Showing Posts For Burma.5796:
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a couple of beers with Gaile Gray and just talk about things like the difference in Business Models between GW1 and GW2 and how they effected the people who bought and played the games.
My guess is that GW2 is significantly more profitable. One cost, however, seems to be a dramatic drop in customer satisfaction. The degree to which that was caused by a shift from an emphasis on CONTENT to an emphasis on BRANDING I can only guess at. That strategy can work (e.g. APPLE Corp.). The trade-off is short term verses long term profit. Another way to put it: Should the goose be cut open now to get the golden eggs?.
The signposts suggest to me that Guild Wars will be a distant memory to most within 5 years or so. By then it will have been a financially successful endeavor having earned the evaluation “It wasn’t a bad game for awhile”. It won’t be dead, having a fairly large population. But, that population will be made up significantly of people who have yet to buy the game. Check the statistics. The “I came, I saw, I left” rate for GW2 should be analyzed by inquiring minds. Doing so should remove some of the fog.
In summary, be prepared for periodic, perhaps frequent, disappointments. The “game development” focus has shifted between GW1 and GW2 away from “market driven” towards “bells and whistles for profit.” Whether or not that was a good move depends on perspective (i.e. who is doing the evaluation). Is it someone who is cashing the checks or someone spending the money?
A final comment. I respect anyone who posts their discontent regardless of how well they communicate their point. For those who condemn them or their arguments, think about it. What you do is no different then what they do. Look inward.
Irrelevant post script: I have played GW2 since and including initial BETA, eight years playing GW1. But, for now, I will take a break, check out some alternatives and re-evaluate in three to six months, after the dust has settled. Hope springs eternal but I am not optimistic. My best to all Guild Wars junkies like me.
Namaste.
TY. (support.guildwas2.com) did not seem to be an email address, so I tried using an @ after “support”. That worked. TY again.
ty for reply. In Contact Support I did not see “contact us by email” option nor can I find an email address to use to contact GW2 Support. What is the email address to use to contact GW2 Support? Thank you.
When I try to create a Support Account is says the email address already has a Support Account. When I request Support Account info via “forgot username/password” option it says it sent me email. And, if I don’t get email to Contact Support. I did not get an email.
I cannot ASK QUESTION because I need to log into Support Account to see the response. How do I contact SUPPORT if I cannot see responses to TICKETS? Or, more generally, what should I do to view TICKETS already submitted?
If there are “surprising results” at EU, list them. Authoritarian arguments imply that they are contradicted by evidence. Checking EU, it looks to me like the matches are out of balance 7 to 1. Within each map, each server’s position mirrors its rank. What is the goal of matching based on artificial Ranks? State that clearly for evaluation please.
At this point in time 13 of the 16 matches are blowouts. I will make a prediction based upon my analysis: If or when a reasonable balance and limited blowout state is reached, the matches will be a function of non-artificial (i.e. non-adjusted/random) Ranks.
The theory that artificial Ranks result in improved Matches seems illogical to me. On the other hand, if the goal was to randomize match participants, then kudos. That certainly has happened.
Surprising results from last matchup:
Gunnars Hold and Arborstone had a very good performance. Both earned a lot of ranking points. Both servers showed their real current strength. Piken disappointed. They could not win their matchup. They lost points and therefore ranks.
Even in the current matchups you see very good performances of Gunnar Hold (again) and Blacktide. Underperformers are Gandara, Jade Sea, Seafarers Rest and Underworld. Each servers position does not mirror its current rank in the European league. Maybe you should look closer and more carefully.
If I look at other leagues like football or handball, most of the matches are out of balance. For FC Bayern München the whole season was more or less out of balance in their home league.
You are correct. Three of the eight EU servers, although blowouts, have the 2nd and 3ed ranks servers in reversed positions, but close. The word “generally” was intended to be part of the sentence. My mistake. Apologies.
Are your “surprising results” the same as those to whom the question was directed?
What was your purpose in being rude?
Wow… I actually feel bad for A net. We complain about the old system, and they design a whole new system for us. Now a lot of you are whining about this, I mean come on. You want these mythical matchups where every server is almost equal, well NEWS FLASH that’s NEVER going to happen. You might get that one or two lucky tiers that have that, but the rest of them nope. Stop whining, enjoy the week and just know it will be different next week! I mean, for example: I’m from Ehmry Bay. We beat BP and AR 13 weeks in a row. We got bored as you could imagine. Now we’re facing Maguuma, and FA. Like Devon said, tiers are old now but if you want to look at it with the old system FA is T2, Maguuma is T3 and ehmry is T5. We are losing horribly. But we love it. No one is quiting, and we’re trying our hardest win or lose, it’s a challenge and it won’t be the same every week anymore. It’s almost like football, when some horrible team plays the best team. Idk how else to put it, but good lord some of you kids will never be happy.
There is an important observation within this post. The first place server often gets bored while the other two often “love it.” There are a number of reasons to explain this. Here is one: being in position 2 or 3 in a blowout presents the opportunity farm the heck out of Karma, Rank Points, XP, Events, some money, etc. Also, as stated, having a challenge contributes significantly to enjoyment.
Currently, 13 of 16 Matches are blowouts. Translation: 13 servers are bored which is atypically high.
Concerning the “mythical match-up” comment (the condescension notwithstanding), the evidence clearly shows that the percent of fairly equal Matches has dropped since the implementation of the new matching technique.
And finally, whining about whiners and name calling…heat for heat’s sake or heat for light?
The concept of tiers has little meaning at this point and you should try to stop thinking of matchups in those terms. Servers are matched up by proximity of rating, not proximity of “tier”. If the tiers have ratings that are within the range of the random adjustment, they can end up fighting each other. This is going to result in blowouts, no doubt about it. However, we are not going to make changes to this after just 2 weeks of the system. There are things we can do. We will almost certainly end up adjusting the total added to each server rating to group the matchups a little more closely. First however, we need to let the ratings adjust by having more varied matchups like these. If you look at EU, which is using the exact same system, you can see matchups with numerous surprising results. The same will likely be true by the end of the NA matchup.
TL;DR: We are going to wait at least a couple more weeks before changing any of the math behind the new system, but it is very likely we’ll decrease the size of the variation at some point.
If there are “surprising results” at EU, list them. Authoritarian arguments imply that they are contradicted by evidence. Checking EU, it looks to me like the matches are out of balance 7 to 1. Within each map, each server’s position mirrors its rank. What is the goal of matching based on artificial Ranks? State that clearly for evaluation please.
At this point in time 13 of the 16 matches are blowouts. I will make a prediction based upon my analysis: If or when a reasonable balance and limited blowout state is reached, the matches will be a function of non-artificial (i.e. non-adjusted/random) Ranks.
The theory that artificial Ranks result in improved Matches seems illogical to me. On the other hand, if the goal was to randomize match participants, then kudos. That certainly has happened.
RE: N. America servers. At this time, with two exceptions, the matches are hardly competitive, as predicted. “Winning” in each match parallels each server’s Rank. I believe the unlucky server is the highest ranked server in each match. Their opportunity to gain Rank Points, Karma, XP, etc., has diminished. The other two servers in the match have increased opportunity in those areas if they set their goal to be farming rather then winning. Likewise, completing the daily achievement takes more time for people on the top ranked server, less for those on the other two.
I ran a simulation in which Server Ranks were altered from which I could see only two results: Less competitive matches and higher variability of opponents. In those weeks where we are the highest ranked server in the match, I will find something else to do. When not, I will farm like a mad man. That is just my solution to a matching concept that I find contradictory (i.e. increased farming in a game that generally nerfs any farm quickly).
Some will like the “matching” change, some will not. Just took this opportunity to side with the “bad idea” crowd, nothing more. Namaste.