not get so much with events.
Events are great, don’t get me wrong. But they are just not able to replace traditional quests completely. They are however now supposed to do that and that’s a problem. Events might also be harder to implement and so we might have less? Also they are maybe up 1/3th of the time, so you would need 3 times as many. I have crossed maps without seeing a single or only a single event. Even walking pass villages and houses with NPC’s. Traditionally you would find multiple quest at those NPC’s. So I clearly see multiple problems there.

About the seamless zones. I have seen early images of the map that suggest that initially they did not want to have seamless zones. (The part between Vivinity’s Reach and Queensdal was visible on that map, showing how roads went from one place to the other) Probably they had technical reasons for not implementing / abandoning seamless zones. Nonetheless I think that is a bigger problem than many people think. Entering a new zone in an MMO is always (or was for me) somewhat of a special memorial moment. You walk in there and see this new land, new beast, new buildings. Now with portals there is this loading screen that completely breaks the immersion.
I would also not be surprised if waypoints have been introduced because of the seamless zones. If you want to cross multiple zones and have a loading-screen for every map that will get frustrating. Waypoints solve that but also make the world feel small. You lose a connection with the world. Waypoints also never really where a thing in the lore (until S2 at least) they even go against the lore as Asura portals make no sense anymore. That makes me think they have been slammed in there to fix something else.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Devata.6589:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Considering we will be able to purchase a whole slew of new licensed merchandise, I don’t think we have to worry about ArenaNet’s business model.

ArenaNet isn’t likely to close its doors anytime soon.

ArenaNet is indeed not likely to close its doors anytime soon. But that does not mean GW2 is in the pace it could or should be. Especially from the gamers perspective.

Nor, again, worry about its business model. Unless, of course, you speak for all gamers. I know lots try to do so.

They clearly did. After the initial release their plan was to not have any expansion, purely working with the Living Story approach. So basically that would mean that after the initial sale it would go full cash-shop (that was their model).

However they had to come back on that. Their numbers did keep going down so they had to go for an expansion. NCsoft also said (With the presentation of the results of Q2 2016) that they now plan to push out expansions with a smaller interval. So at the very least they changed the model from mainly a focus on the cash-shop to a model where it’s more a mix of the cash-shop and expansions.

Sadly after HoT we did not see a big improvement in shrinking down the cash-shop and so the grind did stay as well, so I feel their main problem still exists. But it does show that also Anet or Ncsoft did worry about their model and had to change it.

DeceiverX.8361:

The bigger problem isn’t about generating new content fast enough but instead making that content enjoyable enough to keep coming back for.

Right now, a majority of the game’s systems simply aren’t fun, and the few that may be are locked behind ones which aren’t fun.

They could start with profession design considering most elements of combat aren’t even a good time anymore.

True, scribing / building the guild-hall with decoration is a lot of fun but locked behind a huge grind. Raids are fun but you need specific armor what is a grind as well, this game is great with cosmetics (fashion wars) but getting many of the skins for that are locked behind a huge grind.

I do not think the professions itself are bad, but the new masteries have the same problem. I did complete the first 3 maps of HoT exception of the area’s I could not reach without special masteries. However, after having done those 3 maps I still did not have the required masteries to visit all places. That did mean that I would have to start grinding for the masteries.

This btw I do not blame on the cash-shop focus but bad design.

They didn’t have to. The playerbase asked for an expansion. After Season Two didn’t fulfill what the playerbase asked for (a change from Season One). As for expansions coming out at a faster pace, anything short of 3 years will be faster, and as Mike said himself, don’t put much stock in what NCSoft has to say.

Perhaps, if they had stayed with the Season One format, we wouldn’t be where we are today. I certainly preferred Season One. Though, I have to say, Season Three is a vast improvement over Season Two.

I don’t believe the Gem Store is the root of all evil, especially since we can obtain items without spending real cash. Almost everything I’ve acquired from the Gem Store has been with in-game Gold. And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I’ve yet to experience any of this much-lamented ‘grind’. I mostly do Dailies, the occasional mapping, and whatever current live content is on offer. I think some confuse ‘grind’ with ‘playing the game’. /re

1/2

Vayne.8563:

@Devata, yes, I did defend the LS approach. Anet changed that approach with the expansion which I never claimed to be in favor of, though I understand why they did it.

The FACT remains, there’s a trend that the game isn’t doing as well, but there’s not even nearly enough data to suggest anyone one cause or even any major cause for it.

True, but you can still find trends in the data that give an idea where to look. Anet did go for the LS approach and numbers did only go down. Then Anet did go for an expansions and the results go up. Sadly half a year later we are back where we were (if you continue the downtrend from before HoT).
The data also does not show a correlation between lack of content and lower results.

This is all information you do have and can use. There might not be one reason you can factually proof by the data, but you can make educated guest / ideas based on the data. The fact that you cannot proof one this does not mean you can ignore all the data.

Vayne.8563:

However, whether the forums are a vocal minority or not, it stands to reason that the more people complaining on the forums, the more likely it is to be a problem to more people not complaining.

So, if a bunch of people are complaining that the game is too hard, for some people it is. We’re not seeing and have never seen major complaints about the cash shop.

There’s simply no evidence here except that the trend is less income,. after an expansion that didn’t do well.

“it stands to reason that the more people complaining on the forums, the more likely it is to be a problem to more people not complaining.” That is what I have been trying to tell you for 3 years. Your defense always was that the majority is playing so they like it, the forum are a vocal minority that do not represent the player base.
I am happy to see that you finally changed your mind on that.
I already said that I did see the cash-shop as a reason for the grind. There have been many, many complains about grind on the forum.
Btw, while I do think the forums give a good indication of the problems, we are now getting to a point where most people with complains simply left the game, including the forum. So if you only now start looking at what people have to say you might be a little late. You should have already done that the first 3 years.

Vayne.8563:

But you were the one arguing for the expansion model and I was the one arguing against it. As it stood too many people on the forums spoke too loudly about having an expansion, Anet changed it’s path mid-way leading to all sorts of issues, including a content drought and the result is less sales.

Ah funny, now the expansion is the problem. Really Vayne, you are creating your own truth here. If sales where stable Anet would most likely not have made the expansion. They were forced to, in an attempt to stop the downtrend. That indeed leaded to issues. If only they listed to me when half a year after the initial release I started to scream for a focus on expansion. Back then they had plenty of time to make a good expansion not having many of the issues you get when suddenly having to make that shift.
Then again, you mention the content drought problem. But I remind you again about the fact that the half year before HoT, the big content drought clearly related to the building of the expansion the results did go up compared to the period before. So that ‘problem’ was not a huge problem.

2/2

Vayne.8563:

My guess is, and it’s just a guess, that the shift more toward your philsophy is what hurt the game, rather than the living story focus, which was gone for the content drought.

In other words, your numbers seem to back up my theory a whole lot more than they back up your theory.

Omg really Vayne.. Really? Anet did plan to not make an expansion… May I remind you about that: “So right now we’re not really looking at expansions as an option” – “If we do this right, we will probably never do an expansion and everything will be going into this Living World strategy.” Source. http://www.pcgamer.com/guild-wars-2-may-never-get-an-expansion-pack-new-achievement-rewards-coming-soon/ However they did not do it right, considering that the results did pretty much go down and down Source, the Excel. Following that trend they would now be.. well basically where we are now. Then they made an expansion and results finally did go up again. But also did go down again after it.
Anet did not shift just for fun, they did that because they were not able to do what they wanted / needed to do with the LS. I am pretty sure they even made such statements.

You really see the numbers as you want to see them. If you continue the line as it was going from before the HoT announcements we would now be exactly at the same place only without the temporary increase because of the expansion. So in raw numbers we would be off even worse.
When Anet made ‘the shift more toward my philsophy’ the numbers finally did go up again. In fact the quarter after the announcement we had results we had not seen for a year again.
In excel you can also make a trend-line to ‘predict’ the future. Simply take out the first 2 quarters (to not have the effect of the initial peak) and use the numbers until Q4 2014 (moment before the announcement of HoT). Then make a trend-line and continue that another 7 periods so we end up in the Q3 2016. I don’t say that like is perfect because at some point things will start to stabilize (a trend-line would go into negative numbers). But still it gives an indication and if we follow that line we would now be worse.
That is no factual data, but it’s the best the data can show us.
So if you manage to see these numbers to back up your idea then you really only see what you want to see. That is why I said before, please open your eyes.

Devata.6589:

However they did not do it right, considering that the results did pretty much go down and down Source, the Excel. Following that trend they would now be.. well basically where we are now.

Yes but the sudden change to the expansion led to a considerable drop due to the lack of content. The next expansion needs to be better planned, with lots of filler content, something that the pre-HoT period severely lacked.

You are saying that if they followed their previous way of doing things we’d be around here. I disagree, if they continued the LS1 way up to now the game might’ve been at a much better spot. The sudden change of “mmm maybe we should make an expansion” led to a long period of nothingness. I wish they’d never even think of expansions and release HoT in episodes, 1 map at the time every 2 weeks like LS1.

The data suggest that the major drop in revenue started after the conclusion of LS1. Maybe at that time they decided to dedicate most resources to an expansion and that’s why releases became so rare that we got nothing for long periods?

IMHO the next expansion needs to NOT be only level 80 stuff, but add a bunch of new lower level Tyria zones where we can also level. I don’t see how Heart of Thorns was a good expansion to get new players to try the game out – it was clearly for us die hard GW2 players who already had high level characters. I think the next expansion needs to entice new players to try the game.

fourhim.3584:

IMHO the next expansion needs to NOT be only level 80 stuff, but add a bunch of new lower level Tyria zones where we can also level. I don’t see how Heart of Thorns was a good expansion to get new players to try the game out – it was clearly for us die hard GW2 players who already had high level characters. I think the next expansion needs to entice new players to try the game.

The new players have loads to do in other zones. There is no need for non-80 zones in an expansion

Vayne.8563:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Devata.6589:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Considering we will be able to purchase a whole slew of new licensed merchandise, I don’t think we have to worry about ArenaNet’s business model.

ArenaNet isn’t likely to close its doors anytime soon.

ArenaNet is indeed not likely to close its doors anytime soon. But that does not mean GW2 is in the pace it could or should be. Especially from the gamers perspective.

Nor, again, worry about its business model. Unless, of course, you speak for all gamers. I know lots try to do so.

Devata, you simply have no evidence at all that the reasons you’ve stated previously are the reasons Anet is in this position and I strongly suspect if they launched the game the way you suggested they launch it, they probably would have done worse sooner.

Your suspicion is not based on evidence, in fact the evidence we do have strongly suggest you are wrong and strongly indicates that expansions are a good thing. NCsoft seems to agree as they said expansions would come with shorter intervals. Not that I and NCsoft agree on everything as they also still believe in a strong focus on the cash-shop. Anyway, NCsoft probably beliefs in those expansions based on the same numbers / evidence.

So if it comes to evidence it might not proof I am right but at the very least it shows expansions seem to be a good direction while the LS is not. And that same evidence seems to completely go against your believes.

The most persistent complaints in the forum have been directed towards the tactics the studio uses to promote economic activity and the demand for gold. There has been a roar of voices complaining about the cons of the gem exchange and a whisper complaining about the cash shop.
I do not want to rehash all those complaints, so please let me get away with saying there are native pros and cons to the strategy of legal RMT and that legal RMT can breath life into a game world.
I do want to focus on one challenge of using the LW as way to promote economic activity. Imo players, like myself, who return to experience an evolving, dynamic world are less likely to find value in cosmetic gear. A few hours of mostly instanced content won’t prompt an investment in bling. A story about thousands of people dying won’t prompt an investment in bling.

If I may, the next expansion needs a reward track/meta based on the home instance and it can not be the lifeless grocery list you gave us with guild halls.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

They didn’t have to.

You think they where fine with the downing trend of their results? I do think they had to. I am not the only one who makes these graphs, companies do that as well, it’s names Business Information. In fact I do it for them as well. They will also look at trend lines and if they notice a downtrend they have to react. If they don’t they will get into financial problem in the future, and while some people here don’t want to look at the possible future based on data (because you can’t proof it for sure) companies do.

Now of course this sort of negative news is something they will not communicate with us. However I do remember statements from ArenaNet where they also said they had to, not for financial reasons (while I still believe that was an important reason) but because the LS did not allow them to create some things they wanted to create. I can’t find the direct quotes now but it was mentioned multiple times.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

The playerbase asked for an expansion.

True

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

As for expansions coming out at a faster pace, anything short of 3 years will be faster, and as Mike said himself, don’t put much stock in what NCSoft has to say.

Sure, and maybe NCsoft is bluffing, however it does show that they also see expansions as (part of) the solution.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Perhaps, if they had stayed with the Season One format, we wouldn’t be where we are today. I certainly preferred Season One. Though, I have to say, Season Three is a vast improvement over Season Two.

Season 1 without the temporary nature was better as season 2. I am with you on that. Personally I still think things would still have gone down because those seasons don’t create enough hype and to support it would mean cash-shop focus what as you know imo results in grind what burns people out.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

I don’t believe the Gem Store is the root of all evil, especially since we can obtain items without spending real cash. Almost everything I’ve acquired from the Gem Store has been with in-game Gold.

What means grinding gold. Like I said, I blame the cash-shop focus indirectly. The focus on the cash-shop creates grind and the grind is what scares people away or burns them out. That is my theory. That takes time and is why I always talked about the longer term, also back in the day when I first made those claims.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I’ve yet to experience any of this much-lamented ‘grind’. I mostly do Dailies, the occasional mapping, and whatever current live content is on offer. I think some confuse ‘grind’ with ‘playing the game’. /re

That would be worse as that means the game would be bad. Maybe you are fine with the grind (and so don’t even notice it). Not everybody has a problem with grind, some even like it. Look at how some people where brainlessly running around in dry-top. While I think even most of them will burn out at some point. The longer it takes the more people get bored by it.

Just make the following comparison.
I want some item, lets say a weapon-skin. One possible way to get that in an MMO is to complete a dungeon, or do a quest chain, or maybe boringly farm some mob that drops it. Secondary there is the way to grind gold for it and buy.

For the next item you want it means completing another dungeon, completing another quest-chain or boringly farm some other mob.

In Guild Wars 2 there are items where this is the same. But for many if not most it’s different.

They might drop in the world, but there is no good direct way to get them. Not one specific mob that drops it, not a reward from a dungeon and not a reward from the quest chain.

No it’s a random drop and so your best way to get it is to grind gold (or buy gold with cash), or it’s a gem-store item so your only way to get it is to grind gold or buy it with cash. Same for the next item and the next and the next.

IN practice this means people will look at what content is the best gold-grind, and start grinding that.

This is especially true for cosmetics.

That means that everybody who likes this hunt for cosmetics (And because GW2 has such a focus on cosmetics especially those people where attracted to GW2) are likely to get hit by the grind a lot and get bored by it.

That is not a problem all players will have but it are likely a big part of the players. This is also what my theory is based upon.

Also look at Psientist.6437’s comment and how it fits with my example.

maddoctor.2738:

Yes but the sudden change to the expansion led to a considerable drop due to the lack of content.

Sorry but you are completely wrong here. Look at the results again. Season 2 had lower results then the results during that lack of content because they where building the expansion. After the announcement of HoT (what was followed shortly by a half year without content) the results did go up! Not a drop! So simply the hype of the expansion did the game better then the season 2 release did.

maddoctor.2738:

The next expansion needs to be better planned, with lots of filler content, something that the pre-HoT period severely lacked.

I agree on that (while I still think it’s to late, I think the next expansion will sell less even if it’s better. People simply lost interest. Only if they can market it as basically being GW3 I can see it doing well). That is also why I have been screaming for a focus on expansions since like half a year after the initial release. There was no doubt in my mind that results would go down and that was likely to results in them making an expansion. However by then many damage would already be done and indeed making an expansion suddenly creates many problems. I can’t help it they did not listen to me. I wish they did. Then they would have had plenty of time.

maddoctor.2738:

You are saying that if they followed their previous way of doing things we’d be around here.

No I say that is what the numbers suggest and indeed is also something I believe.

maddoctor.2738:

I disagree, if they continued the LS1 way up to now the game might’ve been at a much better spot.

Based on what? The results where already going down, they where down at the end of season one and continued that trend during season 2.

maddoctor.2738:

The sudden change of “mmm maybe we should make an expansion” led to a long period of nothingness.

A period of nothingness in what the numbers did go up again, and the sudden shift was likely because numbers where going down.

maddoctor.2738:

I wish they’d never even think of expansions and release HoT in episodes, 1 map at the time every 2 weeks like LS1.

Likely, but they had to do something to stop the downtrend and where not able to do everything they wanted in with the LS.

maddoctor.2738:

The data suggest that the major drop in revenue started after the conclusion of LS1. Maybe at that time they decided to dedicate most resources to an expansion and that’s why releases became so rare that we got nothing for long periods?

It was already happening during Season 1. Q12014 already had lower results and was in the middle of season 1 (well the second part of season 1, the first part they did not even named it seasons)

And while they have likely used multiple things for HoT that they already in development, it looks like most of the development really started after Season 2 came to an end. I think there has never been an official statement about that but Wooden Patatoes has talked about that a lot because there are multiple things suggesting that.

Like you said yourself, it seemed like a sudden shift. If it’s sudden they would not be building it during season 2. So there you are conflicting with your own statements.

Vayne.8563:

DeceiverX.8361:

The bigger problem isn’t about generating new content fast enough but instead making that content enjoyable enough to keep coming back for.

Right now, a majority of the game’s systems simply aren’t fun, and the few that may be are locked behind ones which aren’t fun.

They could start with profession design considering most elements of combat aren’t even a good time anymore.

Fun isn’t a static value. I’m almost 100% positive that the stuff you’d find fun, I’d find unfun.

I get that. But there’s absolutely no denying a majority of the content in the expansion blatantly disregarded the wants of GW2’s core audience, downright failed a substantial portion of the community, and has very obviously led to more people leaving and/or complaining than joining. You can like the new content, and that’s fine, nor will I discredit your likes, but I speak more about the underlying systems in the game and how HoT marked a very obvious down-turn for many.

There’s also no denying that right now the profession design – and I mean that by the mechanical design-level – is simply poor, is unsustainable, and does not follow what was announced about the expansion’s goals.

Unless you’d like to tell me about all the people playing core professions in highly-competitive environments, or that the several ESL players which outright publicly complained to ANet that the elite specs are poorly-designed were lying “to get views” for GW2 PvP lol.

DeceiverX.8361:

Vayne.8563:

DeceiverX.8361:

snip

Fun isn’t a static value. I’m almost 100% positive that the stuff you’d find fun, I’d find unfun.

I get that. But there’s absolutely no denying a majority of the content in the expansion blatantly disregarded the wants of GW2’s core audience, downright failed a substantial portion of the community, and has very obviously led to more people leaving and/or complaining than joining. You can like the new content, and that’s fine, nor will I discredit your likes, but I speak more about the underlying systems in the game and how HoT marked a very obvious down-turn for many.

There’s also no denying that right now the profession design – and I mean that by the mechanical design-level – is simply poor, is unsustainable, and does not follow what was announced about the expansion’s goals.

Unless you’d like to tell me about all the people playing core professions in highly-competitive environments, or that the several ESL players which outright publicly complained to ANet that the elite specs are poorly-designed were lying “to get views” for GW2 PvP lol.

I almost never talk about balance or builds. Very rarely. It’s not my game and I seldom interfere in people playing it.

I can go by comments on the forums and I can go by the behavior of people in my guild. Very few people in my guild had issues with HoT, because we’re a relatively casual guild and we enjoy playing together. None of the issues of HOT affected our guild and I suspect there are a lot of people like the people in my guild.

I have a guild of over 200 people and three of us post on the forums. That means well over 200 people don’t post on the forums.

Out of my guild, there were a handful of people who didn’t like HoT but overwhelmingly the experience was positive.

It’s very hard to get a real idea of what’s going on, because I don’t believe the biggest part of the Guild Wars 2 player base is hard core.

HoT suffered the sin of being to light for heavy work and to heavy for light work. The hard core people had stuff to complain about it and ultra casuals had stuff to complain about. The solo people had stuff to complain about. It wasn’t one group complaining.

I’m in the HOT zones and I always see people there doing content. But not just metas. That’s the thing. People who go to forums and think about farming tend to think about metas. I play the HOT zones much the way I played the core zones, with very little different.

The metas are like World Bosses to me. I show up for them if I can or if I’m in a zone, but I just enjoy the zones. I’ve completed VB on 20 different characters. I even love TD which a lot of people don’t.

The point is saying a lot of people are unhappy is misleading if they’re all unhappy about different things, and that seems to be the case.

The hard core PvP players are unhappy about balance and build diversity. The hard core PvE players are unhappy that legendary armor isn’t in the game yet. I think most Fractal runners though are generally happy and most dungeon runners aren’t. Small guilds aren’t happy but my guild is max level and has upgraded everything and we love the guild hall.

This whole thread is a Devata “I told you so” thread. It tried to make sense of why the game was not doing as well as it did and said the game could do better. The problem with western thinking generally is everyone is looking for one big reason…and a lot of times it’s not one big reason.

Saying most people are dissatisfied with HoT (which I’m still not sure is true) is only half the story. But it’s not one big group. It’s lots of little groups. Dungeon runners, small guilds who can’t afford upgrading guild halls, some solo players or players who don’t like more challenging open world content, people who don’t like the power creep in PvE, WvW players who hated the new zone. Having a lot of different smaller groups dissatisfied is very different from having one big reason why everyone is dissatisfied and fixing the problem requires a different approach. Because you have to plug lots of little leaks, rather than one big one. It takes a lot of time to identify how and what to change.

I mean adventures were not universally well received, since mastery points were locked behind them. But every new zone since that has contained more mastery points than you need, meaning more and more you don’t need to get gold on adventures. Anet went in and made the game more solo friendly more rewarding and less grindy. There have been changes and most of them have made a significant difference to one group or another. Even changes to the Fractals, and the new dungeon rewards have helped.

I know I’m still enjoyingthe game, though I’ve given up on PvP completely now, and I don’t raid.

Some are so blind to differing opinions, and even facts, they just can not see. It’s rude to tell me I ‘grind’ when I absolutely state I do not. I know what ‘grind’ is, and it’s not something I do in-game…or out, for that matter.

I don’t agree with your opinion that the Gem Store is the root of all evil in the game. It’s just your opinion, and not worth much more than that.

I’m happy the game has the Gem Store it has, and I’m confident it’s not going anywhere, as well as confident the game isn’t going anywhere…soon.

Good luck.

Oh, and I won’t be back to the thread (it’s a grind), unlike some that just say they won’t.

Devata.6589:

Look at the results again.

I never said that S2 was good financially, I was talking about S1, I wouldn’t call the revenue up until the end of S1 bad at all. The real drop started after we finished with Scarlet. Like many others I was confused about that revenue bump during Q2 2015 and finally I decided to search why. What happened at Q2 2015? Was the expansion announcement the reason for the bump as you say?

This happened in Q2 2015:

If all that wasn’t exciting enough, Guild Wars 2 is going to be on sale this week! Starting at 10 a.m. PT on April 10 and running through 11:59 p.m. on April 13, Guild Wars 2 is going to be 75 percent off, starting at just $9.99. It’s an outrageous price, for an amazing game.

75% off… excellent price for players to get their second or third account for more login rewards. Or for new players to finally try the game.

The expansion was announced at Q1 2015 and there was no “bump” there so it wasn’t the expansion announcement as much as the 75% sale.

And while they have likely used multiple things for HoT that they already in development, it looks like most of the development really started after Season 2 came to an end. I think there has never been an official statement about that but Wooden Patatoes has talked about that a lot because there are multiple things suggesting that.

Take a look: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/state-of-the-game-update-q1-2016/

2016 marks a turning point for the developmental focus of the Guild Wars 2 franchise. From 2012 to 2014, we were focused on developing regular updates through our Living World and feature pack releases. In 2015 our focus predominantly shifted away from live updates and toward our first expansion. In 2016 we aim to provide a more balanced focus, which will see efforts divided equally between providing regular updates and working toward the next expansion.

I can’t imagine how a team that can bring us LS1, new content every 2 weeks, new releases, new repeatable content etc, managed to give us just LS2, it’s impossible to even consider.

They started working on the expansion right after Scarlet died, that’s why there was a huge content break (from March 2014 to July 2014 we got NO content at all) until LS2 started. And then another huge content break (January 2015 to October 2015) with no content until HoT was released. So I really doubt they started working on the expansion AFTER LS2, but rather AFTER LS1.

And all I was saying is that the content drop was because of the expansion. The revenue drop was because of the expansion and if they continued with their LS releases we wouldn’t have such a drop. I blame the expansion for it and I’m sure even Anet understands that and that’s why Colin said

In 2016 we aim to provide a more balanced focus, which will see efforts divided equally between providing regular updates and working toward the next expansion.

Working only on the expansion was a huge mistake. Expansions don’t save games, good paced content does. And personally the LS3 is a great thing and if they keep it up until the next expansion I’ll be really happy.

Vayne.8563:

The problem with western thinking generally is everyone is looking for one big reason…and a lot of times it’s not one big reason.
~
Because you have to plug lots of little leaks, rather than one big one.

There is a difference between one big reason and one main reasons with additional smaller reasons that might increase the problem. Again, also I did not only mentioned the grind / cash-shop focus but also other things like lack of traditional quests, no seamless zones and in the pass the temporary nature of content, that they luckily fixed.

Yes all those things should be addressed and there more smaller things that are an issue. For example I do think the HoT maps are not so good for solo-players.

But it’s less useful to plug lots of little leaks in a dike when the foundation has a fatal flaw. In fact imo that flaw was there for a long time and I have been here asking for 3 years to fix that flaw. We are now at a point where that flaw has resulted in the collapse of a part of the dike so plugging all the little holes won’t do much anymore. In fact, you can still fix the dike but an even then a bigger challenge is to repair the damage done by the flooding. Many people have left the area and are settling somewhere else.

Vayne.8563:

This whole thread is a Devata “I told you so” thread. It tried to make sense of why the game was not doing as well as it did and said the game could do better.

In a way that is true, but the reason that I made this thread was because I did feel that I also had to come back to take resposibility for my claims (being correct or wrong) after being so active for multiple years here. However it’s also people directly or indirectly asked me to come back. You where one of the persons that basically did that indirectly.

You always said things along the line of ’it’s false logic, things can go different’ and ’it’s not a fact that results will keep going down’. So now we have the factual data I did come back.

I would also have come back if the results would be great, in fact I made the Excel before the results of Q3 where availible and was simply waiting for the results of Q3 to complete the file. Honestly even I expected Q3 to be a little better, not a great improvement that would undo / fix the bad quarter of Q2 but a little higher. I also think that Q4 will be higher, Halloween, S3, Wintersday, more inside hours for most people and simply the fact that it is Q4 should surely help to get the numbers up. Still I don’t think the problems will be over simply if the numbers are a little higher (they must be way higher). I think there is a problem, but also if numbers had proven me wrong I was here. Else I would have not made the Excel while waiting for the last results.

I geuss I expected some people to at least look at things a little different when they had the full picture. To late, but it’s better to open your eyes to late then to not open your eyes. I figured you simply was somebody who was very critital of logic and common sense.

But your comments in this thread have shown different. I mean, not only did you say such things to me 2 years ago, even last quarter you told somebody “It’ll be more interested to see the next quarter, since they put the game on sale for half price. That might have a positive affect on sales, particularly with the LS 3 coming out.”

And now we have the numbers, they are lower and still you somehow manage to see the numbers as supporting your theory. While the numbers did something else as you predicted.

Really that proofs to me it is and always has been completely blind love from your perspective, that also puts all your comments ever on this forum in another persective. It basicaly removes any value of them imo.

Also what you might forget is that you are not an everage player. Most people will not (like it to) complete VB on 20 characters.

If Anet makes this game so it would be good for you it would probably be a huge failure because it’s not something most people would like.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Some are so blind to differing opinions, and even facts, they just can not see. It’s rude to tell me I ‘grind’ when I absolutely state I do not. I know what ‘grind’ is, and it’s not something I do in-game…or out, for that matter.

I don’t agree with your opinion that the Gem Store is the root of all evil in the game. It’s just your opinion, and not worth much more than that.

I’m happy the game has the Gem Store it has, and I’m confident it’s not going anywhere, as well as confident the game isn’t going anywhere…soon.

Good luck.

Oh, and I won’t be back to the thread (it’s a grind), unlike some that just say they won’t.

“It’s rude to tell me I ‘grind’ when I absolutely state I do not. " Did I say you grind? No I did not.
It’s rude to suggest people made claims they did not.

“I don’t agree with your opinion that the Gem Store is the root of all evil in the game. It’s just your opinion, and not worth much more than that.”
Depends really. If my theory is correct it means (or did mean) a lot, if not it’s ‘just an opinion’.

We know numbers did go down pretty close to how I predicted. If my theory is wrong then changes made based on that theory would have been useless, if my theory is correct, changes based on the theory maybe would have put GW2 in a much better place now. We will never know for sure. But that it’s ‘just’ my opinion does not have to be true, that is mainly your opinion, my theory might just be an opinion or it might be the reality as well.

“as well as confident the game isn’t going anywhere…soon.” As in, the servers will close? No I think that will not happen soon, but what you seem to forget is that for many people GW2 did already go away.

“Oh, and I won’t be back to the thread (it’s a grind), unlike some that just say they won’t.” That is fine, I never forced anybody to be here.

Devata.6589:

Vayne.8563:

The problem with western thinking generally is everyone is looking for one big reason…and a lot of times it’s not one big reason.
~
Because you have to plug lots of little leaks, rather than one big one.

There is a difference between one big reason and one main reasons with additional smaller reasons that might increase the problem. Again, also I did not only mentioned the grind / cash-shop focus but also other things like lack of traditional quests, no seamless zones and in the pass the temporary nature of content, that they luckily fixed.

Yes all those things should be addressed and there more smaller things that are an issue. For example I do think the HoT maps are not so good for solo-players.

But it’s less useful to plug lots of little leaks in a dike when the foundation has a fatal flaw. In fact imo that flaw was there for a long time and I have been here asking for 3 years to fix that flaw. We are now at a point where that flaw has resulted in the collapse of a part of the dike so plugging all the little holes won’t do much anymore. In fact, you can still fix the dike but an even then a bigger challenge is to repair the damage done by the flooding. Many people have left the area and are settling somewhere else.

Vayne.8563:

This whole thread is a Devata “I told you so” thread. It tried to make sense of why the game was not doing as well as it did and said the game could do better.

In a way that is true, but the reason that I made this thread was because I did feel that I also had to come back to take resposibility for my claims (being correct or wrong) after being so active for multiple years here. However it’s also people directly or indirectly asked me to come back. You where one of the persons that basically did that indirectly.

You always said things along the line of ’it’s false logic, things can go different’ and ’it’s not a fact that results will keep going down’. So now we have the factual data I did come back.

I would also have come back if the results would be great, in fact I made the Excel before the results of Q3 where availible and was simply waiting for the results of Q3 to complete the file. Honestly even I expected Q3 to be a little better, not a great improvement that would undo / fix the bad quarter of Q2 but a little higher. I also think that Q4 will be higher, Halloween, S3, Wintersday, more inside hours for most people and simply the fact that it is Q4 should surely help to get the numbers up. Still I don’t think the problems will be over simply if the numbers are a little higher (they must be way higher). I think there is a problem, but also if numbers had proven me wrong I was here. Else I would have not made the Excel while waiting for the last results.

I geuss I expected some people to at least look at things a little different when they had the full picture. To late, but it’s better to open your eyes to late then to not open your eyes. I figured you simply was somebody who was very critital of logic and common sense.

But your comments in this thread have shown different. I mean, not only did you say such things to me 2 years ago, even last quarter you told somebody “It’ll be more interested to see the next quarter, since they put the game on sale for half price. That might have a positive affect on sales, particularly with the LS 3 coming out.”

And now we have the numbers, they are lower and still you somehow manage to see the numbers as supporting your theory. While the numbers did something else as you predicted.

Really that proofs to me it is and always has been completely blind love from your perspective, that also puts all your comments ever on this forum in another persective. It basicaly removes any value of them imo.

Also what you might forget is that you are not an everage player. Most people will not (like it to) complete VB on 20 characters.

If Anet makes this game so it would be good for you it would probably be a huge failure because it’s not something most people would like.

I like how you try to make this about me, instead of what I’m saying. Other people have seen me complain about things I don’t like. There is definitely blindness here, but I’m not sure I’m the one who’s actually blind.

Take your comment that HoT isn’t good for solo players. I have a guild full of people who solo and many of them play HoT without a problem. They don’t have to group. They figured out how to get around and do the zones.

You had an idea in your head, to start, and then you use evidence to back up your ideas. That’s not really the way research works.

Answer me this one question. How can you possibly know that the game wouldn’t have done worse with the changes you’ve suggested all along?

It’s always easy to be right when your theories remain untested.

maddoctor.2738:

The expansion was announced at Q1 2015 and there was no “bump” there so it wasn’t the expansion announcement as much as the 75% sale.

For the whole year of 2014 every quarter the numbers were lower. Q1 2015 did start an increase, that did get higher in Q2 2015 (what might be partly because of that sale you talk about) and then shrunk again at Q3 2015. But even Q3 2015 was higher than Q3 and Q4 of 2014 what had the complete season 2.

maddoctor.2738:

And while they have likely used multiple things for HoT that they already in development, it looks like most of the development really started after Season 2 came to an end. I think there has never been an official statement about that but Wooden Patatoes has talked about that a lot because there are multiple things suggesting that.

Take a look: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/state-of-the-game-update-q1-2016/

Ah great to have an official statement. So indeed most of the work for HoT started after the announcement. Most of the content for S2 had been completed by then.

maddoctor.2738:

So I really doubt they started working on the expansion AFTER LS2, but rather AFTER LS1.

That is what they said themselves in the link you just gave.

From 2012 to 2014, we were focused on developing regular updates through our Living World and feature pack releases. In 2015 our focus predominantly shifted away from live updates and toward our first expansion.

The last chapter of S2 was released in December of 2014.

maddoctor.2738:

They started working on the expansion right after Scarlet died, that’s why there was a huge content break (from March 2014 to July 2014 we got NO content at all) until LS2 started.

I do not think so and it also go’s against what they said themselves. In my opinion back in 2014 they probably still believed they could make it work with the LS approach (Many ‘fanboys’ on the forums where also supporting that idea). However during season 2 the number did keep dropping and so they were pretty much forced (that is what I think) to go for an alternative solution, an expansion.

maddoctor.2738:

And all I was saying is that the content drop was because of the expansion. The revenue drop was because of the expansion and if they continued with their LS releases we wouldn’t have such a drop. I blame the expansion for it and I’m sure even Anet understands that and that’s why Colin said

In 2016 we aim to provide a more balanced focus, which will see efforts divided equally between providing regular updates and working toward the next expansion.

But what you are saying seems to be false. Look at the information. Numbers started to drop during the whole year of 2014, 2014 was the ending of S1 and the complete S2.

They said themselves that during 2012-2014 focus was on the LS and 2015 was mainly focused on the expansion.

Also Colin’s statement that for 2016 they aim to provide a more balanced focus makes perfect sense. If indeed they did not plan to make an expansion when they started with S2 but then where forced to take another approach because of dropping results, it did mean a sudden shift for them what resulted in almost all focus having to go to the expansion during 2015. If things had been better planned (because they planned an expansion form the beginning instead of having to make a sudden switch) they could have this better balance also in 2014 / 2015, heck from 2012 / [alternative date first expansion].

It’s likely the sudden shift that resulted in them having to switch all focus and could not do both. If only my screams that they needed expansion would have been heard back when there would have been plenty of time left.

maddoctor.2738:

Working only on the expansion was a huge mistake. Expansions don’t save games, good paced content does. And personally the LS3 is a great thing and if they keep it up until the next expansion I’ll be really happy.

True, you should not completely forget the game while building an expansion. And one bigger patch in-between expansions is also a good idea. But if they focused on LS only, numbers dropped and they then suddenly had to shift this is what you get.
That is why you always have to look ahead of things. That is why I always talked about the effect on the longer term.

Vayne.8563:

Take your comment that HoT isn’t good for solo players. I have a guild full of people who solo and many of them play HoT without a problem. They don’t have to group. They figured out how to get around and do the zones

That doesnt really change the fact that HoT zones has a much different design philosophy compared to first generation zones.

I know tons of people that solo dungeon bosses. Does that mean dungeons arent designed as group content?

Devata.6589:

That is what they said themselves in the link you just gave.

How do you explain the 4 month zero-content between the end of LS1 and the start of LS2? Or why LS2 lacked any significant repeatable content.

I do not think so and it also go’s against what they said themselves. In my opinion back in 2014 they probably still believed they could make it work with the LS approach (Many ‘fanboys’ on the forums where also supporting that idea). However during season 2 the number did keep dropping and so they were pretty much forced (that is what I think) to go for an alternative solution, an expansion.

Yes during LS2 the numbers were dropping. That’s because although LS2 was excellent as far as story goes (it was permanent this time) they released zero content for anyone else that plays the game. No dungeons, no fractals, even the WvW tournament they did was a repeat of the old one without anything new and it had half the duration. In contrast, LS1 was a complete expansion-like package (minus the temporary nature) with releases for all types of players. Something that they go back to with LS3.

True, you should not completely forget the game while building an expansion. And one bigger patch in-between expansions is also a good idea. But if they focused on LS only, numbers dropped and they then suddenly had to shift this is what you get.
That is why you always have to look ahead of things. That is why I always talked about the effect on the longer term.

I still don’t believe that the LS2 had their “entire focus”. Just compare what we got in LS3 over these last 6 (including Wintersday 2016) months to what we got in the entire LS2. I will never accept that their entire team can give us LS2, when a small fraction of their team (because the rest are working on the expansion) can give us LS3, either those few working on LS3 are the most talented devs of their team or something is wrong.

Vayne.8563:

I like how you try to make this about me, instead of what I’m saying.

I did not go into everything you said most of what you said was not addressed to me, you did however mention me. Besides I did go into a few things that you were saying. Like about how it’s not one big problem but are many small problems according to you.

Vayne.8563:

Other people have seen me complain about things I don’t like. There is definitely blindness here, but I’m not sure I’m the one who’s actually blind.

I know you did, did I say you never had a complain? But it’s also true that you have been defending most of what Anet did.

Vayne.8563:

Take your comment that HoT isn’t good for solo players. I have a guild full of people who solo and many of them play HoT without a problem. They don’t have to group. They figured out how to get around and do the zones.

Let’s quote me

For example I do think the HoT maps are not so good for solo-players.

. That is clearly my opinion. I don’t say it can not work for any solo-player.
And in fact, even you acknowledged solo-players had complains about the HoT maps but Anet had been fixing that with the new zones. Let’s quote you.

The solo people had stuff to complain about.

and

It’s lots of little groups. ~, some solo players

and

But every new zone since that has contained more mastery points than you need, meaning more and more you don’t need to get gold on adventures. Anet went in and made the game more solo friendly

Vayne.8563:

You had an idea in your head, to start, and then you use evidence to back up your ideas. That’s not really the way research works.

No, no and again no. I repeat it again. I did never say that these results proof that the cash-shop focus is the problem. I still think it is the problem but there is no way I can proof it. The results proof my predictions where pretty accurate and my predictions where based on my theory, but that’s about as far as one can go.

Now how do you use ‘evidence’ to back-up your theory / argument? You mention solo-players complaining, then I say I also think HoT is not great for solo-playing and suddenly you seem to forget about your previous statements and use your guild as a type of evidence that solo-play is not a problem.

You been stating for years that we could not know how the numbers would be, and now we have the numbers you still try to ignore them. Last quarter you told somebody to wait for the results of Q3 partly because of S3 before making any conclusions. Now we have the numbers of Q3, they are in fact lower, not higher as you expected and still you manage to say the numbers support your idea.

Really Vayne, you are the one who can only see one truth, even if everything is pointing in another direction or you have to go completely 180 on your own previous statements.

Vayne.8563:

Answer me this one question. How can you possibly know that the game wouldn’t have done worse with the changes you’ve suggested all along?

I cannot know that, I did never suggest I could know that. However what we do know is that for season 2 they did what you suggested (keep on the LS) and that the numbers did go down. We also know that once they made a shift that did go a little in my direction (making an expansion) the results finally did go up again. We can also know (based on forum post I even linked here) that I said that if the grind would not be solved that after the first half year of HoT we would lose the returning players again and continue the downtrend. And we know that is what happened.

So there are some things we do factually know and we do not factually know. That is a fact we have to work with. You never know for a fact if a suggest will have positive or negative effects but still people (including you) make suggestions about things all the time.

Vayne.8563:

It’s always easy to be right when your theories remain untested.

I think! I am right with the theory, but I was right with my prediction. That can be tested.

Statement: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/This-game-isn-t-as-grindy-as-other-MMOs/first#post5817481 “It’s up to Anet to fix this problem before the filter starts working again. Imho that is within the first half year of the release of HoT.”
And then the results are in the Excel.

Nobody here can proof his theories, nor did I say the results proof that theory. But if that is an argument why is anybody here, why are you here? It’s not like you can proof that what you suggest will do any good.

The problem is that you act as if I say that the results proof my theory, something I never did. Maybe it’s a way for you to avoid the real discussion, I don’t know. But it’s not helping anybody and it’s not proving a point.

Dawdler.8521:

Vayne.8563:

Take your comment that HoT isn’t good for solo players. I have a guild full of people who solo and many of them play HoT without a problem. They don’t have to group. They figured out how to get around and do the zones

That doesnt really change the fact that HoT zones has a much different design philosophy compared to first generation zones.

I know tons of people that solo dungeon bosses. Does that mean dungeons arent designed as group content?

But we’re not talking about people who solo dungeon bosses here. I run a casual guild filled with casual people who aren’t really good at the games.

I agree that a change was made, but for some people that change revitalized the game. HoT is bad for people who don’t want to learn how to play their profession that’s probably true. But it’s not bad for solo players “in general”.

And you don’t need to be the type of person to solo a dungeon to do well in HOT solo. This isn’t really a good analogy.

@Devata

Edited to make it correct.

I predict one day Donald Trump will no longer be president of the United States. At some point, the prediction will be right. Saying you predicted something that applies to virtually every single MMORPG on the planet isn’t really anything to crow about.

You made a very general statement that the sales wouldn’t maintain their current level. That they’d go down at some point. I could have predicted the exact same thing, since it’s happened to Eve and World of Warcraft and Guild Wars 1, in fact, virtually every game that’s ever been created.

Sales go up for a while sales go down eventually. That’s sort of the whole deal with expansions.

During our numerous conversations in the past, where you pushed an expansion model, I made comments that there’s more risk involved in an expansion, because if an expansion doesn’t do well, its’ a huge investment for little return.

Look, my prediction came true too. Anet came out with an expansion that didn’t do as well as predicted and Anet has lost money.

Your “prediction” and I hesitate to call it that, is practically meaningless in the scheme of things and the odds of it suggesting what you suggest, in my opinion is probably quite low.

maddoctor.2738:

How do you explain the 4 month zero-content between the end of LS1 and the start of LS2? Or why LS2 lacked any significant repeatable content.

Zero-content? Correct me if I am wrong, but did we not have the first feature pack and Festival of the four winds? Also the first releases of S1 where really small. So they did release content and maybe also simply needed time to set up the next season.

maddoctor.2738:

Yes during LS2 the numbers were dropping. That’s because although LS2 was excellent as far as story goes (it was permanent this time) they released zero content for anyone else that plays the game. No dungeons, no fractals, even the WvW tournament they did was a repeat of the old one without anything new and it had half the duration. In contrast, LS1 was a complete expansion-like package (minus the temporary nature) with releases for all types of players. Something that they go back to with LS3.

We did only get one new dungeon-path during Season 1 right? Then again Season one was mainly during the first 1,5 year after release. Then everything is still fresh. After that period things start to be like ‘been there, done that’. That is also one of the reasons why I say the expansions should be released within 1 to 1,5 year.

maddoctor.2738:

I still don’t believe that the LS2 had their “entire focus”. Just compare what we got in LS3 over these last 6 (including Wintersday 2016) months to what we got in the entire LS2. I will never accept that their entire team can give us LS2, when a small fraction of their team (because the rest are working on the expansion) can give us LS3, either those few working on LS3 are the most talented devs of their team or something is wrong.

I don’t know if it had their entire focus. But based on what I have seen, and what they said in the past and in the link you provided I also don’t think they were working on HoT back then. Not for the biggest part at least.

Maybe they did implement elements (back then and during HoT) that helped them to now make better / faster LS releases? They made statement saying how they build things they could later better build upon. Lastly you seem to forget that there was also a gap of half a year between HoT and S3. That is bigger gap then the 4 months gap (that was not a gap because of the first feature pack and Festival of the four winds) between S1 and S2 that you mentioned.

Devata.6589:

Behellagh.1468:

But lack of traditional quests was a selling point, I just recently watched the Gamescon presentation from 2010. As for seamless zones, that’s a day 1 design decision on both the server and client side.

I know they tried to use it as a selling point and I think that was a mistake. If you look at how they announces the events (maybe also in that 2010 GamesCom presentation?) they talked about how it would make the world feel alive, how you had an impact on the world, how it would not be like events where you kill 5 of x and 5 of y.
Problem is that events did not manage to live up to that. With a traditional quest you even feel more like you made a change / you had an impact because it’s something that completed. When you talk to an NPC after you completed its quest, it will react different to you. The events are just happening again and again. As soon as you notice that events start to feel useless.

This is so true. I had really high hopes in regards to the event based quest system, however, it fell flat to the ground, and because of that, GW2 imho is the least interesting mmo ever released in this regard. There are other things that makes it a fun game, but dropping traditional quests was a big, big mistake.

Following a long questline in games like WoW, Vanguard or whatever, that took you all over the world, that was great fun, and I miss that a lot.

Edit: If anything, they could probably go “back” to the old quest based model for their next expansion, while also keeping events. It would feel new, and bring another purpose to the game.

Devata.6589:

Zero-content? Correct me if I am wrong, but did we not have the first feature pack and Festival of the four winds? Also the first releases of S1 where really small. So they did release content and maybe also simply needed time to set up the next season.

I doubt those working on a Feature Pack are the same creating new story content. An extra reason for LS1 releases to be smaller at first was due to the festivals. Unlike later years, the first festivals weren’t repeats of old ones, things like Shadow of the Mad King and Wintersday had lots of content that during the first year of the game, they were actually new. On the other hand the Festival of the Four Winds (between LS1 and LS2) was a repeat of the previous year, not new content at all.

We did only get one new dungeon-path during Season 1 right? Then again Season one was mainly during the first 1,5 year after release. Then everything is still fresh. After that period things start to be like ‘been there, done that’. That is also one of the reasons why I say the expansions should be released within 1 to 1,5 year.

We got 3 dungeons and 1 fractal during LS1 (excluding the fractal release which had lot more). We got the Molten Facility dungeon in April 2013, Aetherblade Retreat in June 2013, Aetherpath in October 2013 and Thaumanova Reactor in November 2013 . That’s an amazing good pace of new instanced content, approximately 1 instance every couple of months. (LS2 had 0). Even Winterday has a mini-dungeon, Halloween had a mini-dungeon, in general they used to love dungeons during the first year.

Lastly you seem to forget that there was also a gap of half a year between HoT and S3.

Yes a gap that had only a revamp of Shatterer as content for the average player and the rest were the 3 Raid Wings and pvp seasons. It means they didn’t learn what caused the revenue drop during the previous year at all. But during that time they had to revamp the HoT zones to fix what the community didn’t like about them, that was surely not a small task.

Vayne.8563:

@Devata

Edited to make it correct.

I predict one day Donald Trump will no longer be president of the United States. At some point, the prediction will be right. Saying you predicted something that applies to virtually every single MMORPG on the planet isn’t really anything to crow about.

You made a very general statement that the sales wouldn’t maintain their current level. That they’d go down at some point. I could have predicted the exact same thing, since it’s happened to Eve and World of Warcraft and Guild Wars 1, in fact, virtually every game that’s ever been created.

That is partly true. It was however a little more specific. While I can’t find the exact statement I also first defined that long term as around 3 years. Now you could still say that is true for most MMO’s. However I (and you) did not see GW2 as most MMO’s. I still think GW2 had the potential to be one of the big MMO’s out there. In that perspective there is no reason why results could not be much higher. For example, WoW did only get more players for the first 5 years. When they announced HoT I was more specific by saying the first half year was important because else people would leave during that time.

I put that quote in my last comment to you but can do it again: Statement: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/This-game-isn-t-as-grindy-as-other-MMOs/first#post5817481 “It’s up to Anet to fix this problem before the filter starts working again. Imho that is within the first half year of the release of HoT.”
And then the results are in the Excel.

And I made this claim multiple times.

So it’s way more specific as your example. It would be more like, if he does x, then he will leave office after 2 years.

Vayne.8563:

Sales go up for a while sales go down eventually. That’s sort of the whole deal with expansions.

Yeah obviously, however sales were going down and the expansion had to break that down-trend. However while it did manage to get a temporary bump, we are now where we would be if you would have followed the downtrend from where it was before the HoT announcement.

Vayne.8563:

During our numerous conversations in the past, where you pushed an expansion model, I made comments that there’s more risk involved in an expansion, because if an expansion doesn’t do well, its’ a huge investment for little return.

Yeah and I agreed that my model had more risk than the cash-shop model. Now I think from sales perspective the expansion itself did do fairly well. It likely did cover the cost of building it. So far so good. However it did not manage to get the people who left to stay this time. That is another thing this expansion had to fix (leaving people) but did not fix.
Now why where they leaving in the first place. In my opinion the main reason was because the content was grindy. You might think it are other reasons. Nonetheless, HoT clearly did not solve those problems.

Vayne.8563:

Look, my prediction came true too. Anet came out with an expansion that didn’t do as well as predicted and Anet has lost money.

HoT did not do as well as predicted.. Anet lost money? It did not solve the problem it should solve, but did it not do as well as they predicted (as in sales) and they lost money on it? Can you back up those claims? You always talk about ‘facts’ so I guess you have factual proof of this? Because I think you might be wrong here.

Also, saying something is more risky (what you indeed did say and I agreed) is not the same as the prediction that the expansion would not sell well and Anet would lose money. But then again, is that even true?

Please enlighten us? If HoT sales where considered bad and made them lost money, why is NCsoft then talking about more frequent expansions?

It makes no sense what you are saying here. I expect the next expansion to sell less then they hope, but I don’t think Anet of Ncsoft did see the sales of HoT as not meeting the expectations.

maddoctor.2738:

Devata.6589:

Zero-content? Correct me if I am wrong, but did we not have the first feature pack and Festival of the four winds? Also the first releases of S1 where really small. So they did release content and maybe also simply needed time to set up the next season.

I doubt those working on a Feature Pack are the same creating new story content. An extra reason for LS1 releases to be smaller at first was due to the festivals. Unlike later years, the first festivals weren’t repeats of old ones, things like Shadow of the Mad King and Wintersday had lots of content that during the first year of the game, they were actually new. On the other hand the Festival of the Four Winds (between LS1 and LS2) was a repeat of the previous year, not new content at all.

We did only get one new dungeon-path during Season 1 right? Then again Season one was mainly during the first 1,5 year after release. Then everything is still fresh. After that period things start to be like ‘been there, done that’. That is also one of the reasons why I say the expansions should be released within 1 to 1,5 year.

We got 3 dungeons and 1 fractal during LS1 (excluding the fractal release which had lot more). We got the Molten Facility dungeon in April 2013, Aetherblade Retreat in June 2013, Aetherpath in October 2013 and Thaumanova Reactor in November 2013 . That’s an amazing good pace of new instanced content, approximately 1 instance every couple of months. (LS2 had 0). Even Winterday has a mini-dungeon, Halloween had a mini-dungeon, in general they used to love dungeons during the first year.

Well if you count Molten Facility and Aetherblade Retreat then I guess you’re right. On the other hand Season 2 had a lot of instanced content and two maps.
The festivals where indeed something they would now have had less work on. Maybe some of the things from S1 where partly developed during the creating of GW2?

I just don’t see a good reason to believe they would be lying and would in fact have been working on the expansion for much longer. What I see suggest to me that indeed they made that change at the end of S2.

But really you are asking me things Anet should answer.

maddoctor.2738:

Yes a gap that had only a revamp of Shatterer as content for the average player and the rest were the 3 Raid Wings and pvp seasons. It means they didn’t learn what caused the revenue drop during the previous year at all. But during that time they had to revamp the HoT zones to fix what the community didn’t like about them, that was surely not a small task.

What drop you refer to?

Devata.6589:

But really you are asking me things Anet should answer.

I’m comparing LS2 with LS3 and in my opinion LS3 gave us more than LS2 and is still going. But it’s true only the devs can answer this one.

What drop you refer to?

I was talking about the drop comparing LS1 and LS2. LS2 was less successful than LS1 and to me it’s because LS1 was more inclusive, it had content to satisfy most players in the game while LS2 was more focused in storyline and new pve open world maps.

LS3 appears to be all inclusive again (only missing WvW but that should come early 2017- I hope), so I expect some gain we’ll see how high up it will go. Q3 wasn’t a very good indicator for me because Ember Bay was released very close to the end of Q3 (September 20th, Q4 starts October 1st right?) so there wasn’t enough time to collect data for it. Of course it will include the sale too so it won’t be possible to separate what’s from the sale and what’s from the content (plus Q4 is better time for games anyway) but anyway let’s see how high it goes in Q4.

I was wondering, where can we see the numbers from the China release?

PHEW! I see little point in arguing about what amounts to garbage science. I fear for the future it this approach to logic is rampant. So little information, so many hypothesis. It’s actually scary that someone would think they could say so much based on so little information. I wouldn’t even be bold enough to make a hypothesis based on the information available to us; some people think they have the whole thing figured out.

maddoctor.2738:

I was talking about the drop comparing LS1 and LS2. LS2 was less successful than LS1 and to me it’s because LS1 was more inclusive, it had content to satisfy most players in the game while LS2 was more focused in storyline and new pve open world maps.

I think it is a hard comparison because LS1 was win the 1,5 year of GW2 while LS2 was much later. People did complain a lot about LS1 and LS2. But in general yeah all inclusive content is likely better then content focused on one group.

maddoctor.2738:

LS3 appears to be all inclusive again (only missing WvW but that should come early 2017- I hope), so I expect some gain we’ll see how high up it will go. Q3 wasn’t a very good indicator for me because Ember Bay was released very close to the end of Q3 (September 20th, Q4 starts October 1st right?) so there wasn’t enough time to collect data for it. Of course it will include the sale too so it won’t be possible to separate what’s from the sale and what’s from the content (plus Q4 is better time for games anyway) but anyway let’s see how high it goes in Q4.

Well S3 started at July 26 so there are 2 full months of S3 in Q3. I also expect Q4 to be higher, big question then is how much. The problem with Q4 (any Q4, not only this one) is that numbers tent to be higher on average, so it’s hard to draw a conclusion from that. So if you want to see how GW2 is doing over-time Q1 would be more interesting. Q4 might give a false picture.

maddoctor.2738:

I was wondering, where can we see the numbers from the China release?

Not sure where you can get those numbers separate. btw, that reminds me, you did question about the lag of content before S2. Did the China release not have a lot to do with that.

Obtena.7952:

PHEW! I see little point in arguing about what amounts to garbage science. I fear for the future it this approach to logic is rampant. So little information, so many hypothesis. It’s actually scary that someone would think they could say so much based on so little information. I wouldn’t even be bold enough to make a hypothesis based on the information available to us; some people think they have the whole thing figured out.

You can only work with the information you have, and theories can always be presented if they have a logical base.

The data you do have can proof some things and can’t proof other things. Thats how science work.

However, simply because you don’t have all data does not mean you should not talk about any theories.

Like I said, if any reasonable person would work with the information we have, they would realize they don’t have enough to make plausible theories. You can almost make any outrageous theory you want and we have so little information that no one could refute it.

Frankly, I think if you want to wax academic with any theory you have, you can, but that’s not the impression I get from the purpose of this thread. My impression “See, I’m right. I predicted the downfall and it’s because of these bad things that I just happen to not like.”

@Devata

Guild Wars 2 doesn’t live in a vacuum. This idea that there’s going to be some MMORPG holy grail at this point is ridiculous because there are not only too many MMOs, but the day of the MMO has passed and it’s no longer the cool game type. This has happened many times in the past.

There was a period of time where strategy games were very popular and they got replaced at that time by RPGs who were later replaced by a different type of game. Those old single player RPGs gave way to games that were more adventure games like Tombraider, and on and on goes the cycle. This isn’t the age of MMOs. What WoW did won’t be repeated until the cycle comes around again. This is the age of mobas.

Anet made a bunch of mistakes that had nothing to do with your prediction at the time and trying to take credit for that prediction as a prediction is ludicrous. Because all you were really talking about was the cash shop did this and there’s no evidence at all that that’s the case.

Anet’s biggest mistake was pricing the expansion at $50 which people felt was too much for what they were getting. Then they didn’t provide a character slot with the cheapest version. Those two hits to credibility made them seem greedy. Of course most games of this quality have either subs or “optional” subs, and so it’s not as greedy as it looks, but Anet forgot image is important. What your fan base thinks about you is important.

So Anet then went on to nerf dungeon rewards, add a WvW with too much PvE in it that a lot of people didn’t enjoy, made the new zones grindy, much of which they fixed in April, but the horse was already out of the stable by then. Add the content drought to that and only raiders and SPvP people felt catered too. It was a perfect storm for casuals and veteran players to feel neglected. And when you add to that the problems with small guilds, that’s a whole different group of people.

Anet made a lot of mistakes, and if they hadn’t, they’d probably be about where they were, and your “prediction” would have come to nothing.

You’re taking credit in making a prediction you say you made, which you can’t back up, leaving out all the stuff you said which didn’t happen. You made hundreds of statements, pick one you believe you said from memory and you’re going to insinuate you’re some sort of pyschic or genius who knew exactly when the downturn would be and why.

Once you get the why wrong, the rest of it is pretty much just a guess. Without knowing the date of what you said or exactly what you said, all you have is the information that the game has lost a step…which it has. It’s lost a step. I’ve listed many of the reasons why. Mistakes were made.

At the end of the day, that’s what happens to most MMOs. Too many groups of people want too many things and the loudest most insistent groups tend to be the ones that have the least amount of people in them. The casuals, by and large, don’t get involved in posting on forums or reddit.

Devata.6589:

Well S3 started at July 26 so there are 2 full months of S3 in Q3. I also expect Q4 to be higher, big question then is how much. The problem with Q4 (any Q4, not only this one) is that numbers tent to be higher on average, so it’s hard to draw a conclusion from that. So if you want to see how GW2 is doing over-time Q1 would be more interesting. Q4 might give a false picture.

Indeed. I believe if they keep up the release schedule of LS3 then Q1 2017 will be very similar to Q4 2016 or at least I hope so.

Not sure where you can get those numbers separate. btw, that reminds me, you did question about the lag of content before S2. Did the China release not have a lot to do with that.

I guess that’s it. China release was about that time so maybe that lack of content was due to the China release, it makes sense not to release regular updates when you go to a new market.

Shouldn’t the sales of the China version be included for the overall health of the game? Anet should be making money from the China version which I don’t think is included in those charts. Unless the China version is dead

Obtena.7952:

Like I said, if any reasonable person would work with the information we have, they would realize they don’t have enough to make plausible theories.

The theory that I propose is not based on these results. I had that theory long before the results. The theory was simply based on experiences from the game, games in general and logic.

Obtena.7952:

You can almost make any outrageous theory you want and we have so little information that no one could refute it.

Well it’s based on something but sure, you cannot factually proof them or factually proof them wrong. But is that a reason to not talk about them? Many of the topics in this forum are suggestions. In a way that are all theories, they theorize that it would be good for the game to do / implement x.
You are using the same argument as Vayne, but imo it’s strange to look at things this way. You can say it’s impossible to refute anything without enough information but you can also dismiss any theory if you only accept something that you can factually proof.

Obtena.7952:

Frankly, I think if you want to wax academic with any theory you have, you can, but that’s not the impression I get from the purpose of this thread. My impression “See, I’m right. I predicted the downfall and it’s because of these bad things that I just happen to not like.”

The part ‘and it’s because of these bad things that I just happen to not like.’ is false. I do not say these numbers proof that.
Yes I predicted the dropping results based on my theory but that is not the same as saying the results proof the theory, nor do I say that.

Then I came back to say ‘See I’m right’ as you put it, is because I have been active in these forums for a long time and talk about how some things would be bad in the longer run according to me. More specific I talked about how the first half year after HoT was important and if they had not fix the problems by then people would leave again. Imo it is then just decent to come back and talk about the results when they are available. I would also have come back if they would be better and so it would be a ‘I was wrong’ thread. I am pretty sure you would not be complaining if that was the case.

Also people asked me directly or indirectly to stand by those numbers. Vayne always talked about how you cannot factually proof what the numbers will be. Last quarter he even told somebody else (similar how he told me in the past) to have a look at Q3 2016. Well now we have those numbers so I am here to talk about them. Just decent behavior. I am not the shoot and run type of person.

I understand that some people dislike that because it is now like I come to claim my victory, but that is not how it works. I was so active in these forums with the hope Anet would change so the numbers would be better. There is no victory in these numbers. Yes I was right but I preferred it to be wrong.

maddoctor.2738:

Indeed. I believe if they keep up the release schedule of LS3 then Q1 2017 will be very similar to Q4 2016 or at least I hope so.

One can hope, just don’t celebrate too early. Q1 2017 will give a better picture of the state of the game then Q4.

maddoctor.2738:

Shouldn’t the sales of the China version be included for the overall health of the game? Anet should be making money from the China version which I don’t think is included in those charts. Unless the China version is dead

I don’t know, I did find this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4oocj4/guild_wars_2_in_china_june_2016/
That suggest GW2 is pretty dead in China but I have no idea how reliable that post is.

It is just the first hit I had on Google.

I do notice that his complains are similar to mine (Grind instead of a fun way to obtain items). I did always hear that in China people are used to grindy games.

@Vayne
You said a lot, many things not really relevant I think, so I will go into what is relevant.

Vayne.8563:

Because all you were really talking about was the cash shop did this and there’s no evidence at all that that’s the case.

No, I did not say that. How many times do I have to repeat that? Yes I think it’s the cash-shop focus that results in grind what bores people / burns them out and make them run away eventually. Then they come back with the first expansion, but if they get bored again they leave usually forever.

Based on that idea I made the predictions. Now we are looking at the results. I still stand by my theory but am not saying the results proof the theory.

Vayne.8563:

Anet’s biggest mistake was pricing the expansion at $50 which people felt was too much for what they were getting.

Its fun how you complain about me making claims (that I did not make, I had a theory) while I cannot proof it, and you make one claim after another.

Results would likely be better in Q3 2016 according to you a few months ago. That claimed turned out to be false.

‘HoT did not do as well as predicted’. Still waiting for you to proof that claim.

‘Anet lost money on HoT.’ Still waiting for you to proof that claim.

‘Lack of content is the reason for low numbers’. Results suggest you are wrong.

‘Anet’s biggest mistake was pricing the expansion at $50’. Proof?

You are complaining that I cannot proof my theory. It’s an argument you use against most people in any debate. But at the same time you make many claims including ones that can be proven wrong.
Like I said before, you are really revealing yourself here as mainly basing your ideas on blind love what devalues all comments you ever made.

Anyway, about your latest claim. Yes many people complained about the price. I think the price would be good for a true expansion-based game. But for a mainly cash-shop game it’s way too much. I had hoped the price was an indication that they would change the model (what would validate the price), but they did not.

Vayne.8563:

Of course most games of this quality have either subs or “optional” subs, and so it’s not as greedy as it looks, but Anet forgot image is important.

Most big modern MMO’s don’t have subs anymore. It’s all F2P, and expansions on F2P games are usually lower. Ante did try to bed on two horses. They talked about the B2P model a lot (what would validate the higher price) but at the same time had a cash-shop model in place.

Vayne.8563:

What your fan base thinks about you is important.
So Anet then went on to nerf dungeon rewards, add a WvW with too much PvE in it that a lot of people didn’t enjoy, made the new zones grindy, much of which they fixed in April, but the horse was already out of the stable by then. Add the content drought to that and only raiders and SPvP people felt catered too. It was a perfect storm for casuals and veteran players to feel neglected. And when you add to that the problems with small guilds, that’s a whole different group of people.
Anet made a lot of mistakes, and if they hadn’t, they’d probably be about where they were, and your “prediction” would have come to nothing.

Maybe, but don’t forget that numbers where already going down before HoT. It’s not like everything was fine and then HoT came and messed things up.

Something was already wrong back then. If many of the problems you mention here would not have been in HoT but that underlying problem would not be solved, it’s very likely people would still be leaving imho,

Vayne.8563:

You’re taking credit in making a prediction you say you made, which you can’t back up, leaving out all the stuff you said which didn’t happen.

What? I linked it multiple times. Go read back.

Vayne.8563:

You made hundreds of statements

Mostly the same. As you know I always talked about the cash-shop focus, how that would turn things into grind because items would be mainly available by grinding gold instead of having a nice journey to hunt for those items. How that would burn out people overtime and so in the longer term they would walk away.

That has always been my main story. People even complained about me always saying the same.

Of course I did also talk about other things, like the temporary nature of S1, lack of traditional quest and a few other things. But this claim / statement has always be my main.

maddoctor.2738:

Shouldn’t the sales of the China version be included for the overall health of the game? Anet should be making money from the China version which I don’t think is included in those charts. Unless the China version is dead

NCSOFT lumps all their royalties together so we can’t tell how much is from what game or from what region. So unless they call out specifics in their quarterly report or conference call, there isn’t any consistent information.

Devata.6589:

Mostly the same. As you know I always talked about the cash-shop focus, how that would turn things into grind because items would be mainly available by grinding gold instead of having a nice journey to hunt for those items. How that would burn out people overtime and so in the longer term they would walk away.

That’s only for players too cheap to buy gems. The magnanimous nature of ANet providing the exchange made some believe that gold to gems is the proper way to buy from the gem shop. Of course this belief has caused the exchange rate to shoot up which then makes the gold “grind” more of an issue. So it’s a self-inflicted wound that keeps on wounding.

At least lately the exchange rate, outside of Gem Shop sales or new cool items, has been around 25-27g per 100 gems.

Behellagh.1468:

Devata.6589:

Mostly the same. As you know I always talked about the cash-shop focus, how that would turn things into grind because items would be mainly available by grinding gold instead of having a nice journey to hunt for those items. How that would burn out people overtime and so in the longer term they would walk away.

That’s only for players too cheap to buy gems. The magnanimous nature of ANet providing the exchange made some believe that gold to gems is the proper way to buy from the gem shop. Of course this belief has caused the exchange rate to shoot up which then makes the gold “grind” more of an issue. So it’s a self-inflicted wound that keeps on wounding.

At least lately the exchange rate, outside of Gem Shop sales or new cool items, has been around 25-27g per 100 gems.

Because buying items with cash (directly from the cash-shop or by trading it for gold and then buying it) is playing the game?
Is in any way fun?

The way I did play other MMO’s was (outside doing quest) chasing those rewards. Special skins, toys, ranger / hunter pets, mini’s / companions and mounts.

Getting those involved completing quest-chains, completing dungeon, doing specific crafts (similar to how we now have scribing).

Sometimes there was some farming involved but overall it was a journey, it was fun collecting them. Buying them with cash.. or grinding gold to buy them is not fun.

So when you say ’That’s only for players too cheap to buy gems.’ you are missing the implications of this method of doing things. And that is exactly why I said the cash-shop focus results in grind and eventually bores people out.

Having those items in-game with fun mechanics makes the game fun, interesting and having plenty to do. When you focus on a cash-shop to generate items, you sell the bulk of those items for money (directly or indirectly) and so destroy that fun part of the game and turn it into a boring grind.

Again, that is why I always believed the cash-shop focus is bad for the game. It’s not so mutch the cash-shop that is the problem, but how the cash-shop focus effects the game.

Devata.6589:

Behellagh.1468:

Devata.6589:

Mostly the same. As you know I always talked about the cash-shop focus, how that would turn things into grind because items would be mainly available by grinding gold instead of having a nice journey to hunt for those items. How that would burn out people overtime and so in the longer term they would walk away.

That’s only for players too cheap to buy gems. The magnanimous nature of ANet providing the exchange made some believe that gold to gems is the proper way to buy from the gem shop. Of course this belief has caused the exchange rate to shoot up which then makes the gold “grind” more of an issue. So it’s a self-inflicted wound that keeps on wounding.

At least lately the exchange rate, outside of Gem Shop sales or new cool items, has been around 25-27g per 100 gems.

Because buying items with cash (directly from the cash-shop or by trading it for gold and then buying it) is playing the game?
Is in any way fun?

The way I did play other MMO’s was (outside doing quest) chasing those rewards. Special skins, toys, ranger / hunter pets, mini’s / companions and mounts.

Getting those involved completing quest-chains, completing dungeon, doing specific crafts (similar to how we now have scribing).

Sometimes there was some farming involved but overall it was a journey, it was fun collecting them. Buying them with cash.. or grinding gold to buy them is not fun.

So when you say ’That’s only for players too cheap to buy gems.’ you are missing the implications of this method of doing things. And that is exactly why I said the cash-shop focus results in grind and eventually bores people out.

Having those items in-game with fun mechanics makes the game fun, interesting and having plenty to do. When you focus on a cash-shop to generate items, you sell the bulk of those items for money (directly or indirectly) and so destroy that fun part of the game and turn it into a boring grind.

Again, that is why I always believed the cash-shop focus is bad for the game. It’s not so mutch the cash-shop that is the problem, but how the cash-shop focus effects the game.

Just out of curiosity, what MMOs were those and how did they fund their games?

maddoctor.2738:

The new players have loads to do in other zones. There is no need for non-80 zones in an expansion

I would postulate that it needs both, far more then you realize. F2P players can be fine with the existing content… but new players who actually bought the game, which means they have the expansion, want to jump straight to current events and join people where the action is.

But given the game’s much higher build complexity then most MMOs, you can’t drop a brand new player directly into a system that thrives on intricacy and expect them to do well. Even looking at the vast majority of the population, and its over-dependence and overvaluing of sites like Metabattle, its pretty clear this aspect of the game is not well understood by the players, and very poorly utilized as a result.

The point here is that the Lv80 Booster exposed a huge problem with how this game’s learning curve works… and to top it off, they dropped players into what is arguable the most overly difficult map Core Tyria players have ever faced. This was a tutorial Snafu on level unlike any I’ve ever seen in any game to this day… and games which lack tutorials have actually fared better then this situation. More over…. the Soliders gear they give the player doesn’t really improve overall survaiblity, but significantly diminishes their damage output against an enemy that has both burst and sustain, and slathered with hard CCs. New players lack understanding of the builds they’re given, lack the reflexes and mechanical understanding to employ defensive skills and dodging, can’t read the short tells on the enemies (even seasoned players turned more predictive then responsive against the Mordrem), and have not even a clue of possible counter tactics against them. Its literally setting them up for failure, and then asking them if they like the class and want to keep it.

But to get back on point…. LS2/HOT made mistakes all over the board by focusing too hard on lvl 80 players only. When the Mordrem invaded the 2nd Tier maps leading up to the HOT release, low level players were avoiding the maps entirely, because they were severely under-equipped and under-prepared to be anywhere near the those events… and those events were everywhere! That lack of fore planning had single handedly isolated all the low level players from a critical lore driven episode, and gave them no avenue to even contribute to those events due to the sheer overwhelming AOE damage and unshakeable hoards.

These series of events could had been an extremely exciting time for those new players. An enemy capable of overwhelming even seasoned players in direct combat, invading areas all over the map, throwing everything into chaos. But knowing full well that they would not be able to combat the enemy head to head, the possiblity to contribute via a series of support roles or aid contributions – IE gathering sub-objectives, Support bundle weapons (shield bubbles, etc), delivering weapons, and AI driven Siege units the players could fight near for cover)- could not only allow ill-prepared players to take part in the events, but contribute to them in a significant manner.

Case in point is Dragon Stand. Each lane has access to Siege weapons if the complete the fortification events at each camp site; yet I doubt most people are even aware of them. South lane is perhaps the best at projecting this, since Golems and SCAR weapons can be found right near the camp. North Lane has Enchanted Armors, and Mid lane has Glider bombs, but both are obtained away from their main camps. The siege weapons have lower overall power coefficient compared to most players (probably to discourage people stacking them), but their support functions during the assault phases are massive. Enchanted armors can decimate break bars, the Air bombs can throw DOT over a large amount of enemies, and the Golems provide Defense bubbles, area CCs and additional damage against grouped enemies.

…………

…………..

If you transplant those concepts to a map meta where fully geared players are the front line units, and the undergeared/inexperienced players are running meaningful support functions, it allows both ends of the spectrum to contribute to the battle, and fosters a sense of cooperation instead of adversity. This is what Silverwaste SHOULD had aimed for by being so close to Brisban (a low level area), where only the first quarter of the map is easily accessible to low level players for most of the meta, with the rest of the map open to fully geared and leveled players by way of survival. But during the last phase of the meta, low level players are given an opportunity to move forward into an area normally to too dangerous for them by way of escorting a siege engine (which offers them protection) up to the front line. High level players typically won’t favor siege because it hampers mobility, but low level players would greatly enjoy it, as it allows them to punch above their weight class. An example of the Vine Wrath event modified to support this, has under speced players holding down the entrance with siege support, while the high level players form the assault force that goes after the Mordrem champs. The only difference in that part of the event compared to the current setup, is the addition of a fortified position to protect under speced players and allowing them to attack an area around it. When the events over, the area is cleared of modrem to allow low level players to do some exploration, and eventually warn them to retreat back before the Mordrem activity resumes.

As an introduction to the precursor events of HOT, this gets them amped up against an enemy that they not only know is tough; but now aspire to eventually reach a state where they can heroically battle on the front lines like those they’ve been supporting. It could even be enough to entice some F2P players, by giving them a taste of the enemy that lies behind the expansion pack. Its a hook that the personal pre-story was very close to nailing, as you aid a member of Destiny’s Edge in a boss fight against some Big Bad…. and one that should be put in as the Tyrian Gateway to the Expansion Regions.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Devata.6589:

Behellagh.1468:

Devata.6589:

Mostly the same. As you know I always talked about the cash-shop focus, how that would turn things into grind because items would be mainly available by grinding gold instead of having a nice journey to hunt for those items. How that would burn out people overtime and so in the longer term they would walk away.

That’s only for players too cheap to buy gems. The magnanimous nature of ANet providing the exchange made some believe that gold to gems is the proper way to buy from the gem shop. Of course this belief has caused the exchange rate to shoot up which then makes the gold “grind” more of an issue. So it’s a self-inflicted wound that keeps on wounding.

At least lately the exchange rate, outside of Gem Shop sales or new cool items, has been around 25-27g per 100 gems.

Because buying items with cash (directly from the cash-shop or by trading it for gold and then buying it) is playing the game?
Is in any way fun?

The way I did play other MMO’s was (outside doing quest) chasing those rewards. Special skins, toys, ranger / hunter pets, mini’s / companions and mounts.

Getting those involved completing quest-chains, completing dungeon, doing specific crafts (similar to how we now have scribing).

Sometimes there was some farming involved but overall it was a journey, it was fun collecting them. Buying them with cash.. or grinding gold to buy them is not fun.

So when you say ’That’s only for players too cheap to buy gems.’ you are missing the implications of this method of doing things. And that is exactly why I said the cash-shop focus results in grind and eventually bores people out.

Having those items in-game with fun mechanics makes the game fun, interesting and having plenty to do. When you focus on a cash-shop to generate items, you sell the bulk of those items for money (directly or indirectly) and so destroy that fun part of the game and turn it into a boring grind.

Again, that is why I always believed the cash-shop focus is bad for the game. It’s not so mutch the cash-shop that is the problem, but how the cash-shop focus effects the game.

Just out of curiosity, what MMOs were those and how did they fund their games?

Mainly L2 and WoW, both sub-games. But I don’t really like subs, F2P games have the problem I talk about here so thats also why I prefer the expansion-based model of GW1 so much.

The Chronicles of Spellborn was also great, that was F2P but started as sub, did not work out for them and so they went F2P but never really got support.

Devata.6589:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Devata.6589:

Behellagh.1468:

Devata.6589:

Mostly the same. As you know I always talked about the cash-shop focus, how that would turn things into grind because items would be mainly available by grinding gold instead of having a nice journey to hunt for those items. How that would burn out people overtime and so in the longer term they would walk away.

That’s only for players too cheap to buy gems. The magnanimous nature of ANet providing the exchange made some believe that gold to gems is the proper way to buy from the gem shop. Of course this belief has caused the exchange rate to shoot up which then makes the gold “grind” more of an issue. So it’s a self-inflicted wound that keeps on wounding.

At least lately the exchange rate, outside of Gem Shop sales or new cool items, has been around 25-27g per 100 gems.

Because buying items with cash (directly from the cash-shop or by trading it for gold and then buying it) is playing the game?
Is in any way fun?

The way I did play other MMO’s was (outside doing quest) chasing those rewards. Special skins, toys, ranger / hunter pets, mini’s / companions and mounts.

Getting those involved completing quest-chains, completing dungeon, doing specific crafts (similar to how we now have scribing).

Sometimes there was some farming involved but overall it was a journey, it was fun collecting them. Buying them with cash.. or grinding gold to buy them is not fun.

So when you say ’That’s only for players too cheap to buy gems.’ you are missing the implications of this method of doing things. And that is exactly why I said the cash-shop focus results in grind and eventually bores people out.

Having those items in-game with fun mechanics makes the game fun, interesting and having plenty to do. When you focus on a cash-shop to generate items, you sell the bulk of those items for money (directly or indirectly) and so destroy that fun part of the game and turn it into a boring grind.

Again, that is why I always believed the cash-shop focus is bad for the game. It’s not so mutch the cash-shop that is the problem, but how the cash-shop focus effects the game.

Just out of curiosity, what MMOs were those and how did they fund their games?

Mainly L2 and WoW, both sub-games. But I don’t really like subs, F2P games have the problem I talk about here so thats also why I prefer the expansion-based model of GW1 so much.

The Chronicles of Spellborn was also great, that was F2P but started as sub, did not work out for them and so they went F2P but never really got support.

Mainly L2 and WoW, both sub-games.
I’m not sure what game L2 is, but WoW is a financial giant with millions of subs paying each month ($15/month), paid expansions (~$60, about the same as what ANet charged), a cash shop and the ability to buy subs with gold (worth $20/month so even better for Blizzard than regular subs). It’s not to surprising with its billions (literally) flowing in to Blizzard that they can afford to “give away” mounts, minis, toys, etc, outside of their cash shop (they sell mounts in their cash shop too).

why I prefer the expansion-based model of GW1
Yes, a nice model if you can make it work. However Guild Wars 1 was a smaller game with a smaller staff. It was cheaper to make with its instanced content and only one race to design armor and animations for. It also had a cash shop towards the end of its supported years and even then it didn’t have mounts or quests that gave you mini pets, except for 1 or 2 farmed ones like the mini jingle bear (not counting birthday minis since you said quests). If Guild Wars 1 was the size and cost to produce that gw2 is, I have to wonder if it could have remained a mainly expansion model game or converted over to a cash shop priority to pay the bills.

So, excluding f2p and a game I don’t recognize, WoW has multiple sources of non expansion funds and Guild Wars 1 was a much smaller staffed, cheaper to make game that still didn’t have the side quests to get extra stuff you mention.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

I’m not sure what game L2 is, but WoW is a financial giant with millions of subs paying each month ($15/month), paid expansions (~$60, about the same as what ANet charged), a cash shop and the ability to buy subs with gold (worth $20/month so even better for Blizzard than regular subs). It’s not to surprising with its billions (literally) flowing in to Blizzard that they can afford to “give away” mounts, minis, toys, etc, outside of their cash shop (they sell mounts in their cash shop too).

why I prefer the expansion-based model of GW1
Yes, a nice model if you can make it work. However Guild Wars 1 was a smaller game with a smaller staff. It was cheaper to make with its instanced content and only one race to design armor and animations for. It also had a cash shop towards the end of its supported years and even then it didn’t have mounts or quests that gave you mini pets, except for 1 or 2 farmed ones like the mini jingle bear (not counting birthday minis since you said quests). If Guild Wars 1 was the size and cost to produce that gw2 is, I have to wonder if it could have remained a mainly expansion model game or converted over to a cash shop priority to pay the bills.

So, excluding f2p and a game I don’t recognize, WoW has multiple sources of non expansion funds and Guild Wars 1 was a much smaller staffed, cheaper to make game that still didn’t have the side quests to get extra stuff you mention.

You do understand that WoW did BECOME a financial giant right? They had build the game way before it became that giant.

You are turning things around, like if they could build the game that way because it was a giant.

GW1 maybe was a smaller game with a smaller team, But GW2 had a much bigger audience. Being a bigger game does not only mean having more work to do, but if you are lucky it also means getting more money because of more players. GW2 started as the fastest selling MMO. So it had a huge scope of people / audience. If it had manage to hold more of them (by maybe giving out mounts as you put it, or as I put it, make getting those items a journey instead of a grind) and it would sell an expansion every 1 to 1,5 year it had made more money by now then it did with the current approach.

One part of the excel tries to calculate exactly that. I looks at how good GW1 was at maintaining people (well income results) paying overtime (with expansions) vs GW2 and calculates how much they would have earned if GW2 would be able to keep people bound (spending) to the game just as well as GW1 did. In that case GW2 would have made much more money.

Now that might be a calculation that is based on an alternate reality and so you don’t know how the games would have sold if it used the other model, but it does show that if GW2 was better at keeping people it would have earned more money. Not that you need a calculation to understand that.

So the idea that making those items available in-game would mean they could not make enough money is false, if it did mean it would help them to hold more players who would then buy an expansion every 1 / 1,5 year.

It’s about retaining your player-base and then it does not matter if they pay you with the cash-shop or by buying the expansions. However if one model results in less people overtime, you can expect lower results overtime.

Really, it’s false to think that the expansion-based model would not be able to support a game of this size.