Guild Wars 2

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

darkace.8925:

Vayne.8563:

See the Living World wasn’t bad. It wasn’t bad on paper. It wasn’t bad in it’s execution though it was uneven. Toward the end of the first season the Living World picked up some converts that hated it in the beginning. The Marionette fight was very popular. Escape from Lion’s Arch was very popular too. So calling it bad, just because you say so is problematical.

You’re very conveniently ignoring the bug-ridden fiasco that was the Season 1 finale.

Edit: And again, I’ve got to point out your double standard. You closed your paragraph with “so calling it bad, just because you say so is problematical”. You opened that very paragraph with “see the Living World wasn’t bad”. Since what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, I’m going to say to you “calling it good, just because you say so is problematical.”

How many times do we have to dance this dance. I’m RESPONDING to a statement. I’ve never come into a thread and said, the living word is awesome or good or great. I respond to people who empirically state it’s bad. I’m RESPONDING.

Why aren’t you picking on the person who made the wrong statement in the first place? Oh right, because you agree with him.

As a respondant, I always fight fire with fire intentionally. There’s no good or bad, it’s all just opinion. My opinion is stated in a way to head of his opinion.

Edit: And I didn’t ignore the finale. That’s why I said the quality was uneven. I didn’t say it was all great. I pointed to things that many people thought were great. The finale wasn’t as dismal a failure as some make it out to be. I also didn’t bring out the Nightmare Tower which a lot of people liked.

But I did say the Living Story season was was uneven in quality in many places. So far, however, the Living Story Season 2 has surpassed Season 1 in many ways FOR ME.

Nothing wrong with what I said.

You even say “The logic is, if the numbers aren’t supporting what they were doing they’d change it.”
Here’s a change because the numbers didn’t support it. If it was a good thing, they wouldn’t need to change it.

In any case, I don’t bother with arguing semantics anymore.

This isn’t a semantic argument. The argument you’re giving that they changed something has nothing to do with the quality of the living story in an meaningful way. It has to do with it’s temporary nature. Now if the living story stuff sucked so badly why would people want it in the game permanently. The answer is they wouldn’t.

And this thread is about Season 2 anyway, which is permanent. You’re the one playing semantics so let me rephrase.

If the player base weren’t playing the living story in Season 1 in numbers large enough to justify them investing the manpower and expense to create seaseon 2, Anet would have scrapped season 2 and went with a more traditional approach.

Looky, looky here. Who’s nitpicking on how to determine “the quality of the living story in an meaningful way”?
The temporary nature is (was) part of the “living” world. Trying to discount it is silly.

Anyway, it was bad enough to restructure their development process.

Angel McCoy.1832:

We’ve made a lot of changes for Season 2. We’re continually improving our processes with each new release. The most notable being that we no longer have 4 Living World teams, each making their own content; we have 1. This has allowed us to create much more cohesive releases, and I think you’ll find that our story hangs together quite well in Season 2.

By the way, I consider “cohesion” being related to quality, and that’s just part of what was bad (“bad”, haha).

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

darkace.8925:

Vayne.8563:

See the Living World wasn’t bad. It wasn’t bad on paper. It wasn’t bad in it’s execution though it was uneven. Toward the end of the first season the Living World picked up some converts that hated it in the beginning. The Marionette fight was very popular. Escape from Lion’s Arch was very popular too. So calling it bad, just because you say so is problematical.

You’re very conveniently ignoring the bug-ridden fiasco that was the Season 1 finale.

Edit: And again, I’ve got to point out your double standard. You closed your paragraph with “so calling it bad, just because you say so is problematical”. You opened that very paragraph with “see the Living World wasn’t bad”. Since what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, I’m going to say to you “calling it good, just because you say so is problematical.”

How many times do we have to dance this dance. I’m RESPONDING to a statement. I’ve never come into a thread and said, the living word is awesome or good or great. I respond to people who empirically state it’s bad. I’m RESPONDING.

Why aren’t you picking on the person who made the wrong statement in the first place? Oh right, because you agree with him.

As a respondant, I always fight fire with fire intentionally. There’s no good or bad, it’s all just opinion. My opinion is stated in a way to head of his opinion.

Edit: And I didn’t ignore the finale. That’s why I said the quality was uneven. I didn’t say it was all great. I pointed to things that many people thought were great. The finale wasn’t as dismal a failure as some make it out to be. I also didn’t bring out the Nightmare Tower which a lot of people liked.

But I did say the Living Story season was was uneven in quality in many places. So far, however, the Living Story Season 2 has surpassed Season 1 in many ways FOR ME.

Nothing wrong with what I said.

You even say “The logic is, if the numbers aren’t supporting what they were doing they’d change it.”
Here’s a change because the numbers didn’t support it. If it was a good thing, they wouldn’t need to change it.

In any case, I don’t bother with arguing semantics anymore.

This isn’t a semantic argument. The argument you’re giving that they changed something has nothing to do with the quality of the living story in an meaningful way. It has to do with it’s temporary nature. Now if the living story stuff sucked so badly why would people want it in the game permanently. The answer is they wouldn’t.

And this thread is about Season 2 anyway, which is permanent. You’re the one playing semantics so let me rephrase.

If the player base weren’t playing the living story in Season 1 in numbers large enough to justify them investing the manpower and expense to create seaseon 2, Anet would have scrapped season 2 and went with a more traditional approach.

Looky, looky here. Who’s nitpicking on how to determine “the quality of the living story in an meaningful way”?
The temporary nature is (was) part of the “living” world. Trying to discount it is silly.

Anyway, it was bad enough to restructure their development process.

We’ve made a lot of changes for Season 2. We’re continually improving our processes with each new release. The most notable being that we no longer have 4 Living World teams, each making their own content; we have 1. This has allowed us to create much more cohesive releases, and I think you’ll find that our story hangs together quite well in Season 2.

By the way, I consider “cohesion” being related to quality, and that’s just part of what was bad (“bad”, haha).

Last year the store I manage saw overall sales increases of more than 3%. EBITDA increases were in the +8% range. I restructured and reorganized aspects of the business not because it was bad but because there is always room for improvement. EBITDA is now up 5% over last year’s already great numbers.

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

darkace.8925:

Vayne.8563:

See the Living World wasn’t bad. It wasn’t bad on paper. It wasn’t bad in it’s execution though it was uneven. Toward the end of the first season the Living World picked up some converts that hated it in the beginning. The Marionette fight was very popular. Escape from Lion’s Arch was very popular too. So calling it bad, just because you say so is problematical.

You’re very conveniently ignoring the bug-ridden fiasco that was the Season 1 finale.

Edit: And again, I’ve got to point out your double standard. You closed your paragraph with “so calling it bad, just because you say so is problematical”. You opened that very paragraph with “see the Living World wasn’t bad”. Since what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, I’m going to say to you “calling it good, just because you say so is problematical.”

How many times do we have to dance this dance. I’m RESPONDING to a statement. I’ve never come into a thread and said, the living word is awesome or good or great. I respond to people who empirically state it’s bad. I’m RESPONDING.

Why aren’t you picking on the person who made the wrong statement in the first place? Oh right, because you agree with him.

As a respondant, I always fight fire with fire intentionally. There’s no good or bad, it’s all just opinion. My opinion is stated in a way to head of his opinion.

Edit: And I didn’t ignore the finale. That’s why I said the quality was uneven. I didn’t say it was all great. I pointed to things that many people thought were great. The finale wasn’t as dismal a failure as some make it out to be. I also didn’t bring out the Nightmare Tower which a lot of people liked.

But I did say the Living Story season was was uneven in quality in many places. So far, however, the Living Story Season 2 has surpassed Season 1 in many ways FOR ME.

Nothing wrong with what I said.

You even say “The logic is, if the numbers aren’t supporting what they were doing they’d change it.”
Here’s a change because the numbers didn’t support it. If it was a good thing, they wouldn’t need to change it.

In any case, I don’t bother with arguing semantics anymore.

This isn’t a semantic argument. The argument you’re giving that they changed something has nothing to do with the quality of the living story in an meaningful way. It has to do with it’s temporary nature. Now if the living story stuff sucked so badly why would people want it in the game permanently. The answer is they wouldn’t.

And this thread is about Season 2 anyway, which is permanent. You’re the one playing semantics so let me rephrase.

If the player base weren’t playing the living story in Season 1 in numbers large enough to justify them investing the manpower and expense to create seaseon 2, Anet would have scrapped season 2 and went with a more traditional approach.

Looky, looky here. Who’s nitpicking on how to determine “the quality of the living story in an meaningful way”?
The temporary nature is (was) part of the “living” world. Trying to discount it is silly.

Anyway, it was bad enough to restructure their development process.

We’ve made a lot of changes for Season 2. We’re continually improving our processes with each new release. The most notable being that we no longer have 4 Living World teams, each making their own content; we have 1. This has allowed us to create much more cohesive releases, and I think you’ll find that our story hangs together quite well in Season 2.

By the way, I consider “cohesion” being related to quality, and that’s just part of what was bad (“bad”, haha).

I wasn’t talking about cohesion, I was talking about uneven quality. I didn’t really have a problem with the cohesion I had a problem with some events being less fun for me than others.

The beauty of that was, in most games if you didn’t like a big patch, you have to wait months for the next one. Waiting two weeks is a lot easier.

Vayne.8563:

Why aren’t you picking on the person who made the wrong statement in the first place? Oh right, because you agree with him.

This isn’t the first time you’ve been wrong when presuming to speak for me, but I actually agree with both of you. I think the overall quality of the Living Story: Season 1 was very poor, but I also think the quality improved markedly toward the end. And I think Season 2, thus far, has been better still.

About you presuming to speak for me, that’s yet another of your double standards. You recently replied to the accusation of being a paid shill for this game with, and I’m paraphrasing here, “just because the majority of my posts are supportive or praising doesn’t mean I think it’s perfect. I just don’t bother posting criticisms because I feel what criticism I have to offer has already been covered.”

So that’s one standard for you. But then you turn around and call me jaded because my posts are generally critical. That’s a different standard for me than the one you’re applying to yourself. I’m doing exactly what you’re doing from the other side of the same coin, and you label me one thing while telling others it’s unfair for them to label you the opposite. That, my friend, is a double standard.

darkace.8925:

Vayne.8563:

Why aren’t you picking on the person who made the wrong statement in the first place? Oh right, because you agree with him.

This isn’t the first time you’ve been wrong when presuming to speak for me, but I actually agree with both of you. I think the overall quality of the Living Story: Season 1 was very poor, but I also think the quality improved markedly toward the end. And I think Season 2, thus far, has been better still.

About you presuming to speak for me, that’s yet another of your double standards. You recently replied to the accusation of being a paid shill for this game with, and I’m paraphrasing here, “just because the majority of my posts are supportive or praising doesn’t mean I think it’s perfect. I just don’t bother posting criticisms because I feel what criticism I have to offer has already been covered.”

So that’s one standard for you. But then you turn around and call me jaded because my posts are generally critical. That’s a different standard for me than the one you’re applying to yourself. I’m doing exactly what you’re doing from the other side of the same coin, and you label me one thing while telling others it’s unfair for them to label you the opposite. That, my friend, is a double standard.

I said it once in one post, what, a week ago? I haven’t said anything else about you since. I regret saying it. I felt it was true, but I still shouldn’t have said it.

They say that most vocal non-smoker is the guy who gave up smoking. You used to be very pro game and you switched to being not so pro. It’s affected you more than someone who wasn’t pro game in the first place…which is understandable. So I’m sorry I said that. I shouldn’t have.

But I stopped.

You didn’t say anything to the guy who said that the living story was bad (as an empirical statement). You did say something about me responding to him. I don’t know how else to take that but as a double standard.

Ashen.2907:

Last year the store I manage saw overall sales increases of more than 3%. EBITDA increases were in the +8% range. I restructured and reorganized aspects of the business not because it was bad but because there is always room for improvement. EBITDA is now up 5% over last year’s already great numbers.

Good for you. Well, Anet made these changes because they were common complaints. Complaints happened because they were bad.
(In before white knights counters with ’whiners whine about everything")

Vayne.8563:

I wasn’t talking about cohesion, I was talking about uneven quality. I didn’t really have a problem with the cohesion I had a problem with some events being less fun for me than others.

The beauty of that was, in most games if you didn’t like a big patch, you have to wait months for the next one. Waiting two weeks is a lot easier.

Good for you.
They’re making changes to living world because there were plenty of bad things about it.

Vayne.8563:

You didn’t say anything to the guy who said that the living story was bad (as an empirical statement). You did say something about me responding to him. I don’t know how else to take that but as a double standard.

Anet proved it with your logic.

BlueZone.4236:

Ashen.2907:

Last year the store I manage saw overall sales increases of more than 3%. EBITDA increases were in the +8% range. I restructured and reorganized aspects of the business not because it was bad but because there is always room for improvement. EBITDA is now up 5% over last year’s already great numbers.

Good for you. Well, Anet made these changes because they were common complaints. Complaints happened because they were bad.
(In before white knights counters with ’whiners whine about everything")

Vayne.8563:

I wasn’t talking about cohesion, I was talking about uneven quality. I didn’t really have a problem with the cohesion I had a problem with some events being less fun for me than others.

The beauty of that was, in most games if you didn’t like a big patch, you have to wait months for the next one. Waiting two weeks is a lot easier.

Good for you.
They’re making changes to living world because there were plenty of bad things about it.

Vayne.8563:

You didn’t say anything to the guy who said that the living story was bad (as an empirical statement). You did say something about me responding to him. I don’t know how else to take that but as a double standard.

Anet proved it with your logic.

Nope, improving something isn’t the same thing as saying it was bad to begin with. I’ve seen many foods that were new and improved, but they were fine before they were new and improved.

When I edit something professionally, I’m usually (hopefully) improving it. It could have been awesome and there’s still room for improvement.

Calling something bad just because there’s room for improvement would mean that everything is bad. Because there’s always room for improvement.

Anet made changes to something that wasn’t as good at first (to me), got better (to me), and now they’ve made it even better (to me).

I actually loved the Nightmare Tower, the Marionette Fight and the Escape from LA. To me it was good stuff. There was room for improvement even within those things I loved. But they were by no means bad (to me).

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Ashen.2907:

Last year the store I manage saw overall sales increases of more than 3%. EBITDA increases were in the +8% range. I restructured and reorganized aspects of the business not because it was bad but because there is always room for improvement. EBITDA is now up 5% over last year’s already great numbers.

Good for you. Well, Anet made these changes because they were common complaints. Complaints happened because they were bad.
(In before white knights counters with ’whiners whine about everything")

Vayne.8563:

I wasn’t talking about cohesion, I was talking about uneven quality. I didn’t really have a problem with the cohesion I had a problem with some events being less fun for me than others.

The beauty of that was, in most games if you didn’t like a big patch, you have to wait months for the next one. Waiting two weeks is a lot easier.

Good for you.
They’re making changes to living world because there were plenty of bad things about it.

Vayne.8563:

You didn’t say anything to the guy who said that the living story was bad (as an empirical statement). You did say something about me responding to him. I don’t know how else to take that but as a double standard.

Anet proved it with your logic.

Nope, improving something isn’t the same thing as saying it was bad to begin with. I’ve seen many foods that were new and improved, but they were fine before they were new and improved.

When I edit something professionally, I’m usually (hopefully) improving it. It could have been awesome and there’s still room for improvement.

Calling something bad just because there’s room for improvement would mean that everything is bad. Because there’s always room for improvement.

Anet made changes to something that wasn’t as good at first (to me), got better (to me), and now they’ve made it even better (to me).

I actually loved the Nightmare Tower, the Marionette Fight and the Escape from LA. To me it was good stuff. There was room for improvement even within those things I loved. But they were by no means bad (to me).

Yep, restructuring your team to address obvious complaints is because that’s what was bad about them. Because their old structure was bad, which reflected onto their content.
Just because you didn’t see the problem doesn’t mean other people didn’t see them. No need to put them on a pedestal.

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Ashen.2907:

Last year the store I manage saw overall sales increases of more than 3%. EBITDA increases were in the +8% range. I restructured and reorganized aspects of the business not because it was bad but because there is always room for improvement. EBITDA is now up 5% over last year’s already great numbers.

Good for you. Well, Anet made these changes because they were common complaints. Complaints happened because they were bad.
(In before white knights counters with ’whiners whine about everything")

Vayne.8563:

I wasn’t talking about cohesion, I was talking about uneven quality. I didn’t really have a problem with the cohesion I had a problem with some events being less fun for me than others.

The beauty of that was, in most games if you didn’t like a big patch, you have to wait months for the next one. Waiting two weeks is a lot easier.

Good for you.
They’re making changes to living world because there were plenty of bad things about it.

Vayne.8563:

You didn’t say anything to the guy who said that the living story was bad (as an empirical statement). You did say something about me responding to him. I don’t know how else to take that but as a double standard.

Anet proved it with your logic.

Nope, improving something isn’t the same thing as saying it was bad to begin with. I’ve seen many foods that were new and improved, but they were fine before they were new and improved.

When I edit something professionally, I’m usually (hopefully) improving it. It could have been awesome and there’s still room for improvement.

Calling something bad just because there’s room for improvement would mean that everything is bad. Because there’s always room for improvement.

Anet made changes to something that wasn’t as good at first (to me), got better (to me), and now they’ve made it even better (to me).

I actually loved the Nightmare Tower, the Marionette Fight and the Escape from LA. To me it was good stuff. There was room for improvement even within those things I loved. But they were by no means bad (to me).

Yep, restructuring your team to address obvious complaints is because that’s what was bad about them. Because their old structure was bad, which reflected onto their content.
Just because you didn’t see the problem doesn’t mean other people didn’t see them. No need to put them on a pedestal.

See, that’s ridiculous. Claiming I’m putting something on a pedestal. I’m not. I’m simply not using an subjective term objectively. If you wish to defend that, by all means go right ahead. It doesn’t change anything at all.

Mosharn.8357:

Events dont count. They are just the same events we already have all over the game. As for crafting the skins. Thats optional and they dont look like they are worth the bother.

I disagree. Events do count as content. Anything that can be slapped on a box or in a press release when promoting a game counts as content. I’ve often seen MMOs tout an expansion adding X new quests, so by that standard I don’t see why new events wouldn’t count as content.

And just because you don’t deem something “worth the bother” doesn’t mean it doesn’t qualify as content. If I applied that same standard, sPvP and Fractals wouldn’t qualify as content. They clearly are, even if I don’t find them “worth the bother”. You’re not being objective when you dismiss something entirely simply because you don’t enjoy it.

Vayne.8563:

cesmode.4257:

laokoko.7403:

I dont’ find the living story very interesting compare to expansions of other games.

The main problem I find is Anet dont’ spend alot of time working on their core games, but spend much of their time making on small extensions content which people will play a few times and never do it again.

Exactly.

Things like dungeons and the open world DEs that launched with the game have gone abandoned since early release. All focus is on LS and zones of the week that foster zergs and tactfulless and mindless combat. It is why I cannot support this game anymore.

But the new LS opened new areas with new events. Shrugs.

People see what they want to see.

I kind of quit the game because of real life issue. So I’m not too familiar with the new area since I only did it once.

What I’m trying to say is take the previous area “South Sun Cove”. I won’t really go back to it beside doing Karka Queen.

Mostly what I’m trying to say is Anet is pushing out “a lot” of content, but they either lack depth or they haven’t put much thought on the reward system so people wont’ “repeat” them.

Other games put out a dungeon or area, they’ll make the most out of it, and make sure people spend a lot of time in them. But in GW2, they push out dungeon or area, people will just do the content once and never go back.

Vayne.8563:

See, that’s ridiculous. Claiming I’m putting something on a pedestal. I’m not. I’m simply not using an subjective term objectively. If you wish to defend that, by all means go right ahead. It doesn’t change anything at all.

There’s nothing to defend here. It was bad enough for them to do a drastic change internally and externally.
The old structure wasn’t working. Some of us saw it. Anet sees it. You didn’t.
Now they’re testing a new structure, that tries to retain some of the philosophy of the old structure.

Taygus.4571:

jiust log in once every 2 weeks, ..don’t play. in 6 months time, then play. Should have “lots of content” then.

to burn through in a few days, just as you would with an expansion.

Can we close this thread now? Taygus just said what was needed to be said. Done.

laokoko.7403:

Vayne.8563:

cesmode.4257:

laokoko.7403:

I dont’ find the living story very interesting compare to expansions of other games.

The main problem I find is Anet dont’ spend alot of time working on their core games, but spend much of their time making on small extensions content which people will play a few times and never do it again.

Exactly.

Things like dungeons and the open world DEs that launched with the game have gone abandoned since early release. All focus is on LS and zones of the week that foster zergs and tactfulless and mindless combat. It is why I cannot support this game anymore.

But the new LS opened new areas with new events. Shrugs.

People see what they want to see.

I kind of quit the game because of real life issue. So I’m not too familiar with the new area since I only did it once.

What I’m trying to say is take the previous area “South Sun Cove”. I won’t really go back to it beside doing Karka Queen.

Mostly what I’m trying to say is Anet is pushing out “a lot” of content, but they either lack depth or they haven’t put much thought on the reward system so people wont’ “repeat” them.

Other games put out a dungeon or area, they’ll make the most out of it, and make sure people spend a lot of time in them. But in GW2, they push out dungeon or area, people will just do the content once and never go back.

The new area is much much better than Southsun in my opinion with much more to do. There’s a lot going on. You should check it out.

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

See, that’s ridiculous. Claiming I’m putting something on a pedestal. I’m not. I’m simply not using an subjective term objectively. If you wish to defend that, by all means go right ahead. It doesn’t change anything at all.

There’s nothing to defend here. It was bad enough for them to do a drastic change internally and externally.
The old structure wasn’t working. Some of us saw it. Anet sees it. You didn’t.
Now they’re testing a new structure, that tries to retain some of the philosophy of the old structure.

The fact that the old structure was temporary and unsustainable was definitely not working. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the story when you play it.

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

See, that’s ridiculous. Claiming I’m putting something on a pedestal. I’m not. I’m simply not using an subjective term objectively. If you wish to defend that, by all means go right ahead. It doesn’t change anything at all.

There’s nothing to defend here. It was bad enough for them to do a drastic change internally and externally.
The old structure wasn’t working. Some of us saw it. Anet sees it. You didn’t.
Now they’re testing a new structure, that tries to retain some of the philosophy of the old structure.

The fact that the old structure was temporary and unsustainable was definitely not working. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the story when you play it.

Uhh…yes, it does. The dev I quoted included the word “cohesion”.
Their teams worked fairly independently from one another.
People picked up on how poor the cohesiveness of the story was even if they didn’t know how Anet was internally structured. Because it showed in their work. No, I don’t care that you didn’t see the problem. People saw it. Anet addressed it.
Again, this is just one part of the problem amongst many others.

I doubt the current structure solves the QA problem, though.
That requires something they can’t address with the old or new structure: development time.

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

See, that’s ridiculous. Claiming I’m putting something on a pedestal. I’m not. I’m simply not using an subjective term objectively. If you wish to defend that, by all means go right ahead. It doesn’t change anything at all.

There’s nothing to defend here. It was bad enough for them to do a drastic change internally and externally.
The old structure wasn’t working. Some of us saw it. Anet sees it. You didn’t.
Now they’re testing a new structure, that tries to retain some of the philosophy of the old structure.

The fact that the old structure was temporary and unsustainable was definitely not working. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the story when you play it.

Uhh…yes, it does. The dev I quoted included the word “cohesion”.
Their teams worked fairly independently from one another.
People picked up on how poor the cohesiveness of the story was even if they didn’t know how Anet was internally structured. Because it showed in their work. No, I don’t care that you didn’t see the problem. People saw it. Anet addressed it.
Again, this is just one part of the problem amongst many others.

I doubt the current structure solves the QA problem, though.
That requires something they can’t address with the old or new structure: development time.

All of which still doesn’t make it objectively “bad”. You kept using the word. I’m happy to say that it lacked cohesion. That still is one deficiency. There’s still an over all bad and good. The way you post makes it seem like the living story was bad, when in fact the living story wasn’t bad, even if it had elements that needed work.

You refuse to acknowledge that painting the living world as bad, deficiencies or no deficiencies, is your opinion and the opinion of other people. There are others, plenty of others, who found the living story good. There’s no objective good and bad here, it’s all opinion.

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

See, that’s ridiculous. Claiming I’m putting something on a pedestal. I’m not. I’m simply not using an subjective term objectively. If you wish to defend that, by all means go right ahead. It doesn’t change anything at all.

There’s nothing to defend here. It was bad enough for them to do a drastic change internally and externally.
The old structure wasn’t working. Some of us saw it. Anet sees it. You didn’t.
Now they’re testing a new structure, that tries to retain some of the philosophy of the old structure.

The fact that the old structure was temporary and unsustainable was definitely not working. However, that has nothing to do with the quality of the story when you play it.

Uhh…yes, it does. The dev I quoted included the word “cohesion”.
Their teams worked fairly independently from one another.
People picked up on how poor the cohesiveness of the story was even if they didn’t know how Anet was internally structured. Because it showed in their work. No, I don’t care that you didn’t see the problem. People saw it. Anet addressed it.
Again, this is just one part of the problem amongst many others.

I doubt the current structure solves the QA problem, though.
That requires something they can’t address with the old or new structure: development time.

All of which still doesn’t make it objectively “bad”. You kept using the word. I’m happy to say that it lacked cohesion. That still is one deficiency. There’s still an over all bad and good. The way you post makes it seem like the living story was bad, when in fact the living story wasn’t bad, even if it had elements that needed work.

You refuse to acknowledge that painting the living world as bad, deficiencies or no deficiencies, is your opinion and the opinion of other people. There are others, plenty of others, who found the living story good. There’s no objective good and bad here, it’s all opinion.

You can read it however you like. I’m not here to carefully craft my words to not step on your toes because you can’t handle criticism to this game.
Plenty of people have pointed out what’s wrong with the living world. No need to go through all of them again.
Anet restructured to address some of the things that was bad. Some.

I don’t know how you can definitively state that the new LS team was structured in this way because of what some perceive as ‘bad’ Living Story Season One. There may be many reasons why they decided to structure the team as a large group instead of 4 smaller groups. Angel certainly didn’t indicate that in her post. Unless, of course, you work for ArenaNet. Maybe that’s the answer. /shrug

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

BlueZone.4236:

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

Again, you can make changes without things being “bad”. They can always be better. I’ve restructured many things in the past that were working fine..but I made them more efficient.

That’s not rocket science either. It’s good business.

Ashen.2907:

nexxe.7081:

Vayne.8563:

nexxe.7081:

Poplolita.2638:

I’d rather have FREE content every 2 weeks, than to pay for an expansion.

It’s basically free vs pay. In my case, free win, not even up to discussion.

Yes, free updates, but look deeper into them, and start to compare and contrast, to the more traditional MMOs, and you’ll find out that other MMOs put out more meaningful content for your characters and gameplay.

I’m here because I compared this to other MMOs and found the content here to be meaningful, far far more meaningful than the content in other MMOs.

The problem with using words like meaningful is that they’re just matters of taste and opinion. What’s meaningful to a dungeon runner is not meaningful to a PvPer who never runs dungeons. Some people would think putting ten new dungeons in this game would be meaningful content. But I bet more than half the player base wouldn’t be in that category. Most people don’t consider themselves dungeon runners in most games, and I believe that’s the case in this game as well.

You talk to PvPers they have different meaningful content than WvWer’s who have different meaningful content than me.

Most MMOs don’t offer what I consider to be meaningful content. That’s why I play Guild Wars 2.

I should’ve clarified when i said, “meaningful”. I meant in terms of gameplay and progression, besides the story.

And no, it’s not subjective. The purpose of an RPG, whether it’s an MMO, or a singleplayer game, is to interact and engage in the story, hence the roleplaying aspect, but story isn’t the only facet of an MMORPG. There are also items, stats, combat, dungeons, pvp, etc., to enhance the story, otherwise the game itself becomes stale without progression to it’s other aspects, which is happening to GW2.

To Anet’s credit though, they have tweaked stats, and introduced new traits in the past, but lately, there doesn’t seem to be anything new on the horizon, except the Living Story.

When compared to other MMO content additions, GW2 lacks additional content, especially after 2 years.
FFXIV, WoW, Rift, Tera, and even GW1, etc. All of these introduce more meaningful content, for everyone, whether it’s for pvp, dungeons, story, classes, skills, talents, gear, and so on. This is why WoW is very popular, because they offer alternative gameplay additions, such as, skills & talents, new classes and races, dungeons-scenarios-raids, pvp maps & game-modes that is meaningful, to everyone, and they don’t just focus on story.

Meaningful, in this context, is subjective. I can guarantee, 100% certainty, that FFXIV, WoW, Rift, Tera, GW1, etc did not release content that was meaningful, in a positive way, to, “everyone.”

Perhaps, i used the wrong word, to describe what i was trying to convey. My point is, that in a traditional expansion, content is released for all different playstyles. Whether, or not, the content is well-received, isn’t the point. So far, in GW2, it’s been piecemeal content, that is only satisfying one segment of the gamers, whether it’s PvP (EotM, WvW), or Living Story. Everyone else is neglected, and has to wait, without any indication as to when, if ever, there is something to look forward to, because right now, Living Story and Achievements, are the major forms of new content (also, new crafting recipes for crafters). I hope i clarified a bit.

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

Again, you can make changes without things being “bad”. They can always be better. I’ve restructured many things in the past that were working fine..but I made them more efficient.

That’s not rocket science either. It’s good business.

Yes, and they’re addressing things because it wasn’t working.
I know you’re trying very hard to get into another semantic argument, but I’m not biting. No need to put them on a pedestal.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

nexxe.7081:

FFXIV, WoW, Rift, Tera, and even GW1, etc. All of these introduce more meaningful content, for everyone, whether it’s for pvp, dungeons, story, classes, skills, talents, gear, and so on. This is why WoW is very popular, because they offer alternative gameplay additions, such as, skills & talents, new classes and races, dungeons-scenarios-raids, pvp maps & game-modes that is meaningful, to everyone, and they don’t just focus on story.

Please tell me where new content is happening for GW1? I need an excuse to install it on this machine.

It was meant to be in the past-tense. I’m pretty sure you knew that, but if you didn’t, sorry for the confusion.

This type of thing is a no win for everyone involved, including Anet but is pretty routine for the majority of MMOs. If they release an expansion there will be people that go through it really fast and then complain about not having anything to do. Some might prefer the LS updates every 2 weeks so they feel like they’re getting something more frequently.

Anet probably is keeping a reasonable amount of things to themselves that they are working on and my guess would be they don’t want to say too much on projects being worked on in case something doesn’t work out on their end with it and maybe they would have to make some changes.

I think they need to realize that more and more each year there are more games to choose from and if they don’t keep things fresh and add new things for everyone to do then some people might go to another game. Maybe people that go to another game would come back later or maybe not. Sometimes it feels like Anet is tweaking and improving an already finished game but MMOs are supposed to be designed to have new content rather than be a final version upon release.

I think the game needs new areas with actual events more like the lower and mid level maps that have lots of events all over the maps. Some of these events get ignored or over looked but they’re still there and some are done by enough people but areas like Southsun Cove are sometimes more like wasted space but with plenty of potential. The new area Dry Top is okay but could be a lot better and definitely with more to do.

Even Cursed Shore and Malchor’s Leap have plenty of events to do and other things to do. For those of us who were on this game at or before its release have already played very likely well over 1000 hours and just can’t get the same enjoyment out of doing things in maps we’ve gone through countless times.

I like that Anet tries to bring new content every 2 weeks but although I don’t care about an expansion I would like to see new maps. There is a lot of blurred space on the world map to be used. This game is over 2 years old now and they’ve barely touched the world map with adding in new areas. I do enjoy the stories in GW2 but would also love to see more new areas to go to and enjoy as those are what adds to the game the most especially long term.

We do the story through once on 1 character and if we do it on alts then it’s likely just skipping through the story to get to whatever we’re going to. The bulk of any MMO is fighting and exploring so new areas would add the most by far to this game I think.

Everything released will not satisfy everyone but at least new areas to go to and do a lot of different things would provide more to do for most. I would like new maps with maybe renown quests and such or if anything something to do other than get X amount of this or that to buy this skin or bag of junk from a merchant.

I will say though LS Season 2 just started and although Dry Top isn’t what I was hoping for, it is a much better start than LS Season 1 so I’ll just wait and see what all they do.

nexxe.7081:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

nexxe.7081:

FFXIV, WoW, Rift, Tera, and even GW1, etc. All of these introduce more meaningful content, for everyone, whether it’s for pvp, dungeons, story, classes, skills, talents, gear, and so on. This is why WoW is very popular, because they offer alternative gameplay additions, such as, skills & talents, new classes and races, dungeons-scenarios-raids, pvp maps & game-modes that is meaningful, to everyone, and they don’t just focus on story.

Please tell me where new content is happening for GW1? I need an excuse to install it on this machine.

It was meant to be in the past-tense. I’m pretty sure you knew that, but if you didn’t, sorry for the confusion.

I really thought I knew it but I abruptly was about to snark before going “wait . . . did they sneak something in?”.

Darn. Oh well

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

Again, you can make changes without things being “bad”. They can always be better. I’ve restructured many things in the past that were working fine..but I made them more efficient.

That’s not rocket science either. It’s good business.

Yes, and they’re addressing things because it wasn’t working.
I know you’re trying very hard to get into another semantic argument, but I’m not biting. No need to put them on a pedestal.

Now you’re just trying to bait me. I said I wasn’t putting them on a pedestal and you repeat over and over again that I am. When you’re done playing games and would like to discuss the matter at hand, feel free to respond. Until then, I think all that needs to be said has been said.

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

Again, you can make changes without things being “bad”. They can always be better. I’ve restructured many things in the past that were working fine..but I made them more efficient.

That’s not rocket science either. It’s good business.

Yes, and they’re addressing things because it wasn’t working.
I know you’re trying very hard to get into another semantic argument, but I’m not biting. No need to put them on a pedestal.

Now you’re just trying to bait me. I said I wasn’t putting them on a pedestal and you repeat over and over again that I am. When you’re done playing games and would like to discuss the matter at hand, feel free to respond. Until then, I think all that needs to be said has been said.

Sure thing. You done twisting your own logic to make Anet look like they deserve high praises?
One minute you argue “they aren’t changing it because the numbers don’t support it”, next minute you’re arguing “they’re changing it but it’s not related to the numbers, they’re looking for improvement.”.
When you’re done making pointless arguments, feel free to respond.

Also, twice is not repeating “over and over again”.

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

Again, you can make changes without things being “bad”. They can always be better. I’ve restructured many things in the past that were working fine..but I made them more efficient.

That’s not rocket science either. It’s good business.

Yes, and they’re addressing things because it wasn’t working.
I know you’re trying very hard to get into another semantic argument, but I’m not biting. No need to put them on a pedestal.

Now you’re just trying to bait me. I said I wasn’t putting them on a pedestal and you repeat over and over again that I am. When you’re done playing games and would like to discuss the matter at hand, feel free to respond. Until then, I think all that needs to be said has been said.

Sure thing. You done twisting your own logic to make Anet look like they deserve high praises?
One minute you argue “they aren’t changing it because the numbers don’t support it”, next minute you’re arguing “they’re changing it but it’s not related to the numbers, they’re looking for improvement.”.
When you’re done making pointless arguments, feel free to respond.

Also, twice is not repeating “over and over again”.

You refuse to deal with the fact that there are a lot of people who enjoyed the Living Story Season One.

It definitely got off to a rocky start. I don’t think anyone would disagree. The improvement from earlier installments to later installments was vast. There were a lot of people who praised the later installments of season one.

Obviously you learn and evolve. That’s not spin. That’s logic. They learned even from the beginning of the season to the end of the season. The end of the season wasn’t prefect, hell it was far from perfect, but it was good for a lot of people.

Having flaws doesn’t make something bad. That’s all anyone is saying here.

You may think it’s bad. It may have been bad for you. It may have had flaws that prevented it from reaching it’s full potential…but if people weren’t playing it, I don’t believe Anet would be continuing it.

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

Again, you can make changes without things being “bad”. They can always be better. I’ve restructured many things in the past that were working fine..but I made them more efficient.

That’s not rocket science either. It’s good business.

Yes, and they’re addressing things because it wasn’t working.
I know you’re trying very hard to get into another semantic argument, but I’m not biting. No need to put them on a pedestal.

Now you’re just trying to bait me. I said I wasn’t putting them on a pedestal and you repeat over and over again that I am. When you’re done playing games and would like to discuss the matter at hand, feel free to respond. Until then, I think all that needs to be said has been said.

Sure thing. You done twisting your own logic to make Anet look like they deserve high praises?
One minute you argue “they aren’t changing it because the numbers don’t support it”, next minute you’re arguing “they’re changing it but it’s not related to the numbers, they’re looking for improvement.”.
When you’re done making pointless arguments, feel free to respond.

Also, twice is not repeating “over and over again”.

You refuse to deal with the fact that there are a lot of people who enjoyed the Living Story Season One.

It definitely got off to a rocky start. I don’t think anyone would disagree. The improvement from earlier installments to later installments was vast. There were a lot of people who praised the later installments of season one.

Obviously you learn and evolve. That’s not spin. That’s logic. They learned even from the beginning of the season to the end of the season. The end of the season wasn’t prefect, hell it was far from perfect, but it was good for a lot of people.

Having flaws doesn’t make something bad. That’s all anyone is saying here.

You may think it’s bad. It may have been bad for you. It may have had flaws that prevented it from reaching it’s full potential…but if people weren’t playing it, I don’t believe Anet would be continuing it.

I don’t need to “deal” with anything because I never claimed no one enjoyed it.
It’s clear you’re projecting negative opinions as facts.

Dramatic changes were done internally and externally because it was bad. Bad enough to compromise the original concept because the original concept was bad.
Other than your silly semantics, you’re agreeing with me.
You don’t like the word “bad”? Too bad!

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

Again, you can make changes without things being “bad”. They can always be better. I’ve restructured many things in the past that were working fine..but I made them more efficient.

That’s not rocket science either. It’s good business.

Yes, and they’re addressing things because it wasn’t working.
I know you’re trying very hard to get into another semantic argument, but I’m not biting. No need to put them on a pedestal.

Now you’re just trying to bait me. I said I wasn’t putting them on a pedestal and you repeat over and over again that I am. When you’re done playing games and would like to discuss the matter at hand, feel free to respond. Until then, I think all that needs to be said has been said.

Sure thing. You done twisting your own logic to make Anet look like they deserve high praises?
One minute you argue “they aren’t changing it because the numbers don’t support it”, next minute you’re arguing “they’re changing it but it’s not related to the numbers, they’re looking for improvement.”.
When you’re done making pointless arguments, feel free to respond.

Also, twice is not repeating “over and over again”.

You refuse to deal with the fact that there are a lot of people who enjoyed the Living Story Season One.

It definitely got off to a rocky start. I don’t think anyone would disagree. The improvement from earlier installments to later installments was vast. There were a lot of people who praised the later installments of season one.

Obviously you learn and evolve. That’s not spin. That’s logic. They learned even from the beginning of the season to the end of the season. The end of the season wasn’t prefect, hell it was far from perfect, but it was good for a lot of people.

Having flaws doesn’t make something bad. That’s all anyone is saying here.

You may think it’s bad. It may have been bad for you. It may have had flaws that prevented it from reaching it’s full potential…but if people weren’t playing it, I don’t believe Anet would be continuing it.

A lot of people play Farmville and it’s still not a good game. The majority of the playerbase has never entered a dungeon and is busy farming LS achievements and world bosses, does that make it a good system? You keep mentioning player participation = content quality or at least you’re using it as an argument in favor of ANET and their policy.
I believe that ANET shouldn’t cater to the obvious needs of the players since let’s face it, that would mean shying away from depth, challenge and complexity. All the things that the average Joe who logs in after work doesn’t want. They could just give us something like hard mode to cater to both casual and hardcore players but apparently that’s not on their list. Without having separate game modes for more ambitious people they are limiting the ways in which they can design dungeons and fractals. A dungeon that can be completed by said Joe will always be a walk in the park for the dungeon running crowd which brings with it the necessity to limit rewards and income. Otherwise every hardcore player would get rich farming the crap out of it while the casuals would be complaining about the ever increasing separation between the wealthy and the poor.
Everything they’ve released with the exception of Arah and high level Fractals is way too easy. Nothing requires you too really learn animations and tells, think about your gear or your setup. I am digressing but I just can’t keep myself from repeating this over and over: Almost everything in this game is kind of viable. Any gear, any trait distribution, you might take an hour to do AC P1 but you will still succeed. There’s a million reasons for this and I am not laying the blame on the playerbase entirely but it’s just how most humans are.

So no, players liking the LS and the direction this game is going does not mean that ANET should go on like this. Democracy has its limitations especially in game design.

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

Again, you can make changes without things being “bad”. They can always be better. I’ve restructured many things in the past that were working fine..but I made them more efficient.

That’s not rocket science either. It’s good business.

Yes, and they’re addressing things because it wasn’t working.
I know you’re trying very hard to get into another semantic argument, but I’m not biting. No need to put them on a pedestal.

Now you’re just trying to bait me. I said I wasn’t putting them on a pedestal and you repeat over and over again that I am. When you’re done playing games and would like to discuss the matter at hand, feel free to respond. Until then, I think all that needs to be said has been said.

Sure thing. You done twisting your own logic to make Anet look like they deserve high praises?
One minute you argue “they aren’t changing it because the numbers don’t support it”, next minute you’re arguing “they’re changing it but it’s not related to the numbers, they’re looking for improvement.”.
When you’re done making pointless arguments, feel free to respond.

Also, twice is not repeating “over and over again”.

You refuse to deal with the fact that there are a lot of people who enjoyed the Living Story Season One.

It definitely got off to a rocky start. I don’t think anyone would disagree. The improvement from earlier installments to later installments was vast. There were a lot of people who praised the later installments of season one.

Obviously you learn and evolve. That’s not spin. That’s logic. They learned even from the beginning of the season to the end of the season. The end of the season wasn’t prefect, hell it was far from perfect, but it was good for a lot of people.

Having flaws doesn’t make something bad. That’s all anyone is saying here.

You may think it’s bad. It may have been bad for you. It may have had flaws that prevented it from reaching it’s full potential…but if people weren’t playing it, I don’t believe Anet would be continuing it.

I don’t need to “deal” with anything because I never claimed no one enjoyed it.
It’s clear you’re projecting negative opinions as facts.

Dramatic changes were done internally and externally because it was bad. Bad enough to compromise the original concept because the original concept was bad.
Other than your silly semantics, you’re agreeing with me.
You don’t like the word “bad”? Too bad!

Well semantics are only silly if we’re saying the same thing. But saying that the content was bad when it was in fact not bad is not really just semantics. Saying they’ve made improvements to something doesn’t make it bad automatically, whether you want to use the word or not. The content has been improved. That much I can agree with.

It certainly needed to be made permanent. The journal is a big improvement. The story telling has gotten better.

So whether it was bad or wasn’t bad, it’s better now. That much I can agree with.

BlueZone.4236:

Sure thing. You done twisting your own logic to make Anet look like they deserve high praises?
One minute you argue “they aren’t changing it because the numbers don’t support it”, next minute you’re arguing “they’re changing it but it’s not related to the numbers, they’re looking for improvement.”.
When you’re done making pointless arguments, feel free to respond.

Also, twice is not repeating “over and over again”.

While I’m usually ambivalent about “let’s make Vayne tie his tongue in knots trying to keep his message straight while insisting on different wording each time”, this really keeps dragging on and on. Shall we try discussing the message more than the phrasing?

@BlueZone – ANet has improved from telling a scattered plotline of a story to focusing on one plot and working it forward slowly. LS1 was flawed largely in how the first two thirds left a lot of people specifically saying “what is going on again?” because of the crossing threads and the inconsistent focus. One segment we have the Queen’s Jubilee, then we have Scarlet showing up out of nowhere to turn it into a near-world-wide Dynamic Event. And after that it shifted again . . . it wasn’t until after Wintersday it started gelling into something more solid and a lot of myriad guessing games about how it all connected came to a stop because we got led through the hoops. It was flawed in execution of an interesting concept.

LS2, on the other hand, is direct and obvious to the point of blunt force trauma. But it’s consistent, we don’t have new plots being dumped in because it’s “a living world”, and the new area is actually new and being designed as permanent content unlike a lot of LS1. However it’s flawed in the details and polish where things just slip in without proper context (“Mordrewhat now?”) or things seem rushed in and then out all too quickly (I clocked Prosperity at the quickest time to getting screwed by viney death on record short of ‘Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors’).

It’s getting better but we are really far from “excellent” yet on an objective level.

Vayne.8563:

Obviously you learn and evolve. That’s not spin. That’s logic. They learned even from the beginning of the season to the end of the season. The end of the season wasn’t prefect, hell it was far from perfect, but it was good for a lot of people.

Having flaws doesn’t make something bad. That’s all anyone is saying here.

You may think it’s bad. It may have been bad for you. It may have had flaws that prevented it from reaching it’s full potential…but if people weren’t playing it, I don’t believe Anet would be continuing it.

@ Vayne – Now it’s your turn. Frankly, I do expect better than debating the meaning of the word “bad” from you. You’re more intelligent than this, so take a deep breath and start over again. You’re fast approaching “well that’s just your opinion” level of retorts, and once you hit it we’re almost to Godwin’s Law level of “there is no more meaning in this discussion”.

Back up and discuss the flaws. Discuss how they changed the method, discuss what you see as improvements, and let that be all you have to say on it.

Strange, though, you describe it as “evolution”. Remember that evolution doesn’t always result in a “more perfect” form – there are always chances of evolutionary dead-ends which aren’t viable. “Evolving” isn’t necessarily “better” for a long-term survival strategy.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

BlueZone.4236:

Sure thing. You done twisting your own logic to make Anet look like they deserve high praises?
One minute you argue “they aren’t changing it because the numbers don’t support it”, next minute you’re arguing “they’re changing it but it’s not related to the numbers, they’re looking for improvement.”.
When you’re done making pointless arguments, feel free to respond.

Also, twice is not repeating “over and over again”.

While I’m usually ambivalent about “let’s make Vayne tie his tongue in knots trying to keep his message straight while insisting on different wording each time”, this really keeps dragging on and on. Shall we try discussing the message more than the phrasing?

@BlueZone – ANet has improved from telling a scattered plotline of a story to focusing on one plot and working it forward slowly. LS1 was flawed largely in how the first two thirds left a lot of people specifically saying “what is going on again?” because of the crossing threads and the inconsistent focus. One segment we have the Queen’s Jubilee, then we have Scarlet showing up out of nowhere to turn it into a near-world-wide Dynamic Event. And after that it shifted again . . . it wasn’t until after Wintersday it started gelling into something more solid and a lot of myriad guessing games about how it all connected came to a stop because we got led through the hoops. It was flawed in execution of an interesting concept.

LS2, on the other hand, is direct and obvious to the point of blunt force trauma. But it’s consistent, we don’t have new plots being dumped in because it’s “a living world”, and the new area is actually new and being designed as permanent content unlike a lot of LS1. However it’s flawed in the details and polish where things just slip in without proper context (“Mordrewhat now?”) or things seem rushed in and then out all too quickly (I clocked Prosperity at the quickest time to getting screwed by viney death on record short of ‘Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors’).

It’s getting better but we are really far from “excellent” yet on an objective level.

Vayne.8563:

Obviously you learn and evolve. That’s not spin. That’s logic. They learned even from the beginning of the season to the end of the season. The end of the season wasn’t prefect, hell it was far from perfect, but it was good for a lot of people.

Having flaws doesn’t make something bad. That’s all anyone is saying here.

You may think it’s bad. It may have been bad for you. It may have had flaws that prevented it from reaching it’s full potential…but if people weren’t playing it, I don’t believe Anet would be continuing it.

@ Vayne – Now it’s your turn. Frankly, I do expect better than debating the meaning of the word “bad” from you. You’re more intelligent than this, so take a deep breath and start over again. You’re fast approaching “well that’s just your opinion” level of retorts, and once you hit it we’re almost to Godwin’s Law level of “there is no more meaning in this discussion”.

Back up and discuss the flaws. Discuss how they changed the method, discuss what you see as improvements, and let that be all you have to say on it.

Strange, though, you describe it as “evolution”. Remember that evolution doesn’t always result in a “more perfect” form – there are always chances of evolutionary dead-ends which aren’t viable. “Evolving” isn’t necessarily “better” for a long-term survival strategy.

Evolution is one way to move something forward. It’s expected to sometimes hit dead ends. That’s what the entire iterative process is about. It works like natural selection. You try a bunch of stuff and the stuff that works survives. If it doesn’t work, it won’t survive. That’s sort of how Anet has been working the game. It’s very different than what most people are used to.

And you know, in some ways, Anet is in new territory. Other companies aren’t taking this route. There’s no rule book to go to. So things start off rough, they get refined.

Not everything is going to work. The same thing happened in Guild Wars 1, though. Not everything that was done worked. So they made changes. I’m not sure why this surprises anyone…at least anyone who played GW 1.

Veydar.5017:

I believe that ANET shouldn’t cater to the obvious needs of the players since let’s face it, that would mean shying away from depth, challenge and complexity.

That’s not player “needs”, that’s player “wants”, and any person who is in charge of a project will tell you what the customer “wants” is not always what they “need”. Parents, especially, get to understand this at about age six of their first child.

“You want that shiny toy but you don’t need it. What you need is for me not to spend $400 on the XVox-700 and spend it instead on making sure you can still eat for the next month.”

I think ANet does understand this, which is why they haven’t done things like normalized all stats to Berserker and hand out free Precursors at 1000 hours played.

I didn’t think Season One was bad. There were many parts I enjoyed, and miss in Season Two. Why is one opinion more right than any other? Some feel Season One was ‘bad’, but others enjoyed it. Enough so that it wasn’t outright scrapped. That must say something, no?

Well, maybe someone has a thought about why it wasn’t even if they felt it was so bad it forced a complete company reconstruction. Heaven knows there could be no other reasons. =/

Vayne.8563:

Not everything is going to work. The same thing happened in Guild Wars 1, though. Not everything that was done worked. So they made changes. I’m not sure why this surprises anyone…at least anyone who played GW 1.

Pfft, don’t try that line on me. They did a lot of stuff in GW1’s time which was seriously catering to the louder people when they first tried moving slightly to favoring PvE and then making the second campaign have really invasive PvP/GvG/AB components. And then in the other direction with Nightfall and straight on to Beyond.

What surprises me is how people remember build diversity, but forget “Isiah’s Balance” which was a mocking of what people saw out of the “Balance Updates”. People remember AB and such, but forget things like JQ bots and the Granddaddy RNG Chest for ZKeys. (Second most disappointing chest in my time in GW1.)

Mosharn.8357:

Vayne.8563:

Mosharn.8357:

They arent gona get any where with these tiny updates.

I thought this week was gona have more content and as i was doing the new story i finished it in a sad little 20 mins… 20 mins of content really anet.

I’m not even sure where to begin with this. You mean 20 minutes of content ignoring all the events, the new weapon skins you can craft, trying to get a zone to tier 5 for the best rewards on stuff.

Or 20 minutes just doing the stories without the optional achievements?

Because so far, I’ve spent hours in the NEW AREA. Oh right, there’s a new area. It’s a cool area. Lots of people seem to like it.

It’s not 20 minutes of new content, unless you only count story missions, which is not all the new content.

Events dont count. They are just the same events we already have all over the game. As for crafting the skins. Thats optional and they dont look like they are worth the bother.

Im talking about new content which was just the 20 min story. I dont know how long you been playing but this is no real content.

Are you really being serious? Events dont count because tehy’re the same events we have all over the game? so if they add a dungeon it doesnt count because its like all the other dungeons all over the game, if they add a world boss it doesnt count because its like all the others etc.. what exactly would count for you?

Even the 20 mins statement is bogus. No way to do the 4 story instances and the cutscene and never mind the traveling, exploring and talking to npcs that contain a ton of story themselves in just 20 mins, its more like 2hrs at least.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Veydar.5017:

I believe that ANET shouldn’t cater to the obvious needs of the players since let’s face it, that would mean shying away from depth, challenge and complexity.

That’s not player “needs”, that’s player “wants”, and any person who is in charge of a project will tell you what the customer “wants” is not always what they “need”. Parents, especially, get to understand this at about age six of their first child.

“You want that shiny toy but you don’t need it. What you need is for me not to spend $400 on the XVox-700 and spend it instead on making sure you can still eat for the next month.”

I think ANet does understand this, which is why they haven’t done things like normalized all stats to Berserker and hand out free Precursors at 1000 hours played.

Well first of all thanks for the semantics. I wrote “needs”, I meant “wants”. Big deal, english is not my native language and even if it were you could have interpreted my first line within the context of the rest of my post. Then you ignored everything else I wrote. O_o

As to the topic at hand: They either don’t understand this (unlikely) or don’t want to act on it for gemstore reasons (likely). Like I said, everything with the exception of high level Fractals (and even they can be facetanked to a certain degree) and Arah is easy mode. You don’t have to really give an effort, learn to dodge or develop strategies. You can just muddle your way through it somehow. Every stat combo is viable enough for 99% of the game. That’s not how it should be and yet the LS and ANETs entire policy continues to ignore hardcore players.
Precursors are the worst example and you obviously didn’t really understand my point. Precursors and legendaries require gold and gold only. In a way, they serve as a good example to get my message across: Most prestigious items in the game (or supposed to be) and yet everyone can get one.

BlueZone.4236:

Ashen.2907:

Last year the store I manage saw overall sales increases of more than 3%. EBITDA increases were in the +8% range. I restructured and reorganized aspects of the business not because it was bad but because there is always room for improvement. EBITDA is now up 5% over last year’s already great numbers.

Good for you. Well, Anet made these changes because they were common complaints. Complaints happened because they were bad.
(In before white knights counters with ’whiners whine about everything")

Vayne.8563:

I wasn’t talking about cohesion, I was talking about uneven quality. I didn’t really have a problem with the cohesion I had a problem with some events being less fun for me than others.

The beauty of that was, in most games if you didn’t like a big patch, you have to wait months for the next one. Waiting two weeks is a lot easier.

Good for you.
They’re making changes to living world because there were plenty of bad things about it.

Vayne.8563:

You didn’t say anything to the guy who said that the living story was bad (as an empirical statement). You did say something about me responding to him. I don’t know how else to take that but as a double standard.

Anet proved it with your logic.

good or bad are subjective. Take ascended gear for example. Some people wanted vertical progression because they didnt feel cosmetic rewards are meaningful enough for them so they tried to find a compromise which is how ascended gear was born. Does that mean not going for a vertical progression system was a bad choice by arenanet? Does that mean they now decided to embrace Ascended gear? no and no.

Same thing here some people didnt like the temporary nature of the Living story so they made this change. For the record I am afraid it was a bad idea because this means events like Marionette which was my favorite Season 2 release will probably not be possible in Season 2 (all story is now instanced and Marionette just cannot work in an instanced environment) Of course they can still add it as some permanent dungeon type content but that will mean we never get to beat it which is also bad if they eve do that.

In short, yes people overwhelmingly wanted content that was more permanent in nature. Arenanet complied. Everything can be improved upon but that doesnt make it bad. If it did that absolutely everything is bad because like i said everything can be improved upon.

BlueZone.4236:

If you like to think changes happen for mysterious reasons, sure.
But, they’re just like any other company. If things aren’t working, then change it.
Resolving some of the issues aren’t some happy accident as a byproduct of restructuring here. No one is saying that’s the sole reason.
We’re not dealing with rocket science here.

Changes don’t happen for mysterious reason but they don’t just happen because something is not working either. You can restructure teams because the new structure is more efficient or because it will allow you to achieve new goals etc..

Hey it could also be this team structure was always the target but for season 1 they had to go with a different team structure cause they lacked the necessary technology to make this team work.

No matter the case like Vayne stated if the whole LS was bad didnt work chances are they wouldnt try restructuring the teams to make it work, chances are they’d scrap the whole idea and go with Expansions, its not like they dont have a market demanding one.

Veydar.5017:

Well first of all thanks for the semantics. I wrote “needs”, I meant “wants”. Big deal, english is not my native language and even if it were you could have interpreted my first line within the context of the rest of my post. Then you ignored everything else I wrote. O_o

Everyone else was doing it and I wanted to be cool too.

Seriously, though, your post largely consisted of sounding superior about how the game was too easy. Sadly, I don’t experience that feeling myself but as I’m a terrible player who gave up on Devil May Cry 3 before mission 7, that probably is a valid point.

As to the topic at hand: They either don’t understand this (unlikely) or don’t want to act on it for gemstore reasons (likely).

I think it’s far more likely they want the average bar of player skill low so we don’t have the same sort of experiences in the past of MMOs where content could only be completed by the top 1% of a server population for the most coveted loot/titles/shinies.

That’s what comes across in almost everything, including SAB Part 2 where they were thinking of toning it back some. (It stands to be noted, that difficulty climb was what had me seriously step back from it and not finish the achievements or World 2.)

Like I said, everything with the exception of high level Fractals (and even they can be facetanked to a certain degree) and Arah is easy mode. You don’t have to really give an effort, learn to dodge or develop strategies. You can just muddle your way through it somehow. Every stat combo is viable enough for 99% of the game. That’s not how it should be and yet the LS and ANETs entire policy continues to ignore hardcore players.

Again, I think they want a feeling of inclusive experience rather than “you must be this l33t to do this”. I don’t see that as a black mark against the game, I see it as a conscious design decision to make sure the majority of the players who buy the game can . . . actually play the game.

Precursors are the worst example and you obviously didn’t really understand my point. Precursors and legendaries require gold and gold only. In a way, they serve as a good example to get my message across: Most prestigious items in the game (or supposed to be) and yet everyone can get one.

So what’s your point? Everyone should be . . . in theory capable of doing 100% of the game with proper equipment and knowledge heading in. This shouldn’t be a contest to find the next person to wreck their fine hand motor skills executing millisecond-window commands.

And like it or not, precursors are the easiest “go to” for “valuable loot” right now. Everything else which can be traded is too easy to get your hands on.

Galen Grey.4709:

Changes don’t happen for mysterious reason but they don’t just happen because something is not working either. You can restructure teams because the new structure is more efficient or because it will allow you to achieve new goals etc..

Or because the logistics of making the rotating schedule was burning people out trying to make sure everyone was on the same page?

No matter the case like Vayne stated if the whole LS was bad didnt work chances are they wouldnt try restructuring the teams to make it work, chances are they’d scrap the whole idea and go with Expansions, its not like they dont have a market demanding one.

See, that’s only part of the events.

I seem to recall these things called CDIs which were opened up and notes were taken from each instance. Sometimes they went better than others, but I think it’s pretty clear at least some of the criticisms and “we think this might work better” was heard and interpreted.

It’s not that “the LS was terrible”, it’s that “they saw people had a beef with things and listened, then tried a different tactic”. They want the LS to succeed because it . . . as a concept . . . is a pretty neat idea.

Really need to work on their execution though.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Galen Grey.4709:

Changes don’t happen for mysterious reason but they don’t just happen because something is not working either. You can restructure teams because the new structure is more efficient or because it will allow you to achieve new goals etc..

Or because the logistics of making the rotating schedule was burning people out trying to make sure everyone was on the same page?

No matter the case like Vayne stated if the whole LS was bad didnt work chances are they wouldnt try restructuring the teams to make it work, chances are they’d scrap the whole idea and go with Expansions, its not like they dont have a market demanding one.

See, that’s only part of the events.

I seem to recall these things called CDIs which were opened up and notes were taken from each instance. Sometimes they went better than others, but I think it’s pretty clear at least some of the criticisms and “we think this might work better” was heard and interpreted.

It’s not that “the LS was terrible”, it’s that “they saw people had a beef with things and listened, then tried a different tactic”. They want the LS to succeed because it . . . as a concept . . . is a pretty neat idea.

Really need to work on their execution though.

yep burn out is another possibility.

This I agree with completely. Good and Bad are subjective but that doesnt mean you dont try to find the perfect balance between them. I dont think anyone will deny that over all Season 2 is much more improved then Season 1.

I personally thing Season 1 was pretty good overall but it did have bad aspects. The way the story was presented left much to be desired so much so some people didnt even see it. The smallest amount of story you’d get from playing the content, then a bigger piece you got from talking to NPCs and the bulk was in short stories outside the game. That meant your average gamer would only get the smallest part with the biggest part being left to dedicated fans. In Season 2 they nailed it. Average gamers will get the bulk of it with only bits an pieces left in the periphery for people willing to chat with NPCs and explore.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

……
So what’s your point? Everyone should be . . . in theory capable of doing 100% of the game with proper equipment and knowledge heading in. This shouldn’t be a contest to find the next person to wreck their fine hand motor skills executing millisecond-window commands.

And like it or not, precursors are the easiest “go to” for “valuable loot” right now. Everything else which can be traded is too easy to get your hands on.

That’s exactly my biggest gripe: No, not everyone should be capable of doing 100% of the game. For the average Joe 85% would be enough. Then another 10% for people like me (casual hardcore players who can solo Lupi but won’t get a stellar time) and the remaining 5% (or 1% I dont care, these are just numbers off the top of my hat) for the Goku’s, DnT’s, rT’s of this world.

If everything is accessible for everyone then where’s the fun? What would anyone aspire to? We’d all be mindless zergs farming whatever the devs throw at us, knowing that everyone around us will have the same skins, the same titles, the same [insert instance content] level…

Veydar.5017:

That’s exactly my biggest gripe: No, not everyone should be capable of doing 100% of the game. For the average Joe 85% would be enough. Then another 10% for people like me (casual hardcore players who can solo Lupi but won’t get a stellar time) and the remaining 5% (or 1% I dont care, these are just numbers off the top of my hat) for the Goku’s, DnT’s, rT’s of this world.

Sorry, I don’t agree. I stopped buying MMOs like that because I really hated chasing a carrot I was never . . . ever going to reach. It is the singular reason I do not give WoW a whirl, above even “I don’t have enough friends who play to make it worth my time”.

And there’s a difference between “I can solo Lupi” and “there should only be content for those who have that level of skill”.

If everything is accessible for everyone then where’s the fun? What would anyone aspire to? We’d all be mindless zergs farming whatever the devs throw at us, knowing that everyone around us will have the same skins, the same titles, the same [insert instance content] level…

Except we don’t have that now. We have people who have high Fractal levels and those who don’t have any. We have people who do dungeons and those who don’t. We have people who open their Wardrobe and go “which Legendary should I wear today?” and those who just wear whatever they can afford.

On the same token, we have people who do things like find ways of recreating other iconic characters with lots of work figuring out what armor skins, hair styles and color, and so on actually works. Everyone does not run around playing the same character, just with different names.

Don’t think I “don’t get it”, okay? There’s tons of people who do crazy feats of gaming because they exist – Solo White Mage FF1 exists, after all. Four-player Battletoad races exist. So does I Want To Be The Guy: The Movie: The Game. So does Dwarf Fortress, a game which you are destined to lose from the time you hit “install”.

GW2 isn’t in the same vein. This is a game which got designed, deliberately, to be inclusive instead of exclusive to its players from the words “we’re making Guild Wars 2”. That’s why several design decisions were made in the first place – resource nodes aren’t “first come first served”, enemies roll loot for everyone who was fighting them (within some restrictions), and there’s no reason not to help someone.

@BlueZone A product or service being bad is not the only trigger for improving it. Vayne is correct that improving things happens even if a product is already good. Things always have room for improvement; if they didn’t then I wouldn’t be enjoying my Double Stuft Oreos as an after-work snack. I can’t even go back to regular Oreos, they may as well discontinue them.

@Vayne While I agree that what BlueZone is ultimately trying to say is that the LS1 was bad and that’s the only reason it was improved (which in itself is merely opinion); his opinion isn’t without merit. It was pretty obvious that LS1 received overwhelmingly negative feedback and I’m confident that negative feedback was a major contributor to the changes we’ve seen in LS2 (which I think is better than LS1 so far already). I wouldn’t have gone so far as to say that LS1 was bad, but it wasn’t great and there were definitely areas that needed improvement. BlueZone just went with the exaggerated statement approach.

None of it is worth arguing over. Some people hated LS1, some people liked it, and some people merely tolerated it. Opinions are like as- well you know.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

……
GW2 isn’t in the same vein. This is a game which got designed, deliberately, to be inclusive instead of exclusive to its players from the words “we’re making Guild Wars 2”. That’s why several design decisions were made in the first place – resource nodes aren’t “first come first served”, enemies roll loot for everyone who was fighting them (within some restrictions), and there’s no reason not to help someone.

And 85% is not inclusive enough? High level Fractals are somewhat challenging but still easily doable for any player who’s simply been around long enough to have tanky gear. Don’t know how to block/evade the boss attack? Simply facetank it, you’re usually able to take 1 or 2 hits in PTV gear. Dungeons are MINDNUMBINGLY easy. I specifically mentioned Arah because it’s the only dungeon that is a little harder. Everything else can be farmed by any average player.

You’re not entitled to get everything in a game. And if you want to chase a carrot that you’ll never ever get then how about getting better or accepting the fact that you simply won’t get it? Have you ever thought about the more hardcore players and how this game feels for them? You need to allow the better players to set themselves apart. They deserve more gold, more shinies and better titles than the rest because they work for it. They don’t just spend insane hours in the game but they theorycraft, they adapt and improve and when they’re facing a challenge their answer is not “get tanky” but rather “how can I mitigate this damage in an intelligent way?”.

It’s so typical of pretty much every human being to feel like they should be getting everything on a silver platter. I know this is a game but let’s be honest: MMO’s are more than just a silly pasttime for a lot of people so it just makes sense to consider that minority as well. I am NOT asking to make this game super hard in all aspects. Without the thousands of casuals this game wouldn’t exist. I have 0 problems with people farming, with easy dungeons and beautiful zones like Dry Top that people can simply enjoy without having to consult a guide before starting your journey. But the skill ceiling in this game is so low.

So to answer the OP’s question: I would have rather had an expansion with an overhaul of many of the games mechanics – even if it only applies to the expansion content – than this dribble of really good story missions with a beautiful new zone that ultimately leaves everything else untouched. And the last Feature Patch has shown that ANET is focusing heavily on catering to the average paying customer.
Storytelling is a lot better, zone design is great and some of the LS achievements are a little harder so yeah lot of good stuff happening but it’s all very modest. They said they’d take it easy but that doesn’t mean I am willing to accept it without complaining.

Veydar.5017:

You’re not entitled to get everything in a game.

It’s not about “entitlement, please hand me my cheevos now”. Gods know I am moderately comfortable with things like Tribulation Mode existing, or Mad King’s Clock Tower (which I have never been able to do successfully).

It’s a resistance to the ideal where something like that becomes a baseline for average, or “you’re not a real player if you can’t do it”.

They don’t just spend insane hours in the game but they theorycraft, they adapt and improve and when they’re facing a challenge their answer is not “get tanky” but rather “how can I mitigate this damage in an intelligent way?”.

I. Don’t. Mind. This. By. Itself.

I don’t mind it when I play games like Nethack, where there is an insane amount of preparation and learning curve before you can even think to win. I don’t mind having to resort to a very specific party build to beat the Demifiend (SMT: Digital Devil Saga) and pray the RNG doesn’t kill me. I’ve been there, truly, more than a few times in the past, when nobody would care about it in the least.

In this case? I mind it if we’re talking about content I don’t get to do because I’m not “tuff enuf” to do it. Or I main a ranger, so no going to do it. I’ve done my time with that back when Plane of Time was a raid worthy of awe.

I don’t mind you or others doing all this. I mind it when someone decides that makes them better than me and they are owed things I shouldn’t get.

I am NOT asking to make this game super hard in all aspects. Without the thousands of casuals this game wouldn’t exist. I have 0 problems with people farming, with easy dungeons and beautiful zones like Dry Top that people can simply enjoy without having to consult a guide before starting your journey. But the skill ceiling in this game is so low.

I do agree, the skill ceiling to be successful is low. It’s possible to just roll through things without thinking too hard in the general open-world PvE. Step into WvW, though . . . different story. The skill ceiling is much more mutable, and hardcore players who do all the work you mentioned above? They shine, along with those who use the Commander tag for more than a shorthand for “zerg form up on me”.

And the last Feature Patch has shown that ANET is focusing heavily on catering to the average paying customer.

Yeah, except . . . that . . . that’s where their money is.

Silicato.4603:

An expansion will give you like 30ish missions like the 3 we recieved last tuesday, 2 or 3 maps and you’ll have to pay for it. BIG NO.

Dude, MMO expansions usually give about 20-30 maps, not 3. Where do you live?

Fact is: Episodic may be a working system, but until now GW2 didn’t deliver what other MMOs (even their own GW1) delivered in a traditional expansion.

We haven’t received a whole new continent. Just for comparison: GW1 delivered 2 new expansions/stand-alone campaigns after 2 years. Those expansions had about 20-30 maps, 4 new professions, a couple of elite areas and new weapons, armos, skins, etc.