Guild Wars 2

Wait…

“I know your face from my dream!”

I laughed at the obligatory buttcape. And then stopped laughing when I previewed it on a male toon.

And then I laughed again.

I’d settle for more pants-and-shirt combos.

I’m really curious why the design team has such an obsession with buttcapes and dresses-for-men. Oh, and trenchcoats. So. Many. Trenchcoats.

Gaile Gray.6029:

direx.8207:

@ Gaile Gray – However by that logic if lots of people are saying something on the forums or in game and we don’t see it in the patch notes is it reasonable to assume it’s not being listened to? Because that’s what it feels like much of the time. And since there’s no way to tell without dev comments what’s being payed attention to people tend to assume they’re not being listened to unless told otherwise, and then when patch notes hits and doesn’t list a change to what they were talking about it confirms they’re being ignored instead of perhaps something just not being ready to release yet.

No, it’s not reasonable to make that assumption. If changes are not made, that is in no way an indication that (1) the devs are unaware of a situation or (2) they are willfully choosing to ignore reasonable and practicable feedback.

The fact that something is not changed could be related to the fact that the suggestion is not reasonable, is not practical, or or cannot be achieved in a specific timeframe but may (or will) happen in the future.

Random examples:

• Not Reasonable: I say “Give Ranger pets +1000 to their skills!” Ok, clearly that’s just not reasonable.
• Not Possible: Someone says “Give everyone access to limitless inventory space.” This is technologically impossible. Or, someone suggests, “Give everyone who bought your base game in 2012 every expansion pack for free, forever.” That completely ignores the costs of development over the years and the general costs of keeping the lights on.
• Not in This Timeframe: Someone says “Make changes to ZYX!” Well, as you know, changes happen all the time, and the fact they didn’t happen in January doesn’t mean they are dead in the water, simply that more time is needed to develop them.

As I said, those were off-the-cuff examples, but the main point is that feedback given is not an order placed, but an idea shared. Whether it comes to pass is dependent on many factors, as I’m sure you can appreciate.

Here’s the thing: I don’t believe anyone’s expecting dialogue on unreasonable or impossible suggestions.

But the problem crops up when players make the same reasonable, possible suggestion over and over in thread after thread (just drop in on the profession forums once in a while if you need examples), and nothing happens.

Without direct interaction from the devs (on THESE forums; not reddit) on the suggestions that players keep putting forth, the only reasonable assumption we can make when nothing makes it into the patch notes is that 1) the devs aren’t reading the suggestions, or 2) that they don’t care, or 3) that keeping the playerbase informed on development decisions isn’t a priority. The first two things you say aren’t true, so it must be the third.

As the playerbase continues to make reasonable and possible suggestions, they deserve to at least have interaction from the devs vis-a-vis those same suggestions.

I think dialogue would go a long way in bridging the development gap. But the frustrating reality is that, apart from the CDI (which has been indefinitely suspended for whatever reason), there has been precious little dialogue coming from the devs.

Professions are broken. Players have given thousands of reasonable, possible suggestions to fix them. Patches come and go and they’re still broken. And no dialogue.

Surely you can see how this comes across?

Jana.6831:

Yes, some passives are nice/ok – but there’s too many of them flying around.

Not to mention that almost all of them are stacked in the Acro line. It’s seriously 50% of the traits.

Was having this problem all last night and the evening before. Kinda sucks to use an entire combo/CD chain on an visible-but-not-there-mob, only to have it actually spawn on you ten seconds later out of nowhere.

One weird interaction I was getting (particularly when using ranged attacks) is that my toon would attack where the coding apparently thought the mob was, despite the fact that it was visible in a completely different location. Made for some very weird moments.

For sure! I’m not contesting the value that Blighter’s Boon has for sustain. It pairs well with a Vampiric build for that very reason.

But the OP asked about a perma- or near-perma-Shroud build and the value of Blighter’s Boon for quickly regening LF.

Given that, I’ve found spike-genning LF outstrips anything else. Axe #2, Focus #4, GS #5 and #3, and you’re pretty much full again and back in shroud.

At this point, it’s more flavor than anything, but I’d rather be able to spike-gen my LF and keep Reaper’s Onslaught’s flat DPS boost than add potential sustain. For PvE at least.

LucianDK.8615:

thanks for the unyielding explanation, now that makes sense.

Yep! I’ve not had problems with it being overkill when running solo. Though with a full group or zerg, vuln is usually capped anyway (especially on champs/bosses), so it’s probably better to swap it out for Speed of Shadows so you can hop into Shroud sooner.

I’ve never had problems with chill dropping off, to be honest. You setup your Shroud rotation with the GS or Focus skills upfront to get Chill rolling before hoping into Shroud. Using Shroud 5 + 4, you send out tons of Freezing Bolts which’ll stack up chill even more. When you pair Paths of Midnight with Reaper’s Onslaught, you’ll have Executioner’s Scythe up fairly often.

Also, you can swap out your utilities anytime you need more chill. Spectral Grasp is great for LF-gen, breakbars, and single-target chill stacking. If you need still more chill, take Suffer and Chilled to the Bone. Traited Suffer is on a stupidly low CD.

But yeah—change your utilities to suit your purposes. Most mobs don’t live long enough for it to be crucial that you maintain 100% uptime on Chill just for Chilling Victory. Up against mobs that take longer, you’re typically running with other people, and the mobs you’re hitting are gonna have chill on them from other sources, especially if you’re running with a zerg.

Besides, Chilling Victory gives you a way to maintain some of your Might stacks outside of Shroud, especially when you start spamming GD. And it refills your LF bar.

As for Unyielding Blast, you need it to maintain the 25 stacks of vuln indefinitely. Rending Shroud will only stack 9 vuln on its own unless you run ConD duration. Which you won’t be in a power build. The pierce IS irrelevant. You take it for the vuln application.

Of course, you don’t have to do any of this. It’s just what I’ve found to be effective and synergize across the trait lines. YMMV.

For PvE…

With Paths of Midnight and Chilling Victory, you can stay in Shroud indefinitely unless you’re getting focused by everything and its mother. Even then, I’ve managed to stay in Shroud for a long time.

This does force you to take Death Perception if you want perma-crits, but the might stacking and vuln stacking is unparalleled. Add Strength Runes on top if you want.

LucianDK.8615:

And the oppinion on Reapers onslaught vs Blighters boon? As well unyielding blast.

Blighter’s Boon is not terribly good for generating Life Force, as you don’t self-apply many boons while not in Shroud. And if you’re running in a group (where you’ll be receiving boons), generating LF isn’t going to be hard anyway with things dying around you.

Chilling Victory is far better in the LF-gen department. Reaper’s Onslaught is a near-must-have for any Shroud-oriented build as it (combined with Paths of Midnight) brings your Shroud skills off CD insanely fast. In addition the 15% attack speed increase ups your DPS, LF-gen in Shroud, your vuln-stacking, and your might-stacking. It synergizes too well with the other parts of a Shroud build to ignore for an arguably situational trait.

Also, Unyielding Blast is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary if you’re running Soul Reaping in PvE.

Just my two cents.

This is the build I run.

+1

This is definitely the issue I saw. It extends past Legends and weapons in the Specializations, too, due to the fact that each spec is tied so inextricably to a legend. So you HAVE to choose your spec based on your legend, and no matter which legends you choose, they will always render one of your spec lines completely useless.

So yeah. Gutted build diversity, and near-useless spec lines makes for a very monolithic profession.

Nokaru.7831:

Crystal Reid.2481:

If we removed Defiance, how would you propose a replacement that makes CC (interrupts, stuns, fears etc) valuable without creating a
situation that allows players to CC a creature to death.

The simplest solution is to just make certain skills that a creature casts interruptable even when it has Defiant. This would makes interrupts valuable in certain circumstances without letting a creature being “stun locked” to death.

I don’t think Defiant is really that bad in concept, it’s just poorly tuned. Defiant increases much too quickly with scaling; half of what it currently is should be better. Furthermore, a creature should be vulnerable to Crowd Control for a period of time instead of a single spell. For instance: When you strip the Defiant of a creature, Crowd Control and interrupts will land for 2 seconds.

Or simply make certain CC types necessary to interrupt specific kinds of attacks.

For instance:

There are straight CC spells in-game right now that apply a daze or stun. Against those, allow Defiance to continue to work as-is.

But there still remain knock-backs and knock-downs as hard CC, and cripples, fears, chill as soft CC.

What if the only way to interrupt a charge attack (a la Champ Risen Abomination) was to use a knock back? What if the only way to interrupt a stomp attack (a la Champ Troll) was to use a knock down? What if a knock down attack prevented an airborne boss (a la Grawl Shaman) from moving—that it would have to attack from a stationary position for a duration? What if cripple prevented a boss from using a leap attack (HotW Huntsman)?

Additionally, none of these proposed alternatives would have to actually interrupt the boss. They could be pure movement actions. A boss about to use an insta-gib attack could be knocked across the room where he’d complete the attack a safe distance away. Positioning and direction become paramount to move the boss out of range of the party. Downing Grawl Shaman at the right time so everyone can unload their burst would be crucial.

That kinda thing. CC doesn’t have to always be an interrupt.

With the paucity of pants in light armor, the omnipresent overcoats in medium armor, and the boat-load of buttcapes in all armor, I have my “cape” itch scratched.

In all seriousness, though, I’d rather see more imaginative armors than a sheet of cloth obscuring one entire side of my toon…

Personal taste and all that, though.

Yep. I’m with the peeps that say:

1. Estimated time frame for a release of any kind with specific dates.
2. Acknowledgement that, should the release be changed due to any kind of complication, the players will be notified ASAP.
3. When change does come (let’s face it—it probably will), quick notification sent to the forums.

Problem more or less solved right there.

Yeah, I hear y’all.

I guess my specific statement was simply to say that, if at all possible, I’d love to be able to use the Necro’s spear (with the same skills ’n all) on Land. Now with Wells being useable underwater a spear/siphon build got seriously legit.

I’d maybe change Spear 5, though. Turn it into a root ’n bleed maybe? Dunno. I feel like two pulls on one land weapon would be unnecessary.

And here I was thinking this was a troll thread. I mean, given the state of things recently…

That being said, I had a problem early on with the phrase “join map.” I thought it’d instantly teleport you to the location of said player, NOT that it would sync your servers.

I agree it could use some clarity.

Guhracie.3419:

Two days? Are you kidding me? It’s ‘too little, too late’ after TWO DAYS? Traits have been wrecked for six months. You should be on your knees, praising treesus that this was addressed at all. Two friggin’ days.

For sure—two days is impressive when compared to things that have been flat-out broke for months, even years.

I’m not saying “too little, too late” to the timing of the change. I’m simply pointing out that the urgency with with the community respond to the change merits a similar urgency on the part of the developers. I’m saying communication is near-always too little too late.

I’m far more interested in the aspects of this whole debacle that reflect on ANet’s communication and transparency (hence, the OP) than the actual actions and mechanics. I’m trying to highlight the discrepancy between ANet’s apparent resistance to admit wrong and immediately fix the issue and ANet’s self-congratulation on good communication.

Actions versus words. Gemgate is only an example.

Further examples of non-communication that’s being labelled as communication:

Gaile Gray.6029:

As of today, Friday, the developers have been actively working on creation of the Custom option. They then will put it through a testing pass after which it will be rolled out into the game. We think you’ll like the option, and I believe you’ll be pleased with the timeframe for this implementation, as well.

Once again, “We think you’ll like the option,” and “you’ll be pleased with the timeframe for implementation” are not communication. They’re pedantic instances of informing the playerbase what they should feel, and how ANet expects them to respond. This implies that, if the playerbase does NOT like the option, or is NOT pleased with the timeframe of implementation, it’s the players’, not ANet’s, fault.

Secondly, this response in no way communicates that ANet is truly listening to its playerbase. Why? I’m glad you asked.

• The posts on October 22 saying that the change was en route came only after two prominent gaming critics, and Dulfy herself expressed extreme displeasure with the change. What’s this communicate? It communicates ANet cares only about its PR, not about its players.

• It took two days for the developers to actually start working on a change. That the option was never even considered in the design phase says that the Devs were content to let things slide the way they were until enough outrage (read, bad PR) couldn’t let them continue. Now that the Devs are working on a change, it’s two full days after the acknowledgement was posted. Maybe this is a fast turnaround for ANet. But either way, it certainly doesn’t communicate that the player’s opinions are valuable—especially with how fast hotfixes have come down for other content.

• (THIS IS FOR THE PLAYERS) Stop congratulating ANet for listening! The reversion of this change does not in any way prove that ANet has changed its stance or practice on listening to and communicating with the playerbase. All it proves is that, when ANet’s bottom line is threatened by external bad PR, it’ll get its rear in gear.

Once again, in the interest of communication, here’s what Gaile’s post could have been to solve many of the above issues:

Sorry for the slow start, but we finally have a team working on a fix for the gem converter. The proposed solution looks like <blank>. Despite starting on it today, we anticipate rolling out the change <specific release date>. If experience any setbacks, we will notify you ASAP with an update.

Would that be so hard?

Maybe I am…

But now that Wells are useable underwater, I started to realize that the Spear would make an awesome on-land weapon for the Power Necro. The kit is great, really well balanced, and makes logical sense with a siphon build.

There’s a small part of me that would forgive ANet for everything (yes, everything) if they made this happen.

One more post demonstrating how the Gem Conversion debacle has been handled poorly.

From our own Gaile Gray:

Gaile Gray.6029:

Here’s an update for you:

It’s clear that quite a lot of you would like to have greater flexibility in using the Currency Exchange. Our intention when we designed the new interface was to streamline large volume purchases, which make up the majority of transactions.

In light of your feedback, we will update the Currency Exchange so that you can decide how you want to use it. We will keep the new streamlined system and also offer a new “Custom” button on the panel that you can use to exchange any increment of gems or gold.

We anticipate rolling this out soon. Stay tuned!

~~~~~

Sorry for the delay in posting this, but out of respect to our international community, we wanted to be able to post in several forums at once.

As far as communication and transparency goes, this post is too little too late. Though I, along with the entire playerbase, am grateful that changes are coming, here’s the problem.

1. No apology at all. This was a colossal mistake that should never have made it to the live build. An apology is due.
2. We finally get a rationale for the change after over 24 hours worth of well-founded opposition, and that rationale is at apparent odds with the practical experience of the players.
3. This, and two other posts, are worded as if the Devs have condescended to acquiesce to the playerbase on this, as if they are the ones taking the higher road.

And here’s the kicker: it took less than a few hours for players to suggest adding the “custom amount” button. It took less than a day for the Devs to decide it was doable.

SO WHY, BY THE SIX GODS, DID THE DEVS NOT THINK OF THIS ON THEIR OWN?

Madness? This is not madness. This is ANet.

Yeah. I know we’re most likely not going to get the first. But what bothers me is that ANet keeps talking about having or providing the second.

But as yet, ANet has either 1) Not given us a design philosophy at all, or 2) if they do give us one, they end up ignoring it anyway in design decisions.

GW2 really really needs two things:

1. A Public Test Environment where these kinds of changes (along with balance, etc.) can get vetted by the public. That the devs think they predict every single ramification of a change, and that their ideas will actually accomplish their goal smacks of a hubris of epic proportions.
2. A clear and consistent design philosophy for each significant area of the game. ANet needs a benchmark whereby all changes and additions/subtractions are measured. A good design philosophy would allow ANet to justify the decisions they make, and give the playerbase the “roadmap” ANet keeps clamoring about.

Cont’d from above.

So let’s move on to an alternative scenario where ANet uses good communication and good transparency.

What Could Have Happened

Step One

What ANet Does: Decides behind closed doors to streamline the Gem Conversion process. Recognizes immediately that the changes would have a profound impact on the playerbase. Chooses to be transparent and to communicate to avoid a conflict.

What Players Hear: That ANet wants to change the system. But that ANet wants to make sure the players are aware of the change, and have the opportunity to point out possible oversights on ANet’s part. This leads players to conclude: ANet cares about how its decisions impact its players.

Step Two

What ANet Does: Proposes a set of changes in a Dev Blog or PBE (we need a PBE) for the playerbase to interact with. Admits the potential negative impact that some changes may have—asks for input on avoiding those potentialities.

What Players Hear: That ANet wants to avoid a misstep with the change. Enlisting the feedback of players via a Dev Blog or PBE (we need a PBE) creates open and transparent lines of communication. The playerbase concludes: ANet is a company for the players, and wants to build the best possible game for the players.

Step Three

What ANet Does: Ships the initial change. Patch notes reflect not only the change, but the thought process behind them. ANet explains why the change helps accomplish its development philosophy, and how the change addresses the concerns or criticisms players raised in the Dev Blog or PBE (we need a PBE).

What Players Hear: ANet is still concerned about the players. The patch notes “put it all out there” for the players, and the transparency removes a substantial justification of tinfoil hats. The players, having had excellent communication thus far, are willing to give the change a shot even it if produces problems.

Step Four

What ANet Does: Apologizes if necessary. Despite all the best efforts to the contrary, the change still may have had some sort of negative impact on players or the game. Rather than explain it away, ANet immediately apologizes for the problem, and sets out to rectify what they can.

What Players Hear: ANet truly cares for its playerbase. It’s not above admitting issues—and it will even apologize for something that’s tiny. Why? Because ANet strives to put out the best game possible. Players are more than willing to show grace because ANet has communicated well and been transparent through the whole process.

So there you have it—a proposal for a pattern of transparency and communication that would take huge steps in the right direction.

Will it solve all problems and make all players happy and turn the forums into a place of rainbows and magical unicorns? Probably not. Will it help?

Definitely.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Ok, guys. Some of you are unhappy about this change, I can see that. BUT… quite honestly, most of you are sort of (I hate to use the word) ranting (sorry!) instead of offering suggestions.

I assure you, the team leader told me not 15 minutes ago, they will listen to suggestions.

• Does that mean you get everything you want? Probably not.
• Does that mean you should suggest something? Yes, of course! Because they’re expecting player input.

So you want lower increments? Think it through and present a suggestion! You want XYZ in the interface? Post that idea. You would rather see something else? Post what you think about that other thing. Please don’t get into the whole “I’m going to kick the devs and their little dogs, too” because it’s not doing you or us any good at all.

I’m not here to apologize. I’m here to communicate and right now, the communication is coming in without a whole lot of substance. Over to you for suggestions and constructive input!

This whole post is living, breathing proof of why the playerbase doesn’t think ANet has either 1) transparency or 2) good communication.

It’s not a matter of “It’s done, so don’t complain. Instead suggest improvements.”

It’s a matter of why this even shipped in the first place. It shipped with out any … wait for it … communication or transparency.

The fact that this change generated instantaneous, near-universal outrage proves that the devs DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR PLAYERS WANT.

Nearly every rant here is completely justified. ANet screwed up on this one. It’s only one of many times where this is happened. A post saying, “Say something nice,” is not appropriate at this time.

What is appropriate you may ask? A post saying, “We screwed up. We’re fixing it ASAP.”

And, by the six gods, stop shipping changes to the existing game without a heads up.

Since this is a PvE issue, and the devs have historically made nearly all their balance modifications with PvP alone in mind, I highly doubt this will get a solid fix.

PvE is fundamentally broken. ANet can’t figure out how to fix it without an overhaul.

At this point, what you see is what you get.

Continued from above:

Mike O Brien.4613:

A lot of the questions I’ve seen posted this week are as simple as this: does ArenaNet have an agenda to never do something? That’s almost never the case, and if it is the case you deserve to know and we’ll make sure we get more clear. In general the simple truth is this: when we’re not currently working on something, it’s because we’re working on something else instead that we think is more important for the game and community.

I want to hit on this briefly:

• One, the reason the “does ANet intend to never do xyz?” question comes up is simply that there are things that have taken over two years to be addressed. Problems riddle GW2 like a machine gun nest. Dozens of traits were broken and useless for years. The fact that the obvious stuff never got touched (broken traits, skills, bugs in events and dungeons, missing armor pieces, glaring clipping issues) communicates that ANet either 1) doesn’t play its own game, or 2) does not intend to dealing with them.
• ANet hasn’t communicated its design philosophy or priorities in any substantial way since launch (beta was a different story). So the comment, “it’s because we’re working on something else instead that we think is more important for the game and community” becomes ridiculous. Players have no way of knowing what the devs “think is important” until it’s too late and the newest patch hits. And so very often, what the devs “think is important” leaves the playerbase scratching their collective heads.

Mike O Brien.4613:

Our developers post on these forums on a voluntary basis, and in addition to developers, we have a community team who can clarify and be the bridge between players and developers. They’re ready to engage you on these topics. And I know it’s hard for the community team to engage players across all the forums and sites where these questions are being discussed, so I’m going to support the team in consolidating and focusing as necessary, so that we can be clear to the community where you can go to get a response.
See you in-game,
Mike O’Brien

Finally, I want to point out that, yes, I recognize this is ANet’s game. The playerbase didn’t design it, produce it, and ship it to market. It’s not open-source.

But playing the line of “We want the players’ input” has become tedious, because ANet’s track record of responding well to that input has been tenuous at best. Either ask for input and make use of it, or tell us y’all are doing your own thing regardless.

Until we get a transparent design philosophy, some clear design priorities, and the “whys” and “hows” of changes to the current patch, ANet’s going to have a rather grumpy playerbase.

I appreciate your constant interaction in this thread, Gaile.

But seeing as you’ve repeatedly come back to Mike O’Brien’s post as the final word on the communication question, I figured I’d go through it step by step and show you and those from ANet reading why his post is anemic.

Mike O Brien.4613:

I know some are concerned about whether ArenaNet is communicating with you and listening and responding to your feedback. As you saw with yesterday’s announcement, we do. All of us at ArenaNet play the game with you, chat with you and read your forum posts . . .

This much is true. Even in the darker places of the forums (professions subform), it’s still clear that the devs do read/hear and they do respond to feedback and comments. However, that’s a very general reality that is not necessarily positive.

Mike O Brien.4613:

. . . and work on the things that we think will most delight and entertain you.

Here is where things immediately begin to break down. Working on the things that the devs “think will most entertain and delight” us is immediately problematic.

• First, as others have commented already, we have no idea (even vaguely) what those things are.
• Second, we don’t even have a design philosophy by which to judge those things. And there is where transparency becomes a critical problem. Even with no speculation whatsoever, having a design philosophy (for every sphere of the game) gives the playerbase a road map.
• Third, the devs have a shoddy track record of actually coming up with “delightful and entertaining” content, changes, or releases. Some of it is good—really good. But the good stuff tends to be horrifically gated or limited (SAB), and the stuff that sticks around forever is often disappointing, frustrating, or feels like an insult (NPE, Aetherblades TA path).

Mike O Brien.4613:

We’ve set a clear policy in the past year: we don’t talk speculatively about future development. We don’t want to string you along. Creating fun is an uncertain business: sometimes things work out and sometimes they don’t; sometimes we go back to the drawing board over and over before we get something right. If we make optimistic promises and then can’t deliver on them, everyone suffers. So when we attend a trade show or give an interview, we’re there to talk about what we’re getting ready to ship, not to speculate on what we might ship someday.

If the issue of transparency and communication were simply about future content releases (and, in most red posts, it’s been limited to story-line stuff), then I’d have no problem with this philosophy of silence-until-certainty.

But it’s when this communication philosophy gets slapped onto the existing game that it really falls apart.

Example: The most recent feature patch included ReadyUp streams outlining the trait modifications, etc. to each class—two a week leading up to release. ANet has historically pointed to this kind of thing as successful communication.

The problem, however, lies in the fact that none of the changes were discussed with enough time for the playerbase (which, arguably knows the classes far better than the devs—several of us have a few thousand hours clocked playing one single class) to offer critique and feedback.

So the devs walk away patting themselves on the back, and the playerbase walks away feeling like they got patted in the face—with a tire-iron.

Mike O Brien.4613:

Don’t read that as meaning that we don’t want to talk with you about the longer-term roadmap. The intention of the CDI threads is to talk with you about the roadmap. We want to talk design philosophy with you and hear how you want to see the game evolve. When those discussions trigger development, we’ll work internally until we have something we’re proud of before we’ll announce it.

Again, the heart of this is good—having a design philosophy (or, to use Mike’s words, a roadmap) is great! But we don’t actually have this. And the vision that ANet set out with is not the vision that they’ve delivered. Hence the outcry that ANet is not transparent.

Additionally, because ANet has been so resistant to make changes when the playerbase has soundly rejected something, it communicates that ANet doesn’t actually care about the input it receives from the players.

Announcing something that ANet’s proud of is fine, but when the community says it won’t work, or it’s broken, ANet ships it anyway. Why? Once again, it communicates that ANet doesn’t believe the players have an accurate view of the game (remember, peeps be playing for thousands of hours), and should just accept the changes as-is—even when they violate the at-time-of-launch design philosophy of the game.

Gaile Gray.6029:

~snip for brevity~

The point of the matter is this:

The devs may indeed be listening. They may be sending emails, and talking over player suggestions/input in department meetings.

But the Grand Canyon stands in between what the players asked for and what the devs give them.

We’ve heard this same line over and over and over and over again. Saying that “the devs are listening” has become a joke here and, at the very least, all over Guru.

Why?

Because what the devs produce as a result of their “listening” looks nothing like what the players asked for. And it usually contains stuff the players have specifically said “Don’t give us!” And it is always sold to the player base with the line, “We think it works best this way.”

All in all it’s created one single thought in my mind, my guildies’ minds, and several of my fellow Gurus’ minds: The devs don’t play their own game.

So what’s it got to do with transparency?

The player community cannot be more clear on many, many of its requests. Something is being lost once the door to ANet’s offices slams shut behind those requests. Transparency would, at the very least, allow the player base to see how their beautiful input gets mangled into Frankenstein’s monster.

And maybe, just maybe, we’d start to understand why ANet wants us to play with Frankenstein.

Perhaps what bugs me the most is communication with player base that establishes a sense of “You ask for it, we’ll use it to guide our decision.”

Followed by…

Changes that make absolutely no sense in the context of the discussion with the player base.

Ranger CDI is a great example.
I’d argue the LS CDI is a great example (what happened to two week releases?)
Dhuumfire is a great example.
Health scaling on Necro siphons (lolwut) is a great example.
Signet of Vampirism pre-release notes versus reality is a great example.

Over and over and over again, ANet makes a pretense at communication—at bringing the player base into the studio and asking, “What would make the game better for you?”—and then turning around and, in several cases as listed above, doing nearly the exact opposite.

When the player base responds negatively, the response is either 1) We have our reasons, and we’re not telling you, or 2) This is what you asked for, so we gave it to you, but it a bizarrely misinterpreted fashion that defeats the purpose of the original request.

Without transparency (the “whys,” “wherefores,” “sowhats”) it feels like ANet devs enjoy taunting and disappointing their players.

Gaile Gray.6029:

I think this post may be a valuable read: Mike O’Brien on Communication.

I take on board some well-expressed comments here. Quite honestly, I’m not sure how it would work to say “Yes, we’re aware of XYZ.” Those who say “We just want to know you’re aware” are terrific. But we all know that there are others for whom that wouldn’t be satisfactory. “We want to know you’re aware and we want to know what you’re going to do about it” can even become "We want to know you’re aware, we want to know what you’re going to do about it or [insert something here, from “I’m taking a break” to “I’ll never buy another gem,” to “I’m encouraging my entire gazillion-member guild to jump to Game Z].”

Please understand I’m not dismissing the desire for the first level of info, not at all! But can you see how the outcome can be unpredictable and how, no matter the question or request, there is no perfect answer? Further, can you see how “We’re aware of this and we plan to [whatever]” can become “Ok, you said you were aware of it three days ago, where’s the fix?”

I’m sort of writing to think, but I’d like to understand what truly reaches the point of “I’d like more info, but I’m satisfied with what you’ve been able to tell us right now.” Can you give me a few examples, where players would really like to know everything, but where there is a level of disclosure that meets the basic info request?

I’m glad to hear that the “We’re aware of _ and working on it” seems doable to y’all.

The issue on communication, however, is broader than this. As far as long-term things are concerned (full-on expansions, additions of new classes/weapons, etc.) I think the present approach has been totally understandable. You all are the devs. You’ve got the leeway to withhold preliminary info on new content.

In this realm, the best kind of communication would be a decent breakdown of project priority. Even knowing as little as

“Our dev priority is…
1. Guild Halls
2. WvW class balance
3. Necro Re-work
4. etc.”

would go a long way to balancing expectations in the forums. When everyone hears “We’re aware of and working on _,” without some sort of prioritization associated with it, everyone ends up thinking their pet peeve is the number-one priority.

But!

The most frustrating communication problems (as far as my perspective’s concerned) have to do with already existing content. These are things like class balance (which should have NEVER been bundled with feature patches, fwiw), map changes, gamemode alterations, equipment tweaks, etc.

These things should always have a rationale accompanying the change/tweak/modification, and have a section talking about what the devs are looking at over the course of the next few weeks as far as gauging the effectiveness of the tweak.

Ultimately, then, the playerbase would feel like there they could follow the devs’ logic, and feel like the devs were willing to dialogue about the change/tweak should it not result in the original plan.

Thus far, this has been a huge weak spot in ANet’s communication with its playerbase. Classes don’t line up with original goals. Buffs/nerfs go without any comment or explanation of the “hows” and “whys.” And when the the playerbase demonstrates that a change/tweak has failed, the response has been near-universally “Deal with it; we like it.”

That’s unhealthy communication.

I’ve seen several online, large-playerbase game developers do an excellent job of what I’ve outlined above. Players know where they stand, where the developers stand, and what they can expect as far as changes and responses to feedback can be.

I will say this: The fact that the conversation has progressed this far with this kind of vocabulary and issues is promising to me. There is hope!

A few points here that’ve been running through my mind over the last year of communication problems.

1. There’s a distinct flavor of hypocrisy in the player’s experience of communication-versus-reality. So very often, changes to classes (for example) appear with the flavor text “We’ve heard you wanted/needed this,” when in reality, the forums have overwhelmingly said the opposite. Or, as another example, despite the player base clamoring for end game (even if it be cosmetic pursuits), all the most recent skins have appeared in the gem store.

This more than a lack of red posts screams to forum goers, “We actually don’t read the forums.”

2. Feature Updates (once again, particularly with respect to class balance) almost never include rationales with the changes.

Good communication says, “We did ______ because this group of players (PvP, WvW, PvE) have said it needed work. We recognize the change impacts these three other things (PvP change hurts PvE), but we’re going to let it stand and watch it for the next month.”

Thus far, however, ANet excels only at making seemingly unwarranted and unjustified changes without explaining why, who requested it, and what it’s supposed to accomplish. Further, devs almost never acknowledge the extreme impact changes may have on other areas of the game.

3. We’ve rarely, if ever, (I can’t remember a time) heard, “Players, we were wrong.” Or, “We over did/under did _______.”

Ultimately, it’s about quality of communication, not quantity. I, for one, will only begin to trust ANet’s ability to communicate when they:

Prove they’re listening by acting consistently with stated values and feedback.
Explain themselves clearly and candidly.
Admit when they go wrong.

Just my two cents.

I’d settle for any weapon skill with guaranteed finisher… We have one 20% chance projectile finisher, and one blast finisher that needs an enemy to trigger it.

The fact that the only reliable (lolwut) finishers we have are on minion utilities is somewhat…laughable.

I’ve never been so enraged with a set of patch notes as with this one.

This nerf was completely uncalled for, and slams well-siphon builds hard. The best thing about WoB was the 10x tick on siphons, which has been halved with such a tiny boost to heal tick that it’s not even worth considering “compensation.”

Why they didn’t just squeeze all 10 ticks into 5 seconds like they did with the Ranger Healing Spring, I have no idea.

I use WoB all the time in my well-siphon PvE build, and now…

I’m royally kittened.

I’ll chime in here with other the other Necros to say… 1) I’m not surprised at all (the tiny description in the blog post is underwhelming even for Necro balance), and 2) I’m still disappointed.

It’s almost as if the dude who designed and was all pumped about the Necro at release left the company, and no one else really knows what to do with the class or cares. But hey, once again I’m not surprised.

MonMalthias.4763:

~snip~
As for Necromancers receiving cleave, that is a thread all of its own. I would suggest that you start one; I know that there are more than a few PVE Necromancers out there that would be ecstatic at the implementation of such. Having said that, the whole stack-and-cleave phenomenon is something that can only be eliminated – and for good reason – if the mechanics of dungeons change from being a slog (or a skip) through rewardless trash mobs on the way to the boss; to something closer to Path of Exile where every mob has potentially useful loot; and fully clearing maps is always more rewarding than just skipping to the boss.

The Necro subform is as dead as…well, a Necro. It’s not seen any substantial interaction from Devs in months. And the cleave issue has been beat to death there anyway.

I’ve fully in favor of changing open world and dungeon encounters to match PvP. But does anyone really believe ANet will listen and actually invest the time and energy to fix PvE?

I’d really like to believe they would. But I’m not getting my hopes up.

@All the comments about not splitting PvE and PvP but making PvE reflect PvP’s mechanics.

I fully agree with the sentiment.

Defiant/Unshakable was the stupidest thing ever placed in the game. The lack of any real mechanics that are skill or profession specific within mob encounters smacks of a rushed, largely unfinished game.

All that being said, I highly, highly doubt ANet will ever fix PvE.

The problems raised with PvE are nothing new to these forums, and certainly not new to the Devs. But after nearly two years of game development they’ve done nothing (nothing) to address any of the issues.

All that to say, I think skill splitting is the only chance we have to make PvE a viable gamestate apart from USE ALL THE DEEPS!

constantLogic.3486:

I think I’ve made a total of possibly three posts since launch, but I feel I just have to throw in my two cents on this one.

First off, I am decidedly NOT a pvper. I have no interest in 1v1, and limited interest in WvW. So any of you that have issues with near-strict pvers can quit reading here. The ability to throw myself into fights alongside others against huge world bosses, or just work together on complete hearts and exploring maps, is what initially drew me to this game. It was beautiful in pretty much every way, and exactly what I wanted out of an MMO until, well, I’m here agreeing with all of you aren’t I? At least mostly.

I know it’s been said before, actually I’ve said it before, but I really think to have any kind of proper balance there does need to be a separation of pve and pvp. Necromancer (if you’ll let me beat a dead horse) is a great example of this. There are undoubtedly many separate ways to go with this class, but it’s been bugged and nerfed until it’s all but completely unplayable in pve – which led to my quitting for almost eight months, as it was of course the class I absolutely had to love. I’ve missed a lot of living story while I was away (sadly), but what I haven’t is that no one wants my ex-main in dungeons or practically any other pve content, and who can blame them? There was so much potential, not just in necro but in a lot of other classes that fell by the wayside, but because of the refusal to address pve as a separate entity, everything but the few top dps clases are useless. Which makes sense in a way, that’s just how pve is – praise the DPS and the heals. Which is why pve and pvp separation is so important, every class needs a strong DPS build to tackle pve (which can happen in a lot of different ways, look at staff ele for a quick example of ‘not a war’). Either that, or Anet needs to go back to the holy trinity style.

Whatever the case, this really needs to be addressed, because like I said, I quit about eight months ago due to this exact problem, and from what I’ve read I’m not the only one that frustrated. I love the game, I’d love to throw money at the game, I loved the jumping puzzles and all the other pve content, but honestly with these problems it feels like no matter how much LS content they could possibly throw at us, or other problems they could address, at the end of the day they don’t even care enough to take the time to fix their broken classes, much less provide the diversity in builds they claimed they wanted to create. In fact, they seem to be doing a fine job of pigeon-holing.

(I just gave this another read-over, and it’s as rushed as I felt making it, so apologies.)

I heart this post. Not just because it highlights the ridiculous discrepancy between Necos in PvP and PvE, but because it further reinforces the point of the OP.

Just as the PvP meta tends to stagnate due to months passing between botched balance attempts, so too does the PvE meta limp along due to grossly PvP-centric changes.

MonMalthias.476

I’ve covered this very thing earlier in the thread in subsequent posts after my OP. I found this feature patch to simply be business as usual with Arenanet – bundling bugfixes with Feature patches, delaying eminent balance issues to bundle “shaves” with the Feature patch, and just a general push to put absolutely everything into this huge feature “pack”. Again, this is a negative trend that goes against the good policy of failing faster.

As I mentioned in a previous post, what will be interesting is not the feature patch, but the followup patches that fix emergent bugs and balance issues. With such power-creep potential such as the lifting of Sigil proc GCDs and rune reworks (notice how the main stat of a 6 set is higher now? It’s a small but significant boost in power level) it is almost inevitable that someone, somewhere finds a spec that is absolutely ridiculous.

The question up in the air is – will Arenanet pick up on it and fix the issues that crop up within weeks? Or will it be months before new apex predators and new bugs are re-addressed?

The former demonstrates adaptation and learning. The latter means business as usual, and the relinquishing of the last vestiges of community goodwill they hold.

My thoughts exactly. And this post needs to remain up top to encourage the Devs to consider carefully the way they balance following the Feature Patch.

I agree. The initial vision for many of the professions has proven to be completely untenable in the actual game.

As a result, the Devs would do well to change their visions for several of the classes to match the real play of each profession in the game.

But!

The Devs have also insisted that they will not change their visions, and continue to try and force the various professions into the pre-beta idea. Which, in turn, further makes those classes unviable in the game.

But hey—at least there’s the Warrior. He’s still alright.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Roe.3679:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Roe.3679:

I think the healing power coefficient is important in figuring out if this trait needs to be changed or not.

Even before healing power, putting out ~700 healing/second (adjusting for life blast fire rate and stated base value of ~800) to potentially multiple allies is quite strong sustained healing. I think we will find it is a very powerful support trait.

I think that sounds good but the positioning is a factor as OP illustrates. It’s certainly possible to make happen but it’s not super easy to keep yourself in a line between 2 or more targets.

Positioning is a factor indeed. I don’t mind that, as it does reward more skillful play to get that strong, sustained healing.

And I will happily test it in WvW zerging. Just have to wait until the patch actually hits.

In order to make Unyielding Blast worth it, any DS Necro worth his salt already knows how to position. Modifying the positioning tactics shouldn’t be hard at all.

Additionally, melee allies will benefit greatly due to the huge hitbox LB has.

I don’t see it as a real problem. But then again, I’ve been playing DS Necros since before last June.

glaphen.5230:

Phalanx Strength will be pretty amazing for dungeons with a zerker build and Banner of Discipline.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Forceful_Greatsword
Using this trait and spamming Hundred Blades will pretty much give perma 25 might to your party. Especially with might duration runes next patch.

Once again establishing firmly the role of a Zerker Warrior in all PvE content.

While my Powermancer Necro got…the ability to bunker. Which was really needed in PvE. Powermancer just got totally useful in PvE.

…

My PvE Powermancer just choked on a jagged horror and died.

I’ve never understood the, “Screw ANet. Uninstalled.” mentality until this round of patching. What a joke.

Well, at least I can bunker indefinitely and dish out…well, at least I can bunker indefinitely.

Muchacho.2390:

Hammer 2 is amazing. It is a blast finisher on a low cooldown. I dont know how much you use combo fields but blast finisher are the best finisher in my opinion.
Hammer 3-5 are more about control and not as bad as you think atleast in pvp though in pve rarely use them but than again in pve you only need dps skills.

This, pretty much.

The fact that you can dodge-cancel AA to time the AA symbol with #2’s CD for constant Retal is very very handy.

The control offered on the other skills (particularly #3-4) is also great when in fractals.

Guardian Hammer is a utility weapon with excellent damage on the AA. ’Nuf said.

insanemaniac.2456:

this thread is so full of kitten.

see what happens over the next 3-6 months before you go saying they dont listen. it takes at least that long to get all your spam implemented.

inb4 trashcan.

The bolded statement is exactly what’s wrong.

It shouldn’t take 3-6 months. It shouldn’t have taken over a year-and-a-half.

Everything said in the CDI has been said since beta.

I’m gonna go with, “They don’t listen.”

I’ve had this same beef with the balance changes for a long time. It’s the number one reason why Venom thiefs will never, ever work.

Sure some of the changes could be powerful in a very specific situation. But the fact of the matter is many of those situations rarely appear. And when they do, it’s with so little consistency that balancing around it is just downright silly.

I understand the Devs’ fear of players manipulating a particular set of parameters to achieve cheesy builds.

But I would argue the wiser choice would be either 1) implement a flippin’ public test server, or 2) make the change and watch it closely—allowing for the possibility that, should it become consistently OP, they’ll deal with it.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Will.4298:

We’re not asking for the moon and the stars here. Just copy the behavior of the mesmer clones and be done with it.

So, you want minions to die whenever you kill their target?

Mesmer illusions cannot have the same AI as other entities due to the fact they are locked on to a single target. If that target dies, they die.

This.

In that respect, the fact that player-controlled pets share AI coding with PvE mobs is a little disconcerting. If only because it’s ridiculously easy to manipulate that very same AI to favor the one attacking the pets.

I’ll admit I understand how that decision came about—give the player general control over a PvE mob. Easy, right? It’s still a bad decision and needs to be completely overhauled.

However, until the Devs learn how to admit their mistakes and change their initial designs, I doubt we’ll see much of a difference.

MonMalthias.4763:

~snipfu~

To reiterate my healthcare example once again:
When a medication is causing problems, the doctor does not then prescribe multiple other medications to deal with the side effects. Instead the problem medication is withdrawn.

This emergent pattern with Arenanet’s balance changes is worrisome, and the upcoming Feature patch has the potential to be a repeat of June 2013 if Arenanet does not heed the lessons of its own history.

Actually, I’ve seen doctors prescribe medicines to compensate for the side-effects of other medicines. It all depends on how important they truly believe that original medication is.

The correlation to GW2 balance still stands, however, as that is exactly what the Devs have done. The Devs (or the management) have demonstrated a rather foolish insistence on almost never reverting any change or plan, simply because they cling foolishly to their “balance” changes.

Dhuumfire is the classic example. A vast majority of the Necro community consistently shouted that they did not want Necro burning. In fact, the running joke was that, if Necros got burning, the rest of their ConD would get nerfed to the ground.

Yet the Devs believed so strongly in their first “medication” (Dhuumfire), that they indeed did nerf other ConD application (and continue to do so). Far-later nerfs to Dhuumfire were too little too late. And by then the whole thing was a mess.

The Ranger CDI once again demonstrates the problem from a different angle. Rather than admit up-front that the pre-beta “vision” for the class was near-completely untenable in the actual game, the Devs have refused to budge. Any and all changes with the Ranger that don’t address the core “vision” problem will be medicine treating the side effects.

For once I’d love to see the Devs say, “We were wrong. It doesn’t work. We’re going to try again.”

No one would hold it against them. I’d cheer for them. And if they really wanted to save face, a public test environment would help immensely.

“Chill seriously throws off gameplay…”

…yeah. It does. That’s what it’s designed to do. I’m not sure what the disconnect is here. It’s a disruption condition that makes some classes actually viable when they’d otherwise have no way of dealing with low-CD professions…

Stacking immobilization, however, is a little crazy.

Back to the front page we go!

To be sure, these things at least need to be read by the Devs in charge of balance, and acknowledged by the management that pulls the strings.