Much of the sPvP outrage has seem to shimmer here and there in requests for balancing, communication, and other sorts. I am here to organize that voice as well as provide analogical reasons to why many people such as myself feel that the response to the sPvP stage was unreasonable (to what we know). I will also quote Jonathan’s post and respond to those.
To start I would like to respond to this little bit from Jonathan:
Sometimes it may seem like we aren’t listening, or we don’t respond to your posts. But a TON of things could be at work. Don’t assume that just because we don’t change things exactly when you want them changed that we’re ignoring you or don’t care about your opinions and thoughts.
Except it’s been a year. What else are we suppose to “assume”. Assuming is inductive, and many things are inductive, such as driving a car and ASSUMING that other cars will not run red lights. Science is inductive by nature. We see a pattern and are mad at this occurrence of the pattern.
I’d also like to digress that I thoroughly enjoy other aspects of the game, (SAB, Living World, and the lore). I know you guys are passionate and dedicated to the game you’ve guys have made. It is impressive when compared to other MMOs. I’ve have always been a PvP junkie.
To put things into perspective, imagine a scenario in which would cause a problem, in which would gather more resources than it usually does. For my example, I will use the trading post.
- The trading post is similar to sPvP in terms of allocation of resources: few if none (this is going off the post Jon Peters gave but was deleted by the moderators going along the lines of ‘Anet doesn’t give enough design resources to PvP to do anything meaningful.’) TL;DR: The trading post does not require the resources of the company.
- The population at which uses the trading post remains a small concurrent use, and to pull a number out of the hat, let’s just say 1% is always on the trading post at a given time. This is similarly true to PvP, though I do not know the percent, it is clear that the majority of the game does not PvP. TL;DR: The population that uses the trading post is small.
With these two similarities, I am quite clear on on the differences; however these differences are not relevant to the example that follows:
If the trading post was to be brought down, e.g. almost unbearable to use because of certain bugs and features, the response would be a patch. In proportion, when new Living World content is released, sometimes bugs are not caught in time, prompting a patch usually in a timely manner. This is due to relevant population versus resources spent.
[You can also replace the trading post with something more “severe” like the log-in servers. If the login servers were compromised, an immediate response would occur due to the fact that it has the capability of effecting 100% of the population.]
Given this, I respect the fact that the players who regularly play PvP will receive less resources because of the smaller population. I know that the devs. cannot instantly fix things. That being said:
- You’ve made promises that PvP in GW2 would be a e-sport. It would be acceptable if you’ve never promoted PvP. At least own up to the current situation, and clearly state that you do not have the resources to do everything. It’s been a year, did I mention that?
- Communication, Quoted from Zanthrax.6538
Regarding communication to higher devs, as PAX showed it appears that the higher up devs such as Colin aren’t aware of the state PvP is in.
- Balancing needs to be approached from something inductive: it is impossible to foresee the future when a balance patch is being released. At least listen to the top players, and take into consideration to what they are saying. Helseth is a good example (I only mention him because he has a video archive) as he is a pro player and understands the game more than me and probably others.
If I was in a nuclear reactor with a nuclear scientist and a meltdown occurred, I would have no idea what to do. If that nuclear scientist said to push that button or we'll all die, I am going to push that button. The nuclear scientist is obviously the appropriate authority to listen to.
In conclusion, I just want an honest response from the devs. stating that they do not have the resources to do what they want. Or, they do not like our idea and they feel what they are pursuing is the correct path. Whatever you guys believe, just say it without the vague, lovey-dovey response, so I don’t have to cling on to some false hope.
Thanks for reading.