SAB temporary content - sincere question
1 2
Thats not true. There basically would still be a content drought as a content drought means no NEW content. There’s enough content in the game to play, just not everyone is playing it. Even if that content would still be in the game, it would be at least a year old.
I’m not saying that LS1 should have been permanent and then they should have done what they did afterwards anyway. I’m saying LS1 should have been permanent and then they should have continued with the LS1 model.
Imagine if every two weeks from the start of LS1 we’d received permanent updates on the scale of the Molten Alliance dungeon, or the Marionette, or the Silverwastes. Heck, not even every two weeks, every month.
The game would be crammed with content. We’d have dungeons to run, SAB to play, the Queen’s Gauntlet to try, Fractals to do (remember they came in LS1 too), new maps to explore… Who knows what else we could have had.
Instead, we have very little from Season 1, new players need to buy a lot of Season 2, HoT was a disappointment, and the most exciting thing we’ve had in a year and a half is that they turned on content that they chose to turn off in 2013.
And I’m saying the game is crammed with content right now. Which is where your argument falls apart.
Obviously if they continued with every two weeks new content that would cram the game full of content. Not that that is in any way realistic. Nor did they really do new content every two weeks. Some updates were very small and others very grindy. Not all were successful, but merely played because of their temporary availability.
Plus that second reason I stated, is still applicable, they couldn’t maintain that speed of development, without serious loss of quality, bugs and burning themselves out, and burning players out. So that would just lead to at least half the same problems.
That doesn’t mean there wasn’t good content in there obviously. But to say it would be crammed with good replayable content, while looking at the current permanent content with alot more development time. I dunno, but I don’t think what you say about LS1 being permanent and every two weeks would do the game any good as much as you say it would do.
“It isn’t working!” CL4P-TP
Ingame Name: Guardian Erik
Ingame Name: Guardian Erik
And I’m saying the game is crammed with content right now. Which is where your argument falls apart.
Is it really, there is very little content that retains its value after you are done leveling your first character. They also actively worked against people replaying a huge chunk of that content, ie. dungeons, while saying they did so that people would move to do content that they still plan on supporting.
However, where is this support towards fractals evident… we got an entire single fractal and few bits of re-purposed content, both way before this supposed shift in priorities. Yeah we got a legendary backpiece, except we did not, and we got leaderboards… except we, once again, did not.
This is just one example where what they are saying and what they are actually doing simply doesn’t add up. One of their key tenants for the game used to be content remaining viable as new content was added, yet the entire modus operandi of season 1 contradicted that. The content didn’t remain viable because it didn’t remain at all. Dungeons certainly aren’t viable anymore either, so what if what majority of the people went to them for was financial gain, those people still enabled the few that played them for other reasons to more easily enjoy the content.
And I’m saying the game is crammed with content right now. Which is where your argument falls apart.
Is it really, there is very little content that retains its value after you are done leveling your first character.
Now that they have map rewards, most of the level 80 zones have value. You just have to keep an eye on what they are for the week.
I think people need to qualify what they count as “content”.
- Some people want more maps to explore.
- Some people want to advance their character and have their exp go to something — they are largely waiting for more masteries.
- Some people want challenges to beat and achievements to score — hopefully, the third raid wing will make them happy.
- Some people want more story — they are waiting for LS3.
- Some people want shinies to achieve and show off — they were waiting for the new legendaries and want them to be released without the collections — perhaps as rare drops.
- Some people want more collections, with or without the shinies at the end.
- Some people want to play WvW — they are waiting for that to be fixed.
- Some people want sPvP tournaments — they are waiting for MMR matchmaking to be fixed.
Not everyone on this list will be happy, but MO seems to be trying to make a lot of them happy. There does seem to be some prioritization going on, so I am cautiously optimistic.
As for SAB (the original topic), a lot of people (including me) are sick of it already.
And I’m saying the game is crammed with content right now. Which is where your argument falls apart.
Is it really, there is very little content that retains its value after you are done leveling your first character.
Now that they have map rewards, most of the level 80 zones have value. You just have to keep an eye on what they are for the week.
Fair enough, if you are going for gold… there is still places to go. However, personally apart from it being nice to have a lot of gold right now I don’t really see a massive reason to focus farm for profit. You can craft your precursors for “free” (it will not be a huge one time investment of gold that is) and get Ascended gear for laurels and through fractals or raids.
Unless you really want to minmax on all your characters I don’t really see a huge reason to aim for pure in-game wealth right now.
I think people need to qualify what they count as “content”.
- Some people want more maps to explore.
- Some people want to advance their character and have their exp go to something — they are largely waiting for more masteries.
- Some people want challenges to beat and achievements to score — hopefully, the third raid wing will make them happy.
- Some people want more story — they are waiting for LS3.
- Some people want shinies to achieve and show off — they were waiting for the new legendaries and want them to be released without the collections — perhaps as rare drops.
- Some people want more collections, with or without the shinies at the end.
- Some people want to play WvW — they are waiting for that to be fixed.
- Some people want sPvP tournaments — they are waiting for MMR matchmaking to be fixed.
…
As for SAB (the original topic), a lot of people (including me) are sick of it already.
Agreed. People only seem to talk about what they don’t want, rather than explain what they do want.
I think that’s largely why the expansion turned out the way it did. The people who wanted challenging group content were more specific in what they wanted than the majority of the people who are now complaining that they didn’t get what they wanted.
(edited by Ticky.5831)
Agreed. People only seem to talk about what they don’t want, rather than explain what they do want.
I would really like to think that as a company with almost a decade or a decade of experience ArenaNet can read into the feedback they get. Most people don’t generally sing praises when they do good. Because they are happy they have no reason to expressly voice that opinion, they would rather spend the time playing instead.
Meanwhile a person like me, who has very little to do in the game would either be playing a different game (if it weren’t for SAB that would be the case) or talking kitten on the forums.
That crowd even is also just a minority, basically any feedback they get is not entirely representative sample of the general opinion unless they pick a decent chunk of random players and send surveys or something out. This or they dedicate some customer support reps into hanging around in the actual game reading chats and writing reports.
I think that’s largely why the expansion turned out the way it did. The people who wanted challenging group content were more specific in what they wanted than the majority of the people who are now complaining that they didn’t get what they wanted.
Even the group that wanted challenging group content only got it after the expansion technically. Yes it was probably, actually definitely, in development in tandem with the expansion.
However, with their delivery I think the issues with the expansion are only being made worse… I mean if I was a cynical person I would probably say that the HoT story and general PvE content was shafted by raids and WvW borderlands development. Bringing the latter up because I find it extremely amusing, in an ironic and sad way, that it is now being scrapped entirely, while being one of the major advertised features.
I mean they basically hit all the same issues as they did when the core game launched. To the point that it isn’t even funny. Just as with Arah story mode, the Dragon Stand has huge unused areas that were presumably cut out due to time constraints. I mean the ending wasn’t as bad as the core game, but it was if nothing predictable and basically an ending that puts a tremendous amount of pressure for the continuation of the story. The evidence of cutting corners in the expansion due to time is just pretty obvious all around.
Thinking on the expansion the few things they delivered on time and mostly without a hitch are the PvP leagues, everything else was either actually slated to launch after the release of the expansion or is still present in its absence. The few successful systemic changes that we actually got in the expansion are either stagnant or on ice completely (masteries, fractals, legendaries… etc).
Even the group that wanted challenging group content only got it after the expansion technically. Yes it was probably, actually definitely, in development in tandem with the expansion.
They also got it with the increased difficulty of the HoT zones.
WvW borderlands… that it is now being scrapped entirely, while being one of the major advertised features.
As of the quarterly update announcement last week, there is very little reason to suspect it’s being scrapped entirely. They are going to gateher feedback on it after the update, so it’s extremely likely that it’s coming back at some point after the Alpine map is re-released. Unless new information came out since then.
(edited by Ticky.5831)
They also got it with the increased difficulty of the HoT zones.
Not really, yeah Chak Gherent qualifies sort of, however, I believe ArenaNet specifically said about challenging group content before launch that they do not consider anything in the open world to be a part of that.
So by their own definition, the only challenging group content in HoT is raids, and 50-100 fractals, but that is a little sketchy because the content itself isn’t really new, just slightly reworked.
As of the quarterly update announcement last week, there is very little reason to suspect it’s being scrapped entirely. Unless new information came out since then.
I guess if you are optimistic, however, it could just as well be that the fixes to desert borderlands they will be trying with the April update (before bringing Alpine back) is only happening because those changes were already either finished or almost finished by the time they decided to ask the community instead. Let me put it this way, there is at least not any word on it actually coming back either.
More above in a late edit. Sorry.
I also believe you are incorrect, or if you are correct they had changed their minds regarding the HoT open world content at some point; as they did increase the difficulty to it in response to the feedback from the beta(IIRC; 1st weekend was super hard, second weekend was super-nerfed, 3rd weekend was in between but closer to 1st then 2nd, and then they nerfed it slightly at release, and then nerfed some hero points after release).
They also got it with the increased difficulty of the HoT zones.
I believe ArenaNet specifically said about challenging group content before launch that they do not consider anything in the open world to be a part of that.
I don’t consider this relevant. They said that that was not what they meant when they were teasing about challenging group content — the meaning in context is that there was another feature that was not yet announced (namely, raids). We are talking about people who wanted more difficult content. The former is a reference to a specific teased feature. The latter is a general interest that both the increased map difficulty and raids satisfy.
Put another way, Anet’s “definition” is completely irrelevant to my point, as I was not referencing it.
— they had changed their minds regarding the HoT open world content at some point; as they did increase the difficulty to it in response to the feedback from the beta(IIRC; 1st weekend was super hard, second weekend was super-nerfed, 3rd weekend was in between but closer to 1st then 2nd, and then they nerfed it slightly at release, and then nerfed some hero points after release).
I suppose you are right. However, also if the April update does what it is supposed to do we might just see another set of nerfs when it comes to open world PvE in HoT zones.
I mean they want to increase pickup play where you can achieve things in relatively short time. I doubt they will change stuff like TD or Tarir metas, but there really isn’t that much they can change other than lower the general difficult and unlock adventures to aim for the goal they set for themselves. I mean the maps were designed from the ground up in a way that makes this goal difficult to reach.
I think Dragon Stand in particular could be at a risk of being totally butchered if they try and change the time scale the events take place in.
I’ll concede the “everyone” thing. It’s a good point well made, although you have continued the bad habit!
My problem with SAB is that is a jokey mini-game that is in danger of outgrowing its remit. We’ve got calls for more levels, permanent access, more gem shop items. We’ve got people who want to spend all of their time playing it instead of the main game – the game they bought. SAB is not GW2. It started as a joke but it’s in danger of pulling dev resources away from the real game. and we know how short of resources they are. If you step back and strip away the hype, SAB is shallow and quite rubbish. This is, of course, just my opinion. Maybe everyone else but me feels differently, in which case I’m in the wrong game.
Sorry, point of my post wasn’t that relying on ‘everybody’ loving it, because I know everyone doesn’t, but more to do with asking why this content could not already be left in.
They made World 1 and 2 back in its first year and even made an Infinite Continue Coin for when they would release World 3 + 4, then it just got taken out and no longer got prioritized. It was already made, and yes, while they would require developers to make world 3+4, the fact remains that world 1+2 already are in place.
The argument that not leaving it in is because they would need resources to make sure it works with every future patch… but honestly, you’d think it would require less effort if you continously ensured it worked with new patches being put out than leaving it derelict until such time some dev stumbles over it and they want to bring it back – at which point so much work might be required they just can the idea and then it’s gone forever.
Leaving it in, with only World 1 and 2 for now, lets people play it at their own leisure to finish the achievements they haven’t got sorted yet and get hold of skins they’d like to get. I’m not saying the devs should focus content for SAB over LS3 + raid, etc. But they are still far from getting those done and at least SAB contributes with a little something people can play for diversity. As opposed to the same ol’ grind in the open world, non-overhauled WvW… plus another month or so with PvP off-season coming up in little over 2 weeks (April 23rd, isn’t that the next patch day)…
Lord Sazed / Hasla the Huntress / Seaguard Hala
Seamarshal Belit / Initiate Xun Tsu / Mistwarden Roshone
Seafarer’s Rest | Northerner @ Dragon Season
Seamarshal Belit / Initiate Xun Tsu / Mistwarden Roshone
Seafarer’s Rest | Northerner @ Dragon Season
The argument that not leaving it in is because they would need resources to make sure it works with every future patch… but honestly, you’d think it would require less effort if you continously ensured it worked with new patches being put out than leaving it derelict until such time some dev stumbles over it and they want to bring it back – at which point so much work might be required they just can the idea and then it’s gone forever.
This is absolutely true, btw. the reason SAB was so badly broken apparently is most likely because it is content that has not been part of the game for a long time. Code that is not maintained tends to rot like food… not because it is any worse than it was when it was originally written but because things around it keep changing. This is usually called code or software rot.
There is a another kind of code rot as well though, and that is when there is too much forward change and not enough maintenance, which means that the code becomes brittle as it evolves because more and more things in it change and not enough attention is paid in keeping the code at a constant quality level. I suppose if one wanted to differentiate the two, one would be rot that affects functionality and the other rot that affects quality.
I am positive that HoT broke more existing content than just SAB, but because most of that content was actively part of the game it got pro-actively prepared for HoT to become a thing, which means if something broke when HoT released addressing it would be easier (I believe Grab Toss, for example had some issues… potentially some other activities that are now resolved if I am not mistaken).
Edit: sorry, as someone who has had to deal with both kinds of code rot I couldn’t resist extrapolating on it a little.
(edited by Crise.9401)
The argument that not leaving it in is because they would need resources to make sure it works with every future patch… but honestly, you’d think it would require less effort if you continously ensured it worked with new patches being put out than leaving it derelict until such time some dev stumbles over it and they want to bring it back – at which point so much work might be required they just can the idea and then it’s gone forever.
This is absolutely true, btw. the reason SAB was so badly broken apparently is most likely because it is content that has not been part of the game for a long time. Code that is not maintained tends to rot like food… not because it is any worse than it was when it was originally written but because things around it keep changing. This is usually called code or software rot.
There is a another kind of code rot as well though, and that is when there is too much forward change and not enough maintenance, which means that the code becomes brittle as it evolves because more and more things in it change and not enough attention is paid in keeping the code at a constant quality level. I suppose if one wanted to differentiate the two, one would be rot that affects functionality and the other rot that affects quality.
I am positive that HoT broke more existing content than just SAB, but because most of that content was actively part of the game it got pro-actively prepared for HoT to become a thing, which means if something broke when HoT released addressing it would be easier (I believe Grab Toss, for example had some issues… potentially some other activities that are now resolved if I am not mistaken).
Edit: sorry, as someone who has had to deal with both kinds of code rot I couldn’t resist extrapolating on it a little.
As a programmer myself, I believe it is easier to let it languish and fix it all at once than to fix it each time you patch. There are two reasons for this.
First and foremost, you only need to do comprehensive testing once rather than each time you patch. Testing can be more involved than just seeing if it builds and loads. What if just the eagle didn’t work? You’d need to test enough to see that, rather than just seeing if the levels load.
Second, sometimes later changes cause you to undo previous changes. When you do it all at once, you can see a bigger picture and can rewrite sections of code that you would be tempted to write a quick fix for a smaller patch.
So, I do think it is less work to dust it off and fix it up once a year over leaving it in all the time.
How many speak about Marionette as the most exciting boss they fought in GW2?
The only good thing I got out of Marionette was The Lover. The design was excellent, except for the part where you had to rely on 24 other players, mostly underequipped and clueless, to not screw up. That and the hell of trying to find and stay in a good map that makes the current situation with Dragon’s Stand look like Disneyland.
Personally, I’m hoping they decide to be generous to us and simply extend it by another week. One more week of SAB! If they surprised us with that at the last minute, people would be giddy to have a slight extension to finish up their achieves or grind out more baubles for guild hall decorations. Folks would love it!
Similarly, this would give the devs an extra week of content creation/balance/bugfixes/etc that they wouldn’t have had, and likely allowing them to throw another layer of polish on whatever incoming build they have in store for us. Even if the upcoming patch is already finalized, this would provide the dev team a bit of time to “work ahead,” as it were, on larger ongoing projects or get a few errant tasks completed.
It’s a win/win!
Chant with me now, bookahs: “One more week! One more week!”
One more week would be great. SAB is currently overlapping with the last few weeks of the second PvP season. As a Johnny-Come-Lately, it is very difficult to find the energy to take in both every night. And getting four wins when I want to quit and have actual fun after two matches is not happening.
I find it funny and bothering at the same time that a side game they created for fun is getting more love than the original game.
As a programmer myself, I believe it is easier to let it languish and fix it all at once than to fix it each time you patch. There are two reasons for this.
This certainly can be possible, but it depends on more than just the nature of the problems in the code in question. I don’t think we can be absolutely certain with the lack of info about their workflow as to which applies here, however, personally based on how they have addressed bringing back old content (see S1 and Alpine Borderlands in addition to SAB of course) on prior occasions I would lean towards the idea that it is by default more cost effective if a piece of content remains in the game (again, the nature of future changes could of course change this at any time its not like it is a constant).
First and foremost, you only need to do comprehensive testing once rather than each time you patch. Testing can be more involved than just seeing if it builds and loads. What if just the eagle didn’t work? You’d need to test enough to see that, rather than just seeing if the levels load.
Whether this is the cost effective approach depends in my opinion on how much responsibility on the testing the actual developer has, because in many instances the time of the actual developer is more valuable than the time of a QA tester. Also, QA can effectively be free or almost free (see ArenaNet’s volunteer testing opportunities and public tests), while its objectivity and efficiency may suffer slightly as a result.
There is also an argument to be made for the fact that a code which you have to keep working with, if even periodically, remains fresh on your mind so there will be less moments where you will go “what the kitten I was thinking here again”. Whereas doing it only once a year those moments grow more and more likely. Because no matter how exhaustive your documentation, it will never beat actually being able to recall the thought process behind a change or a piece of logic.
I have worked with massive changelists caused by precisely this kind of approach to maintenance and it puts more pressure on the one that has to sign off on those changes as well as on the testing process because the changes are not incremental (ie, testing has to be more thorough).
Second, sometimes later changes cause you to undo previous changes. When you do it all at once, you can see a bigger picture and can rewrite sections of code that you would be tempted to write a quick fix for a smaller patch.
The smaller your patches are, in a production environment, the better… however, I agree that seeing the bigger picture is useful when your goal is specifically to improve code quality. When the primary goal is for the code to remain operational and at the same quality level, rather than improve it, you try to change as few variables at once as possible, because as long as conditions remain constant there can be no code rot.
ArenaNet’s development practice is iterative, I don’t know if it qualifies as something like agile specifically, however, I don’t think that having to forward port old code over several sets of changes meshes well with that philosophy. It also has the downside where if the code is old enough the people familiar with the old system vs the new system might be different (you tend to actively work towards forgetting the old ways to do things if you can).
There is no version in which you can, cost effectively, avoid code rot entirely… one kind or another will show up eventually, you want to simply minimize it as long as you can.
Disclaimer: entirely theoretical section to follow, not really part of the discussion per se.
The most cost effective way for a piece of code to remain compatible across revisions, requires tremendous effort from the low level engine developers (and any layer on top of that, really).
This is the principle in which all API’s start off as minimal and remain stable. If your API is to remain stable you define it as minimally as possible to start off with because everything you add to it can never be removed or change in behavior so that it appears to the user in any way.
If you can retain that, there can effectively be a situation in which, because capabilities are never removed, no matter how old code you need to run that relies on those API’s it will at least function as it was designed to function. If you add binary compatibility in to the mix, well then you are in for a fun fun ride.
Of course that is the ideal scenario, and in real world applications where you have to rely on middleware and other dependencies sometimes keeping those principles intact can be quite challenging., maybe even impossible if your product lives long enough (ie. operating system level dependencies getting deprecated f.ex., and we know how horrible Microsoft historically is in their API design).
Edit: this is, of course, entirely speculative. I am basing this on the assumption that the changes in the scale that HoT introduced happen at most once per expansion cycle (the length of which we don’t know), if it is once a year or once every two years f.ex. the situation could be completely different.
My own preference should also be fairly obvious, however, ArenaNet might not base decision on SAB availability purely on cost effectiveness. It might also be based on that they assume best RoI comes from temporary content even if bringing SAB up-to date each time might take some extra time. Also, the presence and lack of future development on SAB itself probably impacts which is actually the most effective strategy be it in terms of RoI or cost effectiveness.
I still maintain that keeping SAB functional should not have, in theory, any large associated cost than say keeping Sanctum Sprint/Southsun Survival operational. Whether that is less than more than the cost of bringing it back as yearly festival I can’t say for certain.
(edited by Crise.9401)
1 2