Guild Wars 2

super adventure box transparency plz ty
grtz texbro

In keeping with the potato theme, let’s hope that getting the meal out to us doesn’t take until Thanksgiving.

While I do enjoy a good yam, I’m hungry.

GW2 is rarely about potatoes.
Far, far more likely what you’d get is something like ‘braized and wood-oven roasted Thai heirloom yellow potatoes with a mango and pine-nut remoulade drenched in endangered yak butter (harvested sustainably) on a 99% post-consumer recyclable plate’.
It’s like the Portlandia of MMOs.

Desthin Sinkropht.4123:

phys.7689:

Thanks for taking time to speak your mind, but i think it kind of shows the problem, you guys arent sure what you are going to end up with. I mean its consistent with an iterative process, but, I think you need to narrow your focus, and start with a more defined vision. You also need to commit to a course, and make it the best course possible, you can add to it, or create other things later, but you need to be able to follow through.

i think you guys have a lot of talent, and are fairly adaptable, but you also need a creative vision to focus that adaptability around providing the best solutions/design to fit the specifications of the situation.

TLDR, come up with a good idea, commit to it, follow through. oh, and tell people something to let them know whats on the horizon.

Fail Faster

Transparency is a good thing, but sticking with a design even if it turns out to be suboptimal isn’t always good. They are still trying to find the right balance on that.

Never commiting to a goal doesnt always lead to a better solution, it generally leads to a different solution, that is not as well fleshed out as it could be.

Im saying this from experience in problem solving, and creative fields, you arent really helping yourself, or the customers by not following through that often. I mean sometimes your idea is so bad it should never reach completion, but that is a lot rarer.

When you have a better visionary, you need to do less iteration.
At the end of the day if it was creating great new content, and was constantly surprising me with deep high quality engaging stuff, i would say if it aint broke dont fix it. But imo, the things we have been getting have been on par with what i expect(based on quality of the game on release) or lower(a lot is lower), so taking a lot of time to make and remake it doesnt seem to be having the proper effect

Put simply: doesnt seem like they can meet or exceed the standards that the game set when it came out with most of the things they have done, with this current design philosophy.

Branden Gee.2150:

Elrey.5472:

Call me crazy, but I do believe some info about the next update, even if it’s just “hey, we’ll give you a potato in 4 weeks” would calm down the people impatience… such is the gw2 community hunger.

While we’d love to give you a time and date of when we’re sending out the potato, remember that during the development process we may discover that a baked potato would be even better. So instead of getting the potato of your dreams you end up with something completely unexpected.

It often happens that a mashed potato with gravy is even better still, unfortunately gravy requires more dev time. So we end up shipping a mashed potato without gravy to meet our promise of ship time or we push back the time and date of when we are shipping again and again. You get your mashed potato with gravy but it is delivered much later than it was expected.

Worst of all that is when we realize that potatoes are way too mainstream and that yams are where it’s at now. And I think we all know how reactions seem to go when we ship yams instead of potatoes.

So in a lot of cases the best we can do is tell you that we are still in the kitchen cooking things up, we’re reading your feedback, and that we’re excited to get the meal out to you soon™.

best response ever!

Branden Gee.2150:

Elrey.5472:

Call me crazy, but I do believe some info about the next update, even if it’s just “hey, we’ll give you a potato in 4 weeks” would calm down the people impatience… such is the gw2 community hunger.

While we’d love to give you a time and date of when we’re sending out the potato, remember that during the development process we may discover that a baked potato would be even better. So instead of getting the potato of your dreams you end up with something completely unexpected.

It often happens that a mashed potato with gravy is even better still, unfortunately gravy requires more dev time. So we end up shipping a mashed potato without gravy to meet our promise of ship time or we push back the time and date of when we are shipping again and again. You get your mashed potato with gravy but it is delivered much later than it was expected.

Worst of all that is when we realize that potatoes are way too mainstream and that yams are where it’s at now. And I think we all know how reactions seem to go when we ship yams instead of potatoes.

So in a lot of cases the best we can do is tell you that we are still in the kitchen cooking things up, we’re reading your feedback, and that we’re excited to get the meal out to you soon™.

I think the problem of your company isn’t that you occasionally serve the potato with or without gravy, or even yams, instead, but that you serve the wrong tables altogether.
Possibly you even confuse the restaurant you’re supposed to serve and take the potatoes, walk out of the building, walk across the street, into the other restaurant, and serve a unwitting customer there. Who was really waiting for sushi.

What update in the past 6-12 months was truly sPvP centric? All you changed was rewards rewards and rewards. And about a bi-annually balance update.
Rewards make no better PvP game mode.

Jamais vu.5284:

What update in the past 6-12 months was truly sPvP centric? All you changed was rewards rewards and rewards. And about a bi-annually balance update.
Rewards make no better PvP game mode.

Rewards are incredibly important in any game, including PvP. It is what keeps players in the game. Not sure if you’ve noticed the consistently instant queue pops and populated servers but… the game is actually full of people now. The feature build was a huge release for GW2 PvP, even if not in the most obvious of ways.

Downplaying that kind of thing can really drive devs away, btw. They put in incredible amounts of hours to make great updates and players make it sound like it was nothing. Disregarding their efforts is a big hit on morale and should really be avoided, particularly when asking for more transparency.

Branden Gee.2150:

Elrey.5472:

Call me crazy, but I do believe some info about the next update, even if it’s just "hey, we’ll give you a potato in 4 weeks" would calm down the people impatience... such is the gw2 community hunger.

While we’d love to give you a time and date of when we’re sending out the potato, remember that during the development process we may discover that a baked potato would be even better. So instead of getting the potato of your dreams you end up with something completely unexpected.

It often happens that a mashed potato with gravy is even better still, unfortunately gravy requires more dev time. So we end up shipping a mashed potato without gravy to meet our promise of ship time or we push back the time and date of when we are shipping again and again. You get your mashed potato with gravy but it is delivered much later than it was expected.

Worst of all that is when we realize that potatoes are way too mainstream and that yams are where it’s at now. And I think we all know how reactions seem to go when we ship yams instead of potatoes.

So in a lot of cases the best we can do is tell you that we are still in the kitchen cooking things up, we’re reading your feedback, and that we’re excited to get the meal out to you soon™.

Sorry, but i can’t resist: https://twitter.com/CraigLuna/status/448299001410908161 *TOOT*

Allie.9268:

Jamais vu.5284:

What update in the past 6-12 months was truly sPvP centric? All you changed was rewards rewards and rewards. And about a bi-annually balance update.
Rewards make no better PvP game mode.

Rewards are incredibly important in any game, including PvP. It is what keeps players in the game. Not sure if you’ve noticed the consistently instant queue pops and populated servers but… the game is actually full of people now. The feature build was a huge release for GW2 PvP, even if not in the most obvious of ways.

Downplaying that kind of thing can really drive devs away, btw. They put in incredible amounts of hours to make great updates and players make it sound like it was nothing. Disregarding their efforts is a big hit on morale and should really be avoided, particularly when asking for more transparency.

Great to see that you are still around allie. Still id like to point out that a lot of the changes brought were/is great, yet a lot of the features that was called for by the community over a long period, in some cases more then half a year, were not properly addressed or not even addressed at all.
People also expected a radical change in the meta regarding pvp and wvs, which the patch did, in pvp. But since the pvp playerbase is hardly even a third of the wvw playerbase, and that is being optimistic, then a large part of the community feels left out.Especially the pve players, as they can only turn to wvw now that the first ls has ended. For a pve player to go into wvw, not like it, and return several months later to findzero improvement to tthe sitsituation at all, that is frustrating and very demotivating for the player.

Allie.9268:

Jamais vu.5284:

What update in the past 6-12 months was truly sPvP centric? All you changed was rewards rewards and rewards. And about a bi-annually balance update.
Rewards make no better PvP game mode.

Rewards are incredibly important in any game, including PvP. It is what keeps players in the game. Not sure if you’ve noticed the consistently instant queue pops and populated servers but… the game is actually full of people now. The feature build was a huge release for GW2 PvP, even if not in the most obvious of ways.

Downplaying that kind of thing can really drive devs away, btw. They put in incredible amounts of hours to make great updates and players make it sound like it was nothing. Disregarding their efforts is a big hit on morale and should really be avoided, particularly when asking for more transparency.

hello Allie how you doing btw we’d appreciate if you’d have someone unlock what was the most popular thread in the pvp section.

Anyhow, there are a few things you conveniently omit taking into account. True, rewards matter, but not all rewards are equally effective, or appropriate to achieving long-term stability of the >pvp< playerbase (too much infrastructure lacking for that too, but I won’t be going there again).

1) PvP, more than any other mode, needs rewards in the form of prestige – that is what draws in the ‘right’ kind of playerbase (i.e. long-term, dedicated) – be it guild ladders, gold capes, or HA-style ranks – the more, the better, as long as it’s well-thought out and mirror’s the effort as well as the skill of a particular team (trivialilzing ranks, or make them easily obtainable tends to work against achieving that goal btw).
Unfortunately, the dev squad remains dismissive of this argument to this day, and for reasons unknown.

2) Moving on to what many of us have been repeating for months, if not years now – rewards alone don’t make a game mode good, they merely make it (relatively) tolerable and/or worthwhile, perhaps even ‘fun’ for some who are in it just for the shinies – this has been discussed to death (even in the pve forum sections), and I am certain you ‘get the point’ by now, yet there has been no actual reply on this key matter so far as I know.
Case in point how rewards alone are not enough to keep a playerbase going is GW – although certain zones/modes come to life during the week events (double rewards), they immediately return back to the desert they were before the event – because most players are in it now just for the rewards, because their priorities don’t lie in sustaining the particular format, but simply ‘get the most out of it’ and then move on.
What makes you think the pvp on GW2 is ANY different? It can barely even be called a minigame given the % of playerbase engaged in conquest.

Last but not least – game industry is a place of harsh competition, and you should know (I am convinced you do) that Anet got extremely lucky with GW2 because it rode the wave of fame built on its past success (which was tossed in the trash shortly after having served the purpose).
Making excuses such as ‘we put in loads of work, we did our best, we’re working our potatoes off’ – no matter how true or false they are – amount to little more than potatoes, if you aren’t delivering, and is also quite unprofessional – this isn’t the public server, and even there such things aren’t tolerated ad infinitum.
I am rather certain your rivals welcome such excuses, however, especially if they’re true – because it shows something is clearly wrong, when you aren’t performing despite putting in (the maximum) effort.

Geez, doing too much srs posting lately (so not worth it).

What Karla is trying to say is that rewards shouldn’t be the main reason for population increase, it should be the infrastructure. Yes?

Anyway, I’ve always been saying: yes rewards are great, add them, they can’t hurt. But what should be the priority is the proper infrastructure. Have visible in game ratings, proper ladder, make it competitive. Those things are really not hard to make. That will actually keep the population.

Also, there is a huge drop in pvp playerbase already since the patch. I remember having 1 minute queues and now they are mostly between 5 and 10 minutes, which is a very long time to wait to get a bad matchup anyway. These rewards are not bad at all, but they are definitely not enough.

Rezz.8019:

What Karla is trying to say is that rewards shouldn’t be the main reason for population increase, it should be the infrastructure. Yes?

Anyway, I’ve always been saying: yes rewards are great, add them, they can’t hurt. But what should be the priority is the proper infrastructure. Have visible in game ratings, proper ladder, make it competitive. Those things are really not hard to make. That will actually keep the population.

Also, there is a huge drop in pvp playerbase already since the patch. I remember having 1 minute queues and now they are mostly between 5 and 10 minutes, which is a very long time to wait to get a bad matchup anyway. These rewards are not bad at all, but they are definitely not enough.

This! Visible ratings, ladders etc.

Allie.9268:

Jamais vu.5284:

What update in the past 6-12 months was truly sPvP centric? All you changed was rewards rewards and rewards. And about a bi-annually balance update.
Rewards make no better PvP game mode.

Rewards are incredibly important in any game, including PvP. It is what keeps players in the game.

And, oddly enough, GW2 removed PVP rewards for, what, like an entire month? If they are so important, then it should have behooved them to never remove the reward structure, even for a month.

Allie.9268:

Not sure if you’ve noticed the consistently instant queue pops and populated servers but… the game is actually full of people now. The feature build was a huge release for GW2 PvP, even if not in the most obvious of ways.

Downplaying that kind of thing can really drive devs away, btw. They put in incredible amounts of hours to make great updates and players make it sound like it was nothing. Disregarding their efforts is a big hit on morale and should really be avoided, particularly when asking for more transparency.

Time != quality

I’m sure they spent a lot of time making all those new healing spells, too. It doesn’t mean it was any good.

The April 15th patch was about 80% crap, 20% decent changes. And most of those 20% came from last minute changes that I think you pushed for, on behalf of the community. That means, in my mind, the developers had put together a patch that was closer to 90% crap. It was a gross waste of resources.

It’s sad that morale is low at ANet, but I guarantee you that putting out more crap changes isn’t going to improve morale.

People want transparency because they think they can positively influence the game design. The reality is they cannot, so transparency is a moot point.

In actuality, people don’t want transparency – they just want quality patches at a decent rate. Since we’re in the sPvP forums, what people here really want is better balance changes. What they want are developers who listen to the 15,000 posts that Healing Signet is overpowered – not developers who stick their fingers in their ears and say, ‘warriors are fine. L2P’. They want developers who listen to the 20,000 posts saying that stealth is broken in WvW (and post videos of 1 thief soloing 6-10 people at a time) – not developers who lean over and say, “I’m a trifle deaf in this ear. You’ll have to speak a bit louder next time”

ANet Morale is not going to improve as long as the quality is this low. I played this game since beta and there have been only a handful of releases with good content. Most of it was bad, broken, or just terribly, terribly late to the game (i.e. stuff that should have been out at release).

You know what’s funny is that I realized that nearly every single patch that I found to be good/entertaining was focused on PVE and was primarily, or solely, developed by one person: Josh Foreman (SAB, MechaStreisand, Mad King’s Tower, etc). What does that tell you?

The April 15th patch proved to me that ANet either doesn’t really know how to balance PvP, or simply doesn’t care enough. This was made clear when Powerr had effectively said they think the meta is going to change, but have no idea how because of how many changes they have made to the game. That’s not acceptable.

The development and maintenance I have seen is not consistent with any AAA MMO I’ve ever played. It’s not even on par with free-to-play games on the market. For example, I’ve been playing Smite a lot recently. It’s a well-balanced MOBA with lots of skill-based plays. Since April 15th GW2 patch, I believe Smite has released 2 new gods, at least 4 new skins, and released 3-4 balance patches. What has GW2 done in that same time frame?

If ANet really wants to make sPvP a truly competitive game mode, then they need to stop working on it altogether. Instead, augment custom arenas to allow players to adjust spell costs, durations and coefficients. Let the community balance the game for them. Then just suck in the ‘best of breed’ changes and baseline them in future builds.

This is a response to many posts, not going to quote all of them.

You’re comparing a game that has an entire studio focused on one game mode to a game that has three major game modes. Of course their one game mode is going to get more updates.

Regardless of that, can you guys see how the messaging here is confusing? One person says they actually don’t want transparency, while others say they do. I’m just curious, do you guys even have an idea of what transparency is? At least, how would you define it?

I don’t think it’s a mystery to anyone here or at ArenaNet that PvP players need prestige in games. I also don’t think that it’s a mystery that GW2 needs a new game mode (I myself would love one).

Lastly, I wasn’t making up excuses for anyone. Nor was I saying the morale is low at ANet. I just don’t like seeing people I care about treated poorly.

Thedenofsin.7340:

The development and maintenance I have seen is not consistent with any AAA MMO I’ve ever played. It’s not even on par with free-to-play games on the market. For example, I’ve been playing Smite a lot recently. It’s a well-balanced MOBA with lots of skill-based plays. Since April 15th GW2 patch, I believe Smite has released 2 new gods, at least 4 new skins, and released 3-4 balance patches. What has GW2 done in that same time frame?

Smite is a great example of dev/community interaction, as well. If you spend any amount of time on their forums and subreddit, you’ll run into tons of posts and responses by their staff on practically any range of topics. Open discussion of balance is actively encouraged and small changes are implemented on a nearly-weekly basis, usually accompanied by a new character or skin (also usually based on ideas from the community itself). If a change doesn’t work out as well as expected after a couple of days, their devs don’t hesitate to roll it back with a follow-up patch. As a result, the meta shifts pretty rapidly as top players adapt, and the tournaments are very dynamic and fun to watch because of the wide variety of tactics and team comps that can be viable.

Anet could definitely learn a thing or two from that development team, especially since the GW2 community is already providing tons of awesome ideas and suggestions for them to sort through. There’s just so much missed opportunity here.

Allie.9268:

This is a response to many posts, not going to quote all of them.

You’re comparing a game that has an entire studio focused on one game mode to a game that has three major game modes. Of course their one game mode is going to get more updates.

That’s one perspective. I suppose then I would argue that since GW2 has 3 game modes, then I’d expect to see 1/3rd the sPvP updates than I’d see in something like Smite. However, the reality is that it’s far closer to 1/10 to 1/15th the number of updates, and that’s probably generous.

I could also argue that GW2 requires you to buy the game to play, whereas the other is 100% free to play. Therefore GW2 should have a significantly larger operating budget than the other game. As such, it should be able to afford adequate staffing to push out more updates than the other.

(I forgot to mention Smite also released a whole Siege map in that month’s time as well).

Allie.9268:

Regardless of that, can you guys see how the messaging here is confusing? One person says they actually don’t want transparency, while others say they do. I’m just curious, do you guys even have an idea of what transparency is? At least, how would you define it?

I’ll say this. If the sPvP patches came out at a moderate rate and continuously showed improvement toward balance, do you think people would be clamoring for transparency? Of course they would not, because they would know the “balance team” is regularly iterating on the game and progressing toward a balanced state.

Allie.9268:

I also don’t think that it’s a mystery that GW2 needs a new game mode (I myself would love one).

I would argue that they cannot adequately balance and maintain the game modes in the game today. Adding another would be disastrous. How many times did the ANet team chant the mantra about how difficult it was to balance the game for 3 game modes? Now you advocate adding a 4th? This isn’t the Cosby Show, where adding another Huxtable suddenly saves your ratings.

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Smite is a great example of dev/community interaction, as well. If you spend any amount of time on their forums and subreddit, you’ll run into tons of posts and responses by their staff on practically any range of topics. Open discussion of balance is actively encouraged and small changes are implemented on a nearly-weekly basis, usually accompanied by a new character or skin (also usually based on ideas from the community itself). If a change doesn’t work out as well as expected after a couple of days, their devs don’t hesitate to roll it back with a follow-up patch. As a result, the meta shifts pretty rapidly as top players adapt, and the tournaments are very dynamic and fun to watch because of the wide variety of tactics and team comps that can be viable.

Anet could definitely learn a thing or two from that development team, especially since the GW2 community is already providing tons of awesome ideas and suggestions for them to sort through. There’s just so much missed opportunity here.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I’ve been playing that game now for a little while and all I could think of was, “This is what the GW2 team should have been doing for the past 2 years”. I’ve seen more really good plays in 1 month than I’ve seen in 2 years of GW2. For example: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCoBypJfeRA&t=3m37s )

Branden Gee.2150:

Elrey.5472:

Call me crazy, but I do believe some info about the next update, even if it’s just “hey, we’ll give you a potato in 4 weeks” would calm down the people impatience… such is the gw2 community hunger.

While we’d love to give you a time and date of when we’re sending out the potato, remember that during the development process we may discover that a baked potato would be even better. So instead of getting the potato of your dreams you end up with something completely unexpected.

It often happens that a mashed potato with gravy is even better still, unfortunately gravy requires more dev time. So we end up shipping a mashed potato without gravy to meet our promise of ship time or we push back the time and date of when we are shipping again and again. You get your mashed potato with gravy but it is delivered much later than it was expected.

Worst of all that is when we realize that potatoes are way too mainstream and that yams are where it’s at now. And I think we all know how reactions seem to go when we ship yams instead of potatoes.

So in a lot of cases the best we can do is tell you that we are still in the kitchen cooking things up, we’re reading your feedback, and that we’re excited to get the meal out to you soon™.

“What’s ‘Taters,’ Precious?!?” with Re-Recorded a…: http://youtu.be/pgoQ5UgCPLo

+1 for thedenofsin

On a side note, why opting to make 3 different game modes, if there wasn’t enough staff to maintain and balance each of the three game modes on a regular manner.

Valid points/questions, but I don’t think that excuses the mistreatment of developers.

Allie.9268:

Valid points/questions, but I don’t think that excuses the mistreatment of developers.

I agree.

I think the issue is both sides are very passionate about the game (or none of us would be here), and when neither side will admit a single fault, or communicate well, you get stuck in this weird area where we are now. Unfortunately, I think it is on the developers however to step up as best as they can (in whatever way is reasonable), and be the ones to correct this. We need more communication between players and devs.

Allie.9268:

Valid points/questions, but I don’t think that excuses the mistreatment of developers.

it does not excuse the mistreating of developers, however it goes both ways. The developers keep ignoring us, thus mistreating their customers.

Now, this leads to a fascinating question; Are the developers in their full right to ignore the customers, because it is their game, their property and their creation. Or should they actually listen to the customers when it counts, since without customers, the game itself wouldn’t exist.

One could argue, that the mistreatment of developers was brought upon them by themselves through sheer arrogance/ignorance of what their customers wanted.

Edit:
The thing is, a lot of the anger, could be stemmed by simply acknowledging that the players saw it as an issue.
A dev simply making a post in a relevant thread saying “Since X topic has been brought up frequently in last days/weeks/months, we recognize that this may or may not be an issue and we will be looking into it”.

Then they tell their testers to gear up and take things for a spin, or tell the testers to go ingame while at work and check how it works on the live servers. After all, this is why you have testers.
Sure the testers have a schedule that is probably quite tight as is, yet ongoing live game issues should trumph prototype changes atleast until the live game issue has been resolved or deemed as “not having a negative impact on the overall game”

Prysin.8542:

Now, this leads to a fascinating question; Are the developers in their full right to ignore the customers, because it is their game, their property and their creation. Or should they actually listen to the customers when it counts, since without customers, the game itself wouldn’t exist.

Yes, and yes. It is fully within their right to not listen to us, however they also have to understand the consequences of their actions.

Prysin.8542:

Allie.9268:

Valid points/questions, but I don’t think that excuses the mistreatment of developers.

Now, this leads to a fascinating question; Are the developers in their full right to ignore the customers, because it is their game, their property and their creation. Or should they actually listen to the customers when it counts, since without customers, the game itself wouldn’t exist.

As someone who has been a software developer for 8 years, yes, you can ignore your customer, but their will be problems if you do. Some developers get the axe, while others play politics and manage to worm their way into ‘nearly un-fireable’ positions, others still play the blame game and hope the axe falls elsewhere.

Reading several of the reviews at http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/ArenaNet-Reviews-E255820.htm really shows, at least IMO, that their are problems in ANET, and it will not get better anytime soon

Branden Gee.2150:

Elrey.5472:

Call me crazy, but I do believe some info about the next update, even if it’s just “hey, we’ll give you a potato in 4 weeks” would calm down the people impatience… such is the gw2 community hunger.

While we’d love to give you a time and date of when we’re sending out the potato, remember that during the development process we may discover that a baked potato would be even better. So instead of getting the potato of your dreams you end up with something completely unexpected.

It often happens that a mashed potato with gravy is even better still, unfortunately gravy requires more dev time. So we end up shipping a mashed potato without gravy to meet our promise of ship time or we push back the time and date of when we are shipping again and again. You get your mashed potato with gravy but it is delivered much later than it was expected.

Worst of all that is when we realize that potatoes are way too mainstream and that yams are where it’s at now. And I think we all know how reactions seem to go when we ship yams instead of potatoes.

So in a lot of cases the best we can do is tell you that we are still in the kitchen cooking things up, we’re reading your feedback, and that we’re excited to get the meal out to you soon™.

I’m at work right now, I left a client in mid sentence, while I typed this. I literally love you man! Marry me? I’m not gay or anything… I just want to you!

Branden Gee.2150:

So instead of getting the potato of your dreams you end up with something completely unexpected.

10 out of 10 would play again.

Prysin.8542:

Allie.9268:

Valid points/questions, but I don’t think that excuses the mistreatment of developers.

it does not excuse the mistreating of developers, however it goes both ways. The developers keep ignoring us, thus mistreating their customers.

Now, this leads to a fascinating question; Are the developers in their full right to ignore the customers, because it is their game, their property and their creation. Or should they actually listen to the customers when it counts, since without customers, the game itself wouldn’t exist.

What exactly is your definition of ignoring?

I guess I just find it ironic that you use Skyhammer in Solo Arenas as the example of devs ignoring the playerbase, when Solo Arena’s existence in the first place is literally a result of ArenaNet listening to the playerbase.

Now, I’m not saying I do or don’t agree with having Skyhammer in Solo Arena. I’m just trying to point out the flaws in these statements. It doesn’t help you guys to use hyperbole (in this case, saying ANet ignores it’s players).

Anet doesn’t ignore players but it’s a fact that spvp improvements are really really slow.

Population in this game is 70% pve, maybe now that spvp is more integrated with pve, many players want to play spvp and we will get more update for it.

IMHO New Game modes (TDM 2vs2, 3vs3), unique spvp tracks (like balthazar backpack but also unique for soloqueue and teamqueue) and spvp seasons with league/ladder could help A LOT.

Allie.9268:

Valid points/questions, but I don’t think that excuses the mistreatment of developers.

“Treat others how you want to be treated” We all havve heard of this.

And I dont feel like they have treated the spvp or wvw playerbase like they care about us. All we have to do is look back at the lack of content/fixes/attention given to those modes. Whether thats because of the leadership of ANet or not we have been treated like “oh yeah we also have a pvp mode”.

Acharyn.4738:

Branden Gee.2150:

While we’d love to give you a time and date of when we’re sending out the potato, remember that during the development process we may discover that a baked potato would be even better. So instead of getting the potato of your dreams you end up with something completely unexpected.

It often happens that a mashed potato with gravy is even better still, unfortunately gravy requires more dev time. So we end up shipping a mashed potato without gravy to meet our promise of ship time or we push back the time and date of when we are shipping again and again. You get your mashed potato with gravy but it is delivered much later than it was expected.

Worst of all that is when we realize that potatoes are way too mainstream and that yams are where it’s at now. And I think we all know how reactions seem to go when we ship yams instead of potatoes.

So in a lot of cases the best we can do is tell you that we are still in the kitchen cooking things up, we’re reading your feedback, and that we’re excited to get the meal out to you soon™.

I hope we’re getting potatoes with the rest of the update now.

On a more serious note. If you’re planning on adding any new instruments, a violin would be wonderful.

So would a lute! I’d play the kitten out of a lute on my Ele all day.

MarkPhilips.5169:

Anet doesn’t ignore players but it’s a fact that spvp improvements are really really slow.

Population in this game is 70% pve, maybe now that spvp is more integrated with pve, many players want to play spvp and we will get more update for it.

IMHO New Game modes (TDM 2vs2, 3vs3), unique spvp tracks (like balthazar backpack but also unique for soloqueue and teamqueue) and spvp seasons with league/ladder could help A LOT.

I really want to see a flag capture map. I’ve always loved that kind of match in other game types.

[/quote]
If ANet really wants to make sPvP a truly competitive game mode, then they need to stop working on it altogether. Instead, augment custom arenas to allow players to adjust spell costs, durations and coefficients. Let the community balance the game for them. Then just suck in the ‘best of breed’ changes and baseline them in future builds.
[/quote]

Oh my god, that sounds amazing. I’d love to play my Ele with lower CD’s on RTL/EQ/Updraft as well as no cooldowns on attunement swapping. That would seriously make Ele so much fun.

Allie.9268:

Prysin.8542:

Allie.9268:

Valid points/questions, but I don’t think that excuses the mistreatment of developers.

it does not excuse the mistreating of developers, however it goes both ways. The developers keep ignoring us, thus mistreating their customers.

Now, this leads to a fascinating question; Are the developers in their full right to ignore the customers, because it is their game, their property and their creation. Or should they actually listen to the customers when it counts, since without customers, the game itself wouldn’t exist.

What exactly is your definition of ignoring?

I guess I just find it ironic that you use Skyhammer in Solo Arenas as the example of devs ignoring the playerbase, when Solo Arena’s existence in the first place is literally a result of ArenaNet listening to the playerbase.

Now, I’m not saying I do or don’t agree with having Skyhammer in Solo Arena. I’m just trying to point out the flaws in these statements. It doesn’t help you guys to use hyperbole (in this case, saying ANet ignores it’s players).

i do not refer to skyhammer, nor did i mention it, so your assumption regarding what i was referring to is way off.

A short list of “customer” complaints that has been largely ignored for very long periods of time;

- Ranger profession (recently adressed by the CDI, but no actual progress has been made so far)
- Warrior Healing signet (it was too strong, for too long and the current nerf was a bit on the soft side, but it is a start)
- Stealth mechanics in general
- PvP modes, arena sizes, arena maps and so forth.
- Dhuumfire (went by without any changes to ages, then got nerfed into oblivion, now it’s useless)
- Ranged vs Melee (too much gap closers, too few ways to maintain/create gaps)
- PvE balance (too easy mobs, too much reliance on stacking)
- Downed mechanics in general.

All these things, has been brought up two gazillion times, with little to no acknowledgement, progress or change. I realize that you are no longer part of Anet Allie, so in a sense, it wouldnt hurt to be honest with us now (they cannot fire you for telling the truth now).
How aware are they of these opinions. Opinions, among many other legit complaints, that has been raised again and again and again and again and again since way before i started playing 15 months ago, and these complaints are STILL being raised.

Simply put, the customers has given feedback, but in the process of dealing with the feedback, Anet has barely EVER asked the question; How much over the top do you think this problem is?

A large minority say Healing signet needed a 15% or larger nerf to the passive, not 8%. Dhuumfire was broken completely, a result that could be avoided by simply asking about for some constructive advice on the case.
Stealth has had 9 gazillion complaints, a 20th of those are valid, the rest is mostly complaints, yet still, no constructive discussion between the players and the devs has happened to this topic.

When changes are made, we often are told nothing in advance, and when we are, we are still blatantly ignored (diamond skin discussions anyone?). Sure sometimes the customers are overreacting, however the times when they ain’t and actually have valid points, they are still overlooked. Changes are implemented, and there has almost been no efforts to reverse the damage that was done. Instead, the damaging changes are introduced to stay, regardless of the damage they do to the way customers perceive the game itself.

Prysin.8542, You might not refer to Skyhammer, but others in this thread do.

Dhuumfire actually had a change made before the “nerf into oblivion”, specifically as a result of player feedback.

Downed mechanics have been updated periodically.

Modes – they’re experimenting with the new map in custom arenas, as well had a CDI after seeing player feedback.

Rangers – the responsiveness to pets alone was a big change for Rangers. One that players requested as well.

The changes I listed above are a tiny fraction of all the things ArenaNet has done in response to player feedback.

Do you feel it is reasonable to consult the playerbase on every single change they make in the game? Do you think it’s reasonable for them to talk to you guys about every change that is made or will be made? Honestly, when would they have the time to actually develop the game if they were doing all that?

Whether or not the balance of dev to player interaction is at a healthy state right now, saying ArenaNet ignores player feedback is factually wrong.

Allie.9268:

Prysin.8542, You might not refer to Skyhammer, but others in this thread do.

Dhuumfire actually had a change made before the “nerf into oblivion”, specifically as a result of player feedback.

Downed mechanics have been updated periodically.

Modes – they’re experimenting with the new map in custom arenas, as well had a CDI after seeing player feedback.

Rangers – the responsiveness to pets alone was a big change for Rangers. One that players requested as well.

The changes I listed above are a tiny fraction of all the things ArenaNet has done in response to player feedback.

Do you feel it is reasonable to consult the playerbase on every single change they make in the game? Do you think it’s reasonable for them to talk to you guys about every change that is made or will be made? Honestly, when would they have the time to actually develop the game if they were doing all that?

Whether or not the balance of dev to player interaction is at a healthy state right now, saying ArenaNet ignores player feedback is factually wrong.

sry, but as ranger i can say to you.
the pet changes just dont count.
its just a bug fix…
and wolf fear still dont work like i would like to see it.
the wolf FIRST run to the target and then it does the fear,
sometimes that is still a problem if i want a fear on my position because there is a stealthed enemy for example.

where is the rest?

Allie.9268:

Prysin.8542, You might not refer to Skyhammer, but others in this thread do.

Dhuumfire actually had a change made before the “nerf into oblivion”, specifically as a result of player feedback.

Downed mechanics have been updated periodically.

Modes – they’re experimenting with the new map in custom arenas, as well had a CDI after seeing player feedback.

Rangers – the responsiveness to pets alone was a big change for Rangers. One that players requested as well.

The changes I listed above are a tiny fraction of all the things ArenaNet has done in response to player feedback.

Do you feel it is reasonable to consult the playerbase on every single change they make in the game? Do you think it’s reasonable for them to talk to you guys about every change that is made or will be made? Honestly, when would they have the time to actually develop the game if they were doing all that?

Whether or not the balance of dev to player interaction is at a healthy state right now, saying ArenaNet ignores player feedback is factually wrong.

ok, so you list 5 changes, some bigger then others, however that is less then 10% of any regular patch, even the ones that is not considered a balance patch.

Yes i knew of the Dhuumfire ICD change, the pet F2 responsiveness change was requested for, FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS!!!…. At this point, if they hadn’t made that change, even myself, an dedicated ranger profession, would eventually jump ship. Modes, sure, their experimenting, but how long did it take them to “notice” the feedback.

I do not disagree with the changes, nor with the fact that in the end they did actually discuss it with us.
The whole problem is this allie;
Time between a issue being raised, until the developers actually take note and doing something about it is bordering outrageous.

Dhuumfire – From before launch till first nerf; 6.5 months
Ranger Pet F2 – From around beta/launch until the recent buff; 1 year and 9 months
Healing Signet – From shortly after the buff till the current nerf; 4,5 months
AR trait – From the first complaints i noticed (probably since before that too) till recent nerf; 3 months

Changes to downed state; There was 2-3 bug fixes in regards to OP unstoppable ranger pets rezzing their master and some other stuff. Please do tell me if there were more notable ones.

Since this topic is about transparency and not how Anet handles Feedback (that is another topic) i’d just like to say that Anet should take note, and at the very very least have a short discussion.

Sure, there is a million complaints raised every 10 minutes or so, so naturally Anet cannot participate in all these discussions. However there is several topics that keep repeating themselves to such an extent that one should react in little less then a month.
Yes we cannot expect that every discussion that anet participates in producers any changes.
The CDI topics have been a great step in the right direction, however, as i see it, the CDI’s are a bit more formal. They often call for big changes or brand new content. Such topics does need a whole conversation to themselves. However, these things are not the real problem here.
What is the issue is all the smaller topics, calling for specific changes to specific things, rather then very general changes that affects everything.

Yes a balance change DOES affect everything, but it does so in a more predictable way, let me explain;
If you nerf skill A on weapon X then you must look at the other skills with that weapon/weapon set to make sure the overall power does not drop too far. This means that you can predict how things will go, rather then just change some numbers and hope for the best.

It is these kinds of things that should be openly discussed, the little bits and pieces that causes frustration and anger on a daily basis.

Allie.9268:

Prysin.8542, You might not refer to Skyhammer, but others in this thread do.

Dhuumfire actually had a change made before the “nerf into oblivion”, specifically as a result of player feedback.

Downed mechanics have been updated periodically.

Modes – they’re experimenting with the new map in custom arenas, as well had a CDI after seeing player feedback.

Rangers – the responsiveness to pets alone was a big change for Rangers. One that players requested as well.

The changes I listed above are a tiny fraction of all the things ArenaNet has done in response to player feedback.

Do you feel it is reasonable to consult the playerbase on every single change they make in the game? Do you think it’s reasonable for them to talk to you guys about every change that is made or will be made? Honestly, when would they have the time to actually develop the game if they were doing all that?

Whether or not the balance of dev to player interaction is at a healthy state right now, saying ArenaNet ignores player feedback is factually wrong.

These changes came waaayyyyy to slow. like 1.5 years slow, as well as other balance issues (the slow shave, despite experienced players stating how shaving and then power creep other objects would fail). Somethings OP no problem, 8 months later it will get “shaved” and still be OP. Personally I just think Anet is just under staffed straight up.

Allie.9268:

Do you feel it is reasonable to consult the playerbase on every single change they make in the game? Do you think it’s reasonable for them to talk to you guys about every change that is made or will be made? Honestly, when would they have the time to actually develop the game if they were doing all that?

Whether or not the balance of dev to player interaction is at a healthy state right now, saying ArenaNet ignores player feedback is factually wrong.

Blizzard is already publishing detailed patch notes for the next WoW expansion which is some 6 months away and adjusting them according to feedback.
Anet hides the patch notes until the day of the patch.
That is the main problem here. Announce things in advance and let the players tell you how broken something will be.

Here’s a quote from one of the Blizzard devs:

“Our current focus is to get the expansion into a state where you guys can help us start testing it. That testing will inform many, many decisions, and how the game plays when it’s launched will inform how the first content patch is designed, and how that patch plays out will inform the second content patch, etc. etc. We’d rather be unsure and make the correct decisions when they need to be made, than make the wrong decisions and be too stubborn to change them.”

Emphasis mine.
That’s how it should be done.

Just look at Riot if you need examples of what people want. I can go on a website like Surrender@20, read their near daily updates on dev posts and PBE changes, and I know months in advance the main balance changes that I can expect.

I realize why a PBE could be difficult for you, due to the fact that you have other things you might need to test that would not be as good to reveal, but putting out at least balance information and actually considering the feedback pre-patch is massive.

As it is now, whether it is factual or just perception, it feels like the devs are scared to ever mention anything meaningful on the forums, won’t interact (even in a limited manner by posting their thoughts for the future and allowing people to talk, but not directly engaging in the conversation), and refuse to admit mistakes. Also, things like stealth nerfs have really hurt the ability to trust ANet and feel respected as a playerbase.

More often than not, communication and transparency are sought after directly when the game fails to meet, on a recurring basis, player expectations and wishes – basicaly, when it is continuously underdelivering in key areas.
Nevertheless, both are still a welcome insight into the thought process and reasoning behind the changes that were/are to be made, but I believe they matter more/most with large patches that will bring about significant changes, and not regular updates, the latter of which should most definitely happen more often than once every half a year.
Also, the nr of bugs running rampant in this game is appaling, and so is the glacial pace of fixing them, if at all, not to mention the lack of proper infrastructure, the spammy nature of most skills, AI, certain plain bad map designs, balance, power creeping unpopular proffessions instead of bringing the overperfoming ones back in line, and so many other issues that have been brought to Anet’s attention repeatedly over the years.
Either the company will step up its game, or sink, because the cash shop and the closely-related LQ LS as the main revenue generators will only work so long (I hope).

Allie.9268:

Prysin.8542, You might not refer to Skyhammer, but others in this thread do.

Dhuumfire actually had a change made before the “nerf into oblivion”, specifically as a result of player feedback.

Downed mechanics have been updated periodically.

Modes – they’re experimenting with the new map in custom arenas, as well had a CDI after seeing player feedback.

Rangers – the responsiveness to pets alone was a big change for Rangers. One that players requested as well.

The changes I listed above are a tiny fraction of all the things ArenaNet has done in response to player feedback.

Do you feel it is reasonable to consult the playerbase on every single change they make in the game? Do you think it’s reasonable for them to talk to you guys about every change that is made or will be made? Honestly, when would they have the time to actually develop the game if they were doing all that?

Whether or not the balance of dev to player interaction is at a healthy state right now, saying ArenaNet ignores player feedback is factually wrong.

I approve of all of this. They do listen to feedback, sometimes even too much.

Only thing that I would personally want them to do is to make a little bit more forum posts, just so the community can see they are there. It can be anything really, even about potatoes.

Allie did awesome job with this imo. Josh and Justin do a good job too but sometimes they go missing for too long!

On dhuumfire – rite, because the necromancer community was clamouring for more damage and all. It wasn’t defense, nor escape mechanics, and neither better tools to be a genuine attrition-based class, that was asked for. Nope, it must have been the damage.
/end sarcasm
It is true that necros needed ways to cover conds, but to add in burning, of all conds, which also happened to proc randomly is so…so…potato. I always wondered why introducing torment alone as a cover cond wasn’t deemed enough.

And don’t even get me started on new ‘modes’ (btw new maps =/= new modes) and AI-based classes, or the way of Anet as regards (not) fixing bugs.

If they increased the survibility of Necros as the ppl in Sotga twitch have asked , then the Necro would be an other class that can stand on his own in 1v1 scenerios .

But if the increased their dps but his defences stay the same , they they would be a glass that need ’’support’’ (forcing teamplay deleberty) to survive

NC Soft forced the release date and gw2 spvp was shipped with practically nothing. It was in 2012 when qualifier points were added as a makeshift ladder seeing as how in 2011 anet said it would have ladders but in 2014 anet asked its players how to make them.

This is the reasoning behind the tip of the iceberg quote,

So when we say we’ll show something “when it’s ready,” we really mean it. We don’t want to talk about it until we’re ready to show it, because it may change.

Transparency is confidence. Anet doesn’t have the confidence to comment on what they don’t have or what they are working on.

Allie.9268:

What exactly is your definition of ignoring?

1) ignore: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
2) ignore: fail to consider (something significant).
3) ignore: reject as groundless

Let’s see:
Requests for skyhammer fall under definition #1
Lack of proper leaderboards for a year fall under definition #2
Dismissal of cries of “overpowered Healing Signet” falls under definition #3

There are many more examples – those are just a few. What’s your definition of ignore?

Allie.9268:

I guess I just find it ironic that you use Skyhammer in Solo Arenas as the example of devs ignoring the playerbase, when Solo Arena’s existence in the first place is literally a result of ArenaNet listening to the playerbase.

What exactly is your definition of irony? Because that’s not irony, according to my definition of it. The fact they added solo queue is great. The fact that ANet created Skyhammer is simply tragic.

Allie.9268:

Now, I’m not saying I do or don’t agree with having Skyhammer in Solo Arena. I’m just trying to point out the flaws in these statements. It doesn’t help you guys to use hyperbole (in this case, saying ANet ignores it’s players).

Allie.9268:

Do you feel it is reasonable to consult the playerbase on every single change they make in the game? Do you think it’s reasonable for them to talk to you guys about every change that is made or will be made? Honestly, when would they have the time to actually develop the game if they were doing all that?

Based upon the quality of the changes I’ve seen implemented, I’d say it’s 100% compulsory to consult the playerbase. I’d also say a beta server is 100% necessary.

Dhuumfire was a bad idea.
The last update to Dhuumfire was a bad idea.
Healing Signet was a bad idea.
Diamond Skin was a bad idea.
Most of the new heals were bad ideas.
The vast majority of the new grandmaster traits were bad ideas.
Skyhammer was a bad idea.
A new game mode is a bad idea.

Allie.9268:

Whether or not the balance of dev to player interaction is at a healthy state right now, saying ArenaNet ignores player feedback is factually wrong.

I guess that depends. If you ask me to do something and I don’t respond to you for 6+ months, is that ignoring? Or is it just extreme procrastination?

In my book, I call that ignoring.

Transparency would be admitting the sPvP team was massively scaled back into a skeleton crew shortly after release due to disappointingly low Conquest player numbers and resource allocation pressure for the Living Story.

Thedenofsin.7340:

A new game mode is a bad idea.

You misunderstand, as you showed in an earlier post, the whole “new game mode” idea. You equated it with a “fourth leg” to PvE/sPvP/WvW. But no one means that. We mean maps with different objectives than holding cap points, within sPvP.
I think you are pretty alone with the notion that a new game mode within sPvP is a bad idea, though you would have had the sole company of some stubborn ANet devs and directors until circa mid 2013 (which is 3 years after every fan already told them Conquest only would be a horrible, horrible idea)

Jamais vu.5284:

Transparency would be admitting the sPvP team was massively scaled back into a skeleton crew shortly after release due to disappointingly low Conquest player numbers and resource allocation pressure for the Living Story.

Thedenofsin.7340:

A new game mode is a bad idea.

You misunderstand, as you showed in an earlier post, the whole “new game mode” idea. You equated it with a “fourth leg” to PvE/sPvP/WvW. But no one means that. We mean maps with different objectives than holding cap points, within sPvP.
I think you are pretty alone with the notion that a new game mode within sPvP is a bad idea, though you would have had the sole company of some stubborn ANet devs and directors until circa mid 2013 (which is 3 years after every fan already told them Conquest only would be a horrible, horrible idea)

I am pretty alone on this. But I am right.
I understand it just fine. What the majority of players do not grasp is that a change of objectives (i.e. moving away from standing on a point) means the game mechanics need to be adjusted to balance the game. Stealth is balanced on the notion of standing on a point. Healing Signet is balanced on that same notion. Guardian mechanics are, etc. etc.

A new game mode that requires a different set of balance changes than the others.

However, that won’t happen. What you will get is a 4th game mode that is as imbalanced, if not moreso, than the others. Either the ANet developers don’t see this problem, or they are hoping the ‘newness’ factor of a new game mode will mask its balance shortcomings, and buy them a little time.