Showing Posts For kodama spirit.2380:
They will if the rewards are there. Right now this game is (in my opinion) rewarding a kind of play that isn’t in line with the spirit of having a living world. Change that, you have a chance to change how people approach maps, content and actually seeing reason to doing events and making the world dynamic (hopefully) in the end.
Well, that poses the next question? What IS proper rewards? Let’s face it, even in other MMOs, your usual quest rewards are garbage. The enticement of “better loot” is even LESS effective in a game like GW2 that has such a narrow power creep. Would you REALLY be enticed to go free an entire zone for one rare? One exotic? One Ascended? TWO Ascended? 1 gold? 5 gold? What?
There’s a length that Arena.net won’t be willing to go in terms of rewards so that it doesn’t throw the economy even more out of whack than it already is. You start adding another huge influx of gold and gear… yeah. People whine about the price of precursors now… wonder how they’ll react when inflation drives them over 1500g.
So, the rewards really aren’t (and some would argue SHOULDN’T) going to be increased too much further than they already are. And that’s apparently not nearly enough for most players as it is.
I mean, I really like the concept. I personally would love it. But it would most likely kill the game.
I’m not a person who typically goes along the lines of reward creep, nor do I expect an ascended weapon drop for everything I do. I’m not advocating increase the rewards of Dynamic Events. I’m saying certain types of gameplay that are not in line with a Living Story, and also taking too much of the population focus should instead be nerfed. If people want to farm the same champions in a baby map like Queensdale, again and again and again, fine. But it shouldn’t give people a sense that “this is the ideal way to gain such and such”. Nothing in low level areas should reward as well as higher level areas. I understand they need to not punish 80s from being in those areas, but the balance is nowhere near correct right now. Frankly I would be embarrassed and insulted if I was the game designers who spent so much time on all these maps that get no consistent play all at the expense of Queensdale. Temple runs are ignored and champ runs in live. They need to start looking at loot and rewards in a way to spread the population over more maps, and more types of content. I love the feeling of fighting a champ in Queensdale with 20 other people, actually feeling part of an active world. But then I also think to myself, it REALLY would be nice to be able to do this on say one of the dozen maps that have a population of 0. The scarlett minion stuff at least people to play on non-played maps, only problem is, the events had nothing to do with those maps, and was the same event everywhere. Each map should have an evolving and distinct personality from the others, and have valid reasons for being in all of them at any given time.
Don’t assume. I, as well as most PvE players I know, would love this. Obviously, this wouldn’t be implemented in starter zones, at least not on a large scale, but it would be a welcome addition to the world (and already exists in a mild form, but not quite to the extent Tommyknocker was talking about)
You honestly think your average player will zone in Gendarren Fields, see every waypoint contested and every settlement hostile and think, “I must fight back?”
I don’t. I see them saying, “Kitten this” walking away and leaving entire zones even more abandoned than they already are. It’s a wonderful idea in theory, but I think in a real world setting having zones that could be completely overrun would be a disaster.
They will if the rewards are there. Right now this game is (in my opinion) rewarding a kind of play that isn’t in line with the spirit of having a living world. Change that, you have a chance to change how people approach maps, content and actually seeing reason to doing events and making the world dynamic (hopefully) in the end.
I find it very concerning to hear Colin talk about trying to get inspiration from the TV medium for the video/computer game medium. That’s just not going to work. Storytelling is nice in games, but its never going to be more important than the game, and game stories just can never compete with a medium that doesn’t have anywhere near as many roadblocks to new content (debugging, graphics, camera programming, user inputs). There is a reason why the Living World/Story stuff is like 20 minutes of game content (about 1-2 minutes of story) but given to us every 2-4 weeks. That stretching out of such thin content is a huge turn off. I really wanted to get into the Flame and Frost stuff, but it was almost impossible to feel anything towards it. And even now, after having done it, it all feels quite pointless to have done any of it. This also ignores what seems to be a growing reliance on reading dialog boxes that people just don’t want to bother reading. Nothing living about that, and frankly, nothing impactful about that either.
I thought GW2 was supposed to be about a dynamic and living world that you didn’t have to read much of anything for you to know whats going on and what you could do. That’s what Living World should be. I want dynamic events to actually chain more, and to make more sense to the world. Grow the story with dynamic events, that actually add and build into your content and don’t go away.
What if instead of having a fleeting 1 minute cinema of Scarlett and Jenna falling, and then a temporary dungeon we wont see again. I can barely remember any actual Living Story by the time we get to the new stuff. Instead, built scarlet’s minions fighting a dynamic event chain in a map that doesn’t have a lot of play. Let whatever events you have help reinforce where the story is, and could be. And no, I don’t mean this random map hopping non-sense you have going on now.
Look at a chain as simple as the pipes in Queensdale. I can see from afar that’s going on there, and whether or not it needed assistance. I thought that was cool at first. I could see tangible impact on the world. Only, it never amounted to much, and it never grew into something more. Maybe a merchant disappeared for 5 minutes? Why hasn’t this ,or other chains, grown over time? Why haven’t I been able to experience this event one day, playing it out thinking “I’ve seen this 100 times before” only to find it respond in a new and different way? You’ve tried to have some dramatic events in higher level maps (like in Orr), but the problem is almost no one is on those maps. I can’t count the number of times I’ve wanted to do a temple only to hear crickets on the map. You should be using Living Story as a constructive way to getting people to repopulate all your maps over time, and actually play content on those maps that are built into a flowing story, not just a random “stay here for 30 minutes, and it will amount to nothing to the map”. Maybe a map like Iron Marches should start to be a base for Scarlett, and she can have evolving dynamic event chains that feed off the rest of the content already there.
Long story short, I’m very disappointed in the confusing and self-defeating direction Living Story has gone in, and its starting to look like you guys don’t even realize what the problems are within your game. Nor are you really seeing the potential of the game really could be if you actually got player interest and motivation in line with your actual content that remains in the game.
I think making the maps larger only compound the issue without addressing the problem, not to mention game resources (I think there is a reason why the game engine seems to allow a map so big). If you want roaming (I personally don’t care for roaming much), why not have a map that focuses on it? It doesn’t need to be larger than EB to aim for your goal. Perhaps that map could be a complete supply map (that is tied together to the supply that other maps get perhaps). Some number of camps, different paths for the yaks, and be relatively large in size compared to the number of people allowed on it. That way, it wouldn’t encourage zerging, and would allow the roamers to battle it out for roaming supremacy.
I personally like the idea of siege/defense maps. I really really hate how rarely it comes to pass in the game mode that I think should be ideal for it. I find no satisfaction in taking a keep that wasn’t defended, and I find no satisfaction in trying to be the lone person in a keep trying in vain to defend my keep from a zerg of 50. And it happens way too often in this game. I think if they designed some maps with specific focuses in mind that actually were made to be attacked from multiple spots, it could be quite satisfying as a team to slowly wear down a keep strategically against an actual defense, and vice versa, and I just think the chances of that happening are better on maps half the size they currently are.
I think the overall and uniform nature of map sizes in WvW is a problem. One issue that comes with having such a large map is that you need a large number of people on it for it feel populated (let alone all 4). A side effect of this is that once you start getting all these people into one area, it turns into a lag fest, because there is no system out there that can handle all that no matter how well you optimize things. I think we’ve all seen how a portal bomb or a three way fight in SM can feel less like a fight, and more a desperate struggle to press 1 and whoever happens to lag the least wins.
Another issue with the large maps, and one that I think is key to the spirit of the game mode, is that its too big to defend things properly. Most of the time you will either have too few people (maybe they are on the other side of the map), not enough time/supply, or get slaughtered before you can make it inside. And that’s assuming anyone is even trying to get to a defensive position. Due to this, the game turns into the karma train, where its more about PvD, and just capping towers and keeps after the owner leaves. Which doesn’t lead to satisfying gameplay for either side. The map size is so large and epic in scope, it oddly seems to detract from the game having actual epic fights for keeps and towers.
I’m not necessarily saying throw away all large maps. Having one or two can fit. I just think the mode could benefit from different sized maps, maps that could have specific focuses. There could be a keep siege/defend map, where its one keep, one team is defending it, and other teams are trying to take it. Once another team takes it, the objectives are now reversed. Have a capture point map maybe, more prone to open field combat. Have a three tower map, where all three teams are there, within relatively close proximity. They can easily get to attack and defend positions based on the maps need. I think something along these lines could address a few of the issues with WvW. I’m not saying make them into SPvP size, just something not as big. Cut out some of the wasted space (needed to spread out the bandwidth needs for large populations), and get into some actual strategic fighting situations instead of PvD.
I get confused on this whole GvG issue in WvW. Isn’t WvW supposed to be an " organized, large-scale battle", where people who don’t necessarily belong in a large guild can join up into bigger groups and work as a team against others doing the same? How else do you define it? Do we define WvW as nothing more than a glorified karma train mode now, that will soon contain even less combat other than PvDing towers and keeps that are rarely; if ever, defended? Maybe it should be renamed PvD after this? Where small bands of people on the three servers just camp the map clockwise until they get tired, and wonder what it would be like if there were actual big battles going on around them instead?
Encouraging guilds to break away from WvW is going to be a mistake in the long run for WvW. I can appreciate a guilds desire to have some kind of large scale battle with people they know. But I don’t think it needs to come at the expense of the people who don’t belong in larger guilds. If guilds don’t feel they have satisfying battles in WvW right now, I think that’s a reflection of the issues within the WvW game mode itself, that need to be addressed. This supposed band-aid might sweep some of the game issues under the rug for a while, but in the end, I think it will just make the game less about a server community, and more the haves and the have nots guild wise, until the whole game mode turns into an empty zone like what happened to the game modes in GW1. Can’t wait to see the worthless outmanned buff even more in the future, and try in vain to fight another higher population server that is spawn camping me into not bothering to play for another week.
I really want to play WvW than I do currently, its just hard with how poorly the matchups and populations work. The last 4-5 weeks we have been getting into stomp matchups, where one server has 50-75% of the map the entire week. What happens when people see that, when they are on the losing end? They don’t play as much. I get on, I almost always see us with the outmanned buff. Try to call out to people to help defend, but there is no one there. I could build an AC to take try to defend a garrison/tower by myself or with 4 other people, but guess what, the other server has like 20-40 people, and they just take whatever they want anyways. So I realize I can’t accomplish anything and go back to PvE and hope next week might be more balanced.
I think there is really just one way to balance populations (and hopefully some skill too), and its by making a outmanned buff that actually does something to make the matchups more fair. I know Devon sadly said he doesn’t care about fair, because be confuses the notion of there always being a better team with fair/balanced matchups. I don’t expect to beat BG on IoJ with a worthwhile buff. If they play better, they should win with or without my buff. The problem is, any matchup in this game that ends up with one server having 50%+ of the map (as the great majority seem to), that’s a failure of the developers in my opinion, and will cause a slow death of the game. The fact that I find it quite common to see 1 server have 85-100% of the map is just insulting. I know developers have this game theory thought that having three sides is a self-regulating situation, but that only works in ideal situations. Most of the time in WvW I see the number 2 and 3 servers fighting each other and not stronger server 1, simply because its a fight they have any chance with.
What happens now? The stronger server comes into your BL, takes all of your stuff, either with some resistance, or not much. Whatever resistance you have tends to get worse as they eat all your stuff and the sense of futility sets in. Then its really just a question of how motivated they are to stand around and hold it. When is the main time we get a keep back in this situation? When its completely undefended. Is that fun gameplay for either side? No, not really.
If the buff is worthwhile to where they can compete with a stronger server, more of your team will be likely to come in, and play. The more of your team plays, the weaker the buff needs to be, and be a better situation for all. If this is done right, other people who transferred to the higher servers might realize it could make sense to go to lower pop servers in the hopes of having easier queue times. This concept would also help lessen the impact of coverage (though maybe you might want to add in a degrade mechanic, where the longer you hold something, the harder it remains to be held in some manner, or requires more and more supply to stay totally built up perhaps).
One can hope the Leagues can help. I think Anet is probably hoping that the people who chase achievement points will see the additional points from the leagues as a motivating factor in playing more WvW. Since today, there is almost zero value in achievement points in the format. I hope it does, but I still think for the overall quality of game weeks could really use some help being more balanced. I’ve been on the side of controlling 100% of the map, and I’ve been on the side of having 0% of the map, and neither side is enjoyable for me, and I would most others would prefer a good fight over stomping someone or being stomped.
i’ve had this issue since the last update i think. whats going on most likely is that when you exit out of gw2, the program isnt actually closing properly in windows anymore. the game will look shut down on your desktop, but if you look at your running processes from the Task Manager, you will see that gw2.exe is still running in the background. if you kill the process manually you will then be able to run gw2 again, without having do an entire system reboot.
if you change back, all your stats will be there. we did this with my guild when we were debating what server to be on. thought we were screwed when we moved. its a stupid system, but at least you can go back to how it was.