Yes, but the effectiveness of +condition/condition food in WvW and PvP especially is so high relative to other options that while there are diverse options, practically because you have these two overpowered options, you see little diversity on the field.
Rhonin:
I get your point. I feel the frustration a bit. But the rewards were not designed to be exclusive. It isn’t like the Season 1 trophies for example.
Eventually, everyone will wind up with tokens. Right or wrong, that was a decision ANET made.
Given that the rewards are not exclusive, it really does make sense to provide the “hassle” reward in the same currency.
It would be great to hear from ANET, what is the next big thing (or type of thing) they are working on for WvW?
Is there even a “next big thing”?
For example, a response could look as simple as:
“We are working on a new map”
“We are working on tweaks to the current map to make it feel fresh”
“We are working on a new reward system”
“We are working on improvements to PPT or a replacement to PPT”
“We are looking to add some new siege and tactics”
“We are focusing on player skills as the primary way to improve the WvW experience”
Much like we heard about runes and the filling in of the “water zones” well ahead of time, it would be great to hear even the broadest of themes the team is working on for the improvement of wvw.
Devon:
I get that it takes a LONG time to create a new map.
But how do you determine if that is the best use of time?
How do you decide if the player base (which is often not represented by the forums) would prefer a new borderland map or a big balance patch?
If and when you start working on a new borderland map, would you tell the population upfront (much like you mentioned you were working on a big balance patch) to build anticipation?
I think players want to know from the WvW team:
“What is the next big thing you are working on and is there even a next big thing”.
I think stealth protecting downed allies is a GREAT mechanic and leads to serious strategy.
The key is you can still kill the downed enemy with damage even if you can’t see him.
You can beat the snot out of the thief who is in stealth too.
It just isn’t as easy and the thief has the edge which they should in this case.
I actually like the play really. It gives a thief a real role in fights where they might otherwise not have a group role.
Rhonin:
How “diluted” was the “hard work”? The tickets are to be used in subsequent seasons and the rewards will be the same (or the availability of skins will remain).
So it isn’t that these “lesser servers” got access to what was supposed to be exclusive to you, they simply got access to what they would have gotten later sooner.
Put the new “untested” maps on a couple of “test servers”. Allow the rewards (e.g. wvw) to carry over. If you earn laurels, dailies, wvw exp, it would stay on your real account.
Let players who want to play these new maps knowing they could be broken go for it. Let others stay.
The key “issue” with condition damage is the irrational nature of what gets removed when you use a condition cleanse.
I understand that to some extent any “system” ANET decides for condition removal prioritization will have supporters and detractors. Is bleed greater than burning? Should it be the damage per tick or total damage left?
The best way to really “fix conditions” would be to allow players to prioritize what type of condition damage was removed first FOR THEM. They would have a panel and rank conditions. Now, you never know what conditions you will face or whether burning really will be a worse problem than bleeding for a particular foe. . . . You don’t increase the number of conditions you remove, just have some strategic say in what type is removed first.
Because you can get +40% condition damage and -40% condition damage, there is a lack of real diversity in what foods people eat. “Eat lemongrass” or “Eat Koi”.
These foods should be reduced in half to encourage more food diversity (as should all levels of the food).
Likewise, there should be more Stat based consumables. Right now you only have 3 precision, power and condition damage. Why not allow toughness, healing power, vitality, and ferocity based on a % of a different stat?
It would be unbalanced. It isn’t the damage per condition but the number of conditions that is the issue often. More refined it is the inability to remove the right condition doing the most damage.
1. Condition damage is countered by condition removal.
2. The big issue is that what you remove often is not what you needed to remove (if you are “overloaded” with conditions).
A much better answer would be to allow each player to have a panel that sets which conditions get removed in what order. You wouldn’t get more removal, just potentially more effective or customized removal. But remember, you have no idea what conditions will be thrown on you, how much damage per condition and the timing. You are guessing and the condition damage dealer is guessing how to best lay down his damage on you in terms of order etc. Right now, I load you with the big damage conditions then COVER with garbage. You artificially take more damage than I think was intended.
The issue of condition damage is really more “overload” than anything else.
Conditions are number of conditions applied x damage vs number of conditions you can remove in a certain amount of time to avoid that damage.
Overload comes when the conditions you remove do not adequately remove damage because you removed a “cover” or “lesser priority” condition.
SOLUTION: If possible given coding, allow players to have a panel which they can set that ranks each condition in terms of removal priority. You could choose to remove torment over confusion or burning over bleeding. Of course, you wouldn’t necessarily know what characters you would face in a fight. Likewise, it wouldn’t give you more condition removal just more control over what is removed.
The system would ONLY work in WvW and PvP because you simply don’t know what to predict. In PvE (which I do little of), it may be broken because you would just reset your priorities to remove the big condition of a mob which you would know ahead of time what it is. That assumes PvE has “cover conditions” which I am not sure of the fights to know one way or another.
You would need to ensure that you couldn’t reset the priorities easily keep by keep or fight by fight (which could help make it fair I suppose for PvE too). You may have to go back to a trainer (even if it is free) in your main city to reset etc etc.
I play both power and condition on different characters.
Whether you think condition or power or X is Op often depends on your server unless you are a pure PvE player.
When someone says condition thieves dominate roaming. . . it just depends on the server really.
But a few points we should be able to agree on:
1. Conditions don’t telegraph like physical attacks because they can be removed before they do big damage.
2. The active play is on the part of the player who got conditions figuring out when and how to remove them (or not to).
3. Conditions time to kill is higher which means you have far more time to defend and then figure out how to burst down the opponent.
4. The larger the fight, the less value a individual condition character has such that eventually several of them are ineffective.
5. In smaller fights, the conditions that most people fear are generally “increase duration” meaning that having 2 characters who are speced to apply the same condition together do less damage. Two that apply different conditions is coordinated great play (and somewhat rare frankly in my experience).
6. In very small fights, conditions tend to be extremely potent because you can apply quite a few quickly (especially if you have all of them like an engineer). It is an issue of damage X number of conditions.
7. For very small fights, the condition damage isn’t the problem as much as the ability to apply a great number of conditions and avoid fighting thereafter of some classes.
8. Conditions have to be thought in two parts: damage and number of conditions applied.
9. Typically, a character does one better than another. Few apply a great number of conditions at top damage. Take an engineer. They do very well with burning and confusion in particular (along with cc and vulnerability) but their bleed stacks are a fraction of what other toons do (typically).
10. The difficult balance in condition damage is the rate of application versus the rate of removal. You don’t want the potential to remove all conditions anymore than the game wanted a healer who could remove all physical damage.
11. If there is one thing that could be changed, it would be the prioritization or condition removal. In other words, the problem often is that the defender can only remove 2-3 conditions but has 6+ on them and no ability to determine which get removed by what needs removed. It is the damage “hiding” or “covering” that artificially gives “condition overload” under some circumstances.
In an ideal World, a defender would have a panel that allowed him/her to rank all conditions by importance TO THEM for removal. Each removal skill (if not limited to certain conditions) would check against the priorities of the list. Of course, you may run into attackers who have totally different conditions than you expected but that is strategy.
I suppose I would do it a bit differently.
You can pick up any turret but you keep the hps it has (or has lost if you are not fixing it).
You must place the turret in the next 10 seconds or it goes on full cooldown.
The turret retains the HPs it had left and can’t be picked up if the overcharge ability is on cool down.
I’m sure there might be some other restriction you need to prevent abuse like it taking a couple of seconds (to ensure you don’t pick up and put down to get another “firing” cycle). But that could be a timer etc.
What about this. . . .
Grenades when untraited with grenadier would auto attack. Seems about right given they really would need to hit and not OP when you have 50% less damage (2 v 3).
Grenades with grenadier trait would require ground targeting.
Not sure it really would be OP. After all, they acknowledge that one way the engineer survives having lack of condition removal is CC and active play (blowbacks etc). Now the engineer would have more to deal with what they seem to acknowledge is a bit too little condition removal.
Ahh, when I wrote fix I was not thinking that people would take that as “bug fix”. These are meant to be the type of improvements to the class that are extremely easy for ANET to make to open up build diversity.
Everyone is entitled to a different view.
One of the issues with the engineer class is that the versatility of the class often splits the class on what it wants to see worked on (because there are so many playstyles).
Overall, it is in rank order:
1. Having 2 weapon sets fixes a few problems tied to how many sigils we have and our ability to use on swap sigils without a kit. That opens up builds.
2. We would have far more boon stripping potential in larger fights if we could improve the radius of throw mine. By splitting mines from bombs and giving mines the extra 60 radius without traiting explosive powder, I think you get much closer to seeing throw mine more commonly as a boon stripping utility.
3. Condition Removal is a class wide problem. It needs to be fixed as such versus each spec having part of its utility tied to condition removal.
3. Gadgeteer There just isn’t enough incentive to go gadgets. A whole class of utilities is underutilized. Gadgeteer could do for gadgets what grenadier did for grenades. The defensive benefits are quite good but they simply don’t “fire” enough. Perhaps if you allowed them to activate on BOTH the toolbelt and the utility skill use it would definitely help.
4. Several of the Elixirs are underwhelming because they don’t have enough options or could use a second boon generated versus just one etc. Adding additional functionality to a couple of the elixirs could make those builds a bit more viable.
That is the idea. Always willing to hear better ideas quick things that would allow for better build diversity.
Shield is a perfect weapon for an engineer. It’s effects are all elctro-mechanical/tech oriented.
It’s utility is unquestionably very high in any sort of PvP or WvW.
This thread is for “quick and dirty” fixes to the engineer that would require little programming and testing effort (or less). It is not designed to completely rehaul anything.
- Allow engineers to have 2 weapon sets.
Problem Solved: sigils that require swapping and not having a weapon kit
Potential Issue: Is that too much cc? Probably not given our lack of stability.
- Make Throw Mine Radius automatically 240 but not increased by explosive powder.
Problem Solved: Allows mine to be used in more builds without the trait.
Potential Issue: The toolbelt skill could have too large of an area but realistically those bombs are already pretty clustered.
- Add Interval to Gadgeteer Trait. Remove “on use” activation.
Problem Solved: Gadgets just don’t bring the same utility. You often take one but a real gadgeteer build is quite difficult to make. Some gadgets never see the light of day.
Plus, the timers are just too long on some of the skills for an “on use” effect to matter.
Potential Issue: Intervals mean the effect is not there when you necessarily want it. Is the right interval 15 seconds?
- Add to the proximity radius of bunker down. Move to 120.
- Reduce Cast of AED to 1/2 second.
#6. Elixir H should provide randomly 2 boons. Add vigor.
- Give Elixir U more potential effects.
- Kit Refinement. Reduce Cooldown to 15 or 10 seconds.
When you are starting out as a roamer, you might find that rocket boots are easier than elixir gun. In many cases, even having played engie for a while, I will swap them out when running solo still.
Sure, elixir gun has a lot of great utility (much of which fits in groups better such as the condi clear). It is a GREAT condi remover for 1v1 with light field and projectile finishers.
But. . . .
The escape/reset factor is much harder and frankly quite a bit weaker. While on a shorter timer, the timer really matters less than the distance and the auto blast finisher which allows you to flee in stealth. It will often work 1v1.
The escape of rocket boots increases exponentially when you are facing more than 1v1 as a solo. You have little other way to avoid getting jumped on by a couple.
Rocket boots with a little stealth, stealth back up, drop a glue bomb if they are chasing etc etc. You can get out of many sticky situations (pun intended).
Wolf is a great player but I play a bit differently than his builds.
A 3 kit condition engineer (IMHO) should look at grenades, bombs (LOTS of synergy) and generally e-gun or rocket boots. Both of the later can let you reset. One is much higher in skill (but with more utility).
Bombs beat toolkit generally. You can always quick stealth to get some sustain versus block. Bombs take care of melee. Nades take care of ranged. Bombs also can provide very effective fields for might and stealth. Bombs are PBAE (ok delayed fuse but kinda) and toolkit is single target. Take the PBAE.
If you are running in a tight group I could see Bomb, Nade, Tool Kit as you won’t need the “escape” as often but may have to run into an arrow cart field or need to pull an enemy off a wall, etc. But overall, I find having the escape is more valuable.
We could use a “Read the Wind” type trait for grenades actually. Could also be used to reduce the fuse for bombs as well.
I could see this being an option between say incendiary powder and more frequent hits. IT would become a power v condition trade off.
Nope. I get the potential. I just don’t care for it over other foci.
What I can and do support is the idea of allowing an engineer to carry 2 weapon sets so you can have swapping sigils without needing a kit. The sigil deficiency alone would be worth this. For example, you would be able to have a rifle and a pistol/shield. There is a suggestion that if you take a utility skill which is a weapon kit, you would lose the weapon skills of the second weapon set. I am still sorting out whether builds with rifle/pistol-shield or pistol-pistol/pistol-shield would be OP WHEN using kits.
Even if primarily usable by NON-kit specs, it would open up builds nicely and without all the effort.
I play both classes.
Certain conditions really hurt a ranger more than other classes. One of the most noticeable is confusion. Rangers attack very quickly.
Their condition removal is often tied to the pet. Pets are quite easy to CC or condition kill. Their other real source of condition removal is on a 30 sec timer.
Remember empathic bond removes conditions which can quickly be reapplied.
The biggest headache of the condition ranger is his bleeds. Rangers really don’t have a huge number of conditions to place on you. Instead, each really hurts. And there are tradeoffs, so they typically don’t carry all the conditions (if torch then no. . . . etc.)
The condition ranger will have less range traditionally too (if you take nades particularly).
Some tricks for rangers I really like are:
1. Rocket Boots. Reset OR close quickly and bomb/pull/burn/confuse and toss him around like a wet noodle. You can also use Slick Shoes to keep the pet at bay.
2. Tool Kit. You have a LOT of blocks and reflects with the tool kit and a p/s combo. Close and kill.
3. BLIND. I like blinding the pet frankly. The condition ranger does a lot of auto attacks.
4. Rangers HATE when you go into stealth. Well placed smoke/blast finishers can really turn a ranger fight.
Manuhell:
I agree that you should be able to get “on swap” sigils to work without the use of a kit.
I agree that allowing the engineer to take 2 of the following Rifle, P/P and then P/S makes more sense than thinking the engineer will get new weapons.
It would be balanced on engineers that DO NOT have a weapon kit. It could be grossly over-powered on 3 kit engineers (think of the combined CC of the rifle and P/S with bombs, grenades and tool kits).
You could easily make it such that upon slotting a non-healing kit in the utility bar you immediately lose the ability to utilize the 2cd weapon BUT you would retain the use of its sigils.
I bet you would see a fair bit more diversity in builds if you adopted such. We could use a few gadget or turret engineers in WvW particularly.
Thinking about this again, would it really be OP to give ALL engineers the ability to carry 2 weapon sets (of the same 3 weapons they have)?
The weakness they seem to acknowledge on Ready Up is our ability to counter CC or reset a fight. Having a rifle/pistol-shield or rifle/pistol-pistol or pistol-shield/pistol-pistol really is only adding a bit of utility in CC more than changing your damage rotations. Now most engineers would have a very mediocre gap creator (jump shot) and 2 blow backs (magnetic inversion and overcharged shot).
I may just be missing where this would be OP but looking at it again, giving the engineer the ability to carry 2 weapon sets given we have so few choices, really doesn’t seem to add an outrageous amount of utility.
I think it would be extremely interesting to have a tournament followed by a game mode which was 8v8 where each class was represented on both sides.
Sure that would have a longer queue if you didn’t have an organized team but it would a great fight!
If I might inject another option that is similar but would really be fun. . . .
8v8 where each class is represented. Game would not wait to have each class necessarily represented. If after X time, there were not say 2 rangers available, then you would have a 7v7 fight (all the way down to a 4v4 fight).
But you never would have 2 of one class on a side and each side would have the same classes. With luck you would have every class on each side!
This would be a death match as it would be hard to setup objectives for what could be 8v8 or 4v4.
I play both power and condition engineer, thief and ranger (yep medium armor classes).
Conditions do better in roaming and worse in zergs. That is a good tradeoff. Power is a bit better in group fights and harder to sustain in a small skirmish. Seems fair.
I don’t find that the condition dealer always wins. There is a bit too much sustain on some classes like warrior and the thief you spoke about probably is a bit broken not tied to the condition damage but the ability to sit in stealth after loading you up.
Overall, condition damage is where it needs to be if you deal with a couple of the defensive mechanics of a couple of classes that have conditions but really shouldn’t have as many.
Sad how you really would do better with troll siege than real fights.
On the bright side, you learn to really not like the servers you compete against when they are the same week to week. As a result, there is more server pride.
Has more to do with servers being stagnant in terms of their relative strength. At some point though if you are say Maguma or Dragonbrand playing SOS you should be able to “team up” after say 2-3 losses in a row. They “kinda do” but unless it is official it is always a “kinda”.
So i’m some what new to GW2 and to WVW. Only playing for about 2 months now i think that is a bit understandable though. Being a person that did not like PVP of any sort in any other games i was surprised by how much i like the WVW mechanics. But there are many things i did not understand and still don’t and maybe never will.
1.One side being allowed to out number another side requiring zero skill to win. Instead they just steam roll over players and keeps.
+What happens if you want to play wvw but can’t get in? The problem is that the outnumbered buff doesn’t do enough to balance the fight. But not letting people play would be maddening. +
2.The out numbered showing up at times and not at others.
It should be more transparent. Might help if they gave us the actual numbers on each side or a range
3.Building up keeps and defending them as you upgrade them rewards you with nothing.
Agreed! I like to say “it isn’t your personal keep” so shouldn’t the “king” pay you a little something each “tick” with the reward “cumulating over time” so long as you are providing “one of 5 or 6 services from repairing, manning siege, having conversations with enough NPCs” or anything that forces active play?
4.Helping to speed up supplies being delivered does not always reward you.
+There should be a reward for anyone spending X amount of time “by yak” with a special reward for any “attack on yak defended”. +
6.Why commanders run their groups right at a zerg they know they can not hope to beat as they are out numbered.
Right now the rewards are setup to favor fighting even if you don’t win the fight. One of the reasons is that you get loot bags after each mob/toon dies versus it being delayed until a certain area is cleared of the enemy. If you required a clear area then a large loot box with ALL the bags of the enemies slain appeared. . . you would change that pretty quickly
7.Lack of chat from commanders as well as lack of them reading chat.
+Most communication happens on 3rd party speech based programs because chat is just sub-optimal. Does your server have Vent or TeamSpeak? It might be a good idea to allow a commander to draw on the map you pull up but that could lead to abuse too. Perhaps an option where YOU your toon to see what commanders are drawing on the map? That would allow you to quickly open the map and see targets, objectives etc. +
8.The defense of places taken over.
Even if you give rewards, defense is never going to be a favorite of players unless the area gets attacked. What works is when a game allows defenders to get to the keep, tower, etc. VERY quickly via a waypoint (with the size of the number of people who can waypoint being the deciding factor of upgrades) so that when there is an attack there is a defense. Otherwise, waiting isn’t fun.
While I would love to have more weapons, do you really want the focus of the developer’s attention on the class on this?
It would take all the time they have for the class to develop new weapons, animations, sounds, check and recheck.
The ONLY way I see it working is if we essentially got the mirror weapon skills of another class (likely warrior) with VERY minor modifications. Then the weapons being used would just have to be transmuted.
BUT. . . . that is still a LOT of work versus fixing what we already have.
I would prefer work on improving what we already have. The turret work was nicely done.
The rewards are not exclusive to a Season. So I am somewhat missing the OP’s point.
All someone on the other server would have to do is wait for one more Season to accumulate the right amount of tickets to buy the same skin they will be able to now get because of the frustration involved with the delay.
This is extremely good policy to inject a bit of enthusiasm back to something that had waned by the delay.
Overall, ANET isn’t typically rewarding “winning” with exclusive rewards, just more rewards. That may not be to your liking, but it tends to work better in an MMO that has a strong casual base as well as competitive players.
Gates:
Ahh, that would not be so easy now would it. Ok, much easier idea.
The transmutation allows for the use of a weapon previously not offered.
BUT. . .
Each class would get the weapon of one other class (only by transmutation).
So engineer could get the warrior mace. (Just need to make sure that if you have no adrenaline for the #2 skill it won’t bug or disable that effect for the engie).
Ranger could get the option in the transmutation to have WARRIOR longbow skills or could get the warrior rifle (if the former option is too complex).
Thief could get the torch of the ranger.
etc
Two theories on how Outnumbered should work (well maybe I am only smart enough for two):
1) It should make players more interested in joining because of personal character rewards.
a. If so, what rewards?
b. Is the level of rewards sufficient on your server or for matches where your server
is dominant?
2) It should create a WvW (fight) advantage versus being player oriented.
a. If so what rewards?
i. Improving efficacy of players in combat with other players?
ii. Improving efficacy of NPCs guarding?
ii. Improving supplies, defensive capabilities of points and keeps etc?
b. What is the right level of rewards to create balance?
Finally,
3) How frequently should Outnumbered effect be recalculated? Should it vary by server time?
A few questions which I think the community would love to hear ANET’s views on and I suspect ANET might value the communities views on. Again, I understand if there is no official ANET position, but can individual employees give their personal thoughts?
1) Do you believe the updates you provided WvW worked as intended?
2) What do you think was the best received?
3) What missed?
4) Why?
5) How would you change the approach?
My answers:
1) Somewhat. The Seasons did add quite a bit of purpose to WvW even if the implementation had challenges (as anything that involves predicting how thousands of gamers will act can). Ranks became an effective reward system without unbalancing other aspects of the game. EOTM largely missed.
2) WvW ranks really worked well. They were not OP and they really anchored a number of key people and commanders creating server leadership (at least on my server). The one exception may be guard stacks given everyone seems focused on getting that ability first. Seasons worked better than not. There was passion around WvW even if a bit of frustration. Overall, it was a win but whether it remains such going forward will depend on removing some of the frustration (after all the Seasons are no longer really new now).
3) EOTM (and if talking about PvP) Skyhammer missed. EOTM was designed to be about WvW conflict mechanics and it became more an extension of PvE than really PvP/WvW. Skyhammer was just about the most clever map I have seen in a MMO but became quickly exploitable. Other things are relatively minor such as guard stacks.
4) ANET seems to have extremely good creativity and frankly the execution of new content really works much better (on whole) than most games. What is missing seems to be an understanding of the player and how they will actually use content (or abuse it). Likewise, the focus on BIG changes in WvW/PvP while focusing on minor (and more frequent) content in PvE (Living Story) gives the impression to gamers (right or wrong) that PvE is more “top of mind”.
5) First, it would be great to have a test server to see exactly how players might exploit or use content. Secondly, having a series of balance improvements (focus on a class at a time or some manageable chunk) with each LS patch would create a perception of balanced effort.
Devon:
Thank you for explaining the length of time it takes to create new maps and content. I for one was unaware. I suppose my having seen large custom software projects move a bit faster outside of gaming, makes it harder to relate.
I agree there has been updates and content to WvW.
A few questions which I think the community would love to hear ANET’s views on and I suspect ANET might value the communities views on.
1) Do you believe the updates you provided WvW worked as intended?
2) What do you think was the best received?
3) What missed?
4) Why?
5) How would you change the approach?
My answers:
1) Somewhat. The Seasons did add quite a bit of purpose to WvW even if the implementation had challenges (as anything that involves predicting how thousands of gamers will act can). EOTM largely missed.
2) WvW ranks really worked well. They were not OP and they really anchored a number of key people and commanders creating server leadership (at least on my server). Seasons worked better than not. There was passion around WvW even if a bit of frustration.
3) EOTM (and if talking about PvP) Skyhammer missed. EOTM was designed to be about WvW conflict mechanics and it became more an extension of PvE than really PvP/WvW. Skyhammer was just about the most clever map I have seen in a MMO but became quickly exploitable.
4) ANET seems to have extremely good creativity and frankly the execution of new content really works much better (on whole) than most games. What is missing seems to be an understanding of the player and how they will actually use content (or abuse it). Likewise, the focus on BIG changes in WvW/PvP while focusing on minor (and more frequent) content in PvE (Living Story) gives the impression to gamers (right or wrong) that PvE is more “top of mind”.
5) First, it would be great to have a test server to see exactly how players might exploit or use content. Secondly, having a series of balance improvements (focus on a class at a time or some manageable chunk) with each LS patch would create a perception of balanced effort.
Just because I disagree with John, make no mistake, John is no dummy. Far from it.
Let me summarize what I have gathered his position more or less is. If wrong, please do correct.
What his theme seems to be is that overtime there has been the same relative ability to purchase items given so many units of “labor” or “currency”. Sure prices may inflate, but on whole, the access and availability of these digital goods is fairly consistent and there is the proper amount of scarcity so that the model shows the desired flow and availability of goods (as well as pricing being “within some type of appropriate range”). (Again, I note the danger of trying to summarize someone else’s thoughts).
As they would say in agriculture, the water is flowing and the tiles are as full as we want them to be.
He makes a good point, but is it the right point to make? And what is the right approach to tackle that point, if it is the right one to make?
My point is quite a bit different and represents more of an approach difference. I would argue that the reality of the availability of goods/access to rewards over a period of time is much less important than the perception players have at various points in time. MMOs are fundamentally about building loyalty so that even when a game mode is slower to develop (or between Seasons etc), you stay. And there are points in time that matter more. For example, when a new set of gear comes out, prior to a Season, when you just turn 80, etc.
As a result, I would spend far more time trying to understand the sentiment of posters (especially new or casual players who are developing stickiness to the game) like the OP. In short, rather than defending the objective truth, I would focus on understanding the perception misses and understand that a macro objective truth can impact individual gamers or groups of gamers quite differently.
Now, I am 100% happy to learn that perhaps I am off, old school, wrong relative to the data, etc. etc. etc. My real issue is far less the difference in approaching data and the role of an online economy versus how ANET might want to think about approaching the issue on the boards.
My board approach would be empathy first, understanding second and explaining/defending third.
My concern is that John’s posts often unintentionally appear more defensive than engaging and the unintended result is that very important conversation stops because the economist has spoken (often in a language that is difficult for the average player to then feel comfortable speaking up after).
Often, when you are the smartest guy in the room (or on a board) it is far more important to listen and engage than talk/defend. Otherwise, you effectively cut off the very conversation I would think you want to hear and understand (and a bit of hyperbole about 10k legendaries really isn’t the issue).
The OP is not “wrong” really. Instead, it should be viewed as “the economy is not working for me (and likely others like me”. Isn’t that exactly the dialog we should have?
Step 1. Create 3 to 5 thematic skins (let’s say we are going to make this a hand held hammer as in a hammer and anvil).
Step 2. Allow access to a type of weapon previously unavailable to a class but marginally related (e.g. in this case say it was a mace)
Step 3. In order to “transform” the weapon, you must “reskin” it
a. Could give a single ugly free skin
b. Could require the purchase of an additional more attractive “skin pack” from the
gem store.
Step 4. Create new skills around the transformed weapon (or you could modify other skills from other weapons).
a. This is unquestionably the hardest step BUT it is much easier than ALSO having
to worry about adding new loot into the game and all the associated issues.
For the Engineer One Handed Hammer (a “transmutation” of the standard mace). Essentially a single target melee weapon focused on reducing an enemy’s defenses and adding CC.
Skill 1. Damage Armor
Does different damage based on the type of armor worn. Does fairly high physical damage that scales well with power (think bomb). Each effect below would be only for 1 second but no cooldown. Attacks take 1/2 second. So like e-gun you could do permanent condition harm to one target.
Heavy. Adds vulnerability (bash that armor)
Medium. Adds cripple (bash the knee)
Light. Adds weakness (bash the hands)
Skill 2. Throw Hammer to Head
Fairly Low Damage. Dazes opponent for 2 seconds.
Physical Projectile Finisher
Skill 3. Frozen Hammer
Hammer is dipped into (insert term) causing it to freeze. Engie hits ground chilling all those within 180 units 1 second/pulse with 3 pulses. Creates 3 second ice field.
Skill 4. Hammer to YOUR Head
Hit YOUR OWN head which makes you furious with the enemy and also removes stuns, immobilizes and confusion. However, it does significant damage to you.
Skill 5 Precise Strike
Hits exactly where it will do the most damage to the armor runes. Enemy loses 2 boons.
John:
Let me respectfully call you out on your answer as being well intentioned but IMHO misguided. Without getting into a credentialing match, I think both of us have had our share of economics, analytics and theoretical modeling. I am shall we say amazed by your answer.
I struggle with your answers as if somehow an MMO can be looked at as an economy when there are no actual limitations (you can simply change them on a moment’s notice by whatever delta of change your choose). Hence, the economy is less economic and more of a loyalty tool (a sophisticated CRM if you will).
Indeed, CRM/loyalty is the only purpose of that “economy”.
This is why I find your posts utterly frustrating, because they warp the economics of a real resource constrained system with a game that has no such restrictions. In doing so, you focus on somewhat senseless charts versus gamer expectation, perception and ultimately interest which is a far better measure of if the “economy” is working.
In short, this quest for “efficiency” is meaningless despite its “correlation” to economic theory IF it doesn’t accomplish the goal of loyalty/fun/name it what you will. The only thing the economic model can do (if well marketed) is create a “sense” of fairness.
The perception of inflation is more important than the reality in an MMO. The segmentation of that perception of inflation if it leads to a frustration or a “I can’t progress” attitude won’t change because your charts say it is wrong. The net result is the same.
If the goal is to create a sense or perception of fairness, but increasingly there is a trouble or “sense” that the “economy” is “off” even if only to one or more key customer segmentations, the mission is a failure despite pie charts and line graphs.
You keep trying to prove things are not as they seem to the customer. I wish you would quit telling posters to “learn economics”. Trust someone who clearly has, you are chasing the wrong issue. You are using an unfamiliar language to most of your consumers of the game to mask a very simple consumer issue:
To many it simply feels, right or wrong, that the economy is “boxing them out”. “Proof” is not going to replace the need to fix the perception. I dare say the customer and OP is far more “right” than you are. In an MMO, it matters not if you are economically disenfranchised, it only matters if you feel disenfranchised.
In short, I would be very hesitant to jump in and alter the conversation that the OP had. The value is the discussion over whether the “economy” “feels fair or different” rather than overwhelming the poor OP telling him to learn economics which may truly stifle the very conversation as a consumerologist I would suggest ANET would definitely want.
You mean well. I hope you realize I do too with this post.
Anet:
I appreciate the candor of the difficulty in creating a new WvW map.
Can you tell us if you are already in the process of doing so?
Can you tell us how long you have been in that process?
While that would certainly not tell us when it would be done (nor might you even know at this point), it would give us a direction.
Not saying that at all.
The HT has two modes:
Basic which provides a heal and a regen. It triggers every three seconds there are allies within its radius.
The overcharge mode is an active skill. You press it then AT THE NEXT BASIC MODE HEAL it will “go off” providing:
a. a heal
b. a regen
c. removal of 2 conditions
d. a 3 second water field
The overcharge has a 15 second cool down after it is activated.
Think of it this way. The HT is designed to fire every 3 seconds. You overcharge the basic timed heal (getting all the other benefits), but it still takes the basic timed heal to go off.
The way around it is that the basic heal goes off on activation. SO, if you drop the HT and immediately (basically spam) the overcharge, it happens right away. But you still have another 15 seconds before you can overcharge another basic heal.
There is one catch! If you pick up the turret while the water field is in effect, for some odd reason it eliminates the water field. So either, wait or simply blow up the turret with the toolbelt detonate skill (though that adds 5 seconds to the cooldown).
The key to the HT is a couple of things:
1. If you drop it and then Immediately overcharge it, you get the water field immediately. OTHERWISE, you will get the water field on the next “activation” which occurs every 3 seconds.
2. You often want to drop a series of delayed blasts like Big ol Bomb BEFORE you activate the overcharge as you only have a 3 second field. That gives you more blasts.
Finally, determine how many blasts you really need. A LOT of the blast finishers are often better used for their skills. Shield 4 can really reflect a lot of damage or you can get a single blast finish from it.
When I really start blasting to the moon is when I want either might/stealth before a fight (and everything will be off cool down in time) or when I want to stealth/rocket boots out of a fight and flee.
Certain skills become extremely valuable at 80 and in PvP and WvW where you will spend most of your time (probably) upon turning 80.
1. Grenades (they can be power or condition and have a few key fields). Learn to throw them against mobs predicting where they will land and then how to get both to hit (pre-80 it is 3x at 80 with traits).
2. Pistol/Shield: Get used to adding Pistol 2 and 3 in your rotation as well as how the shield skills really work. The shield can be amazing defense.
3. Add the Elixir Gun and drop the Flamethrower. Egun is excellent utility and can do significant condition damage. Learn how the weakness really works as well as the leap from acid and fields. Egun is probably best to learn to play in PvP.
4. COMBOS. You have a lot of fields and blast finishers. Learn to create effective combos. Start with the healing turret and learn to blast 3X on the water field. Progress to the bomb kit for stealth and might. Use Heart of the Mists as a simple place to work on getting combos down.
Studio:
I disagree. I think Mark very much appreciates the passion of his community. I don’t expect him to actually have the team work 24/7 but I would expect that he is just fine with customers being frustrated. I suspect ANET is frustrated too. The problem is that the way they are communicating leads to apathy not understanding.
The key problem is practical. Every day the rewards are delayed, a little more of the luster of the Season and getting a reward dissipates. In short, many were very excited to finally win and get a chest. Now, frankly, how much of that excitement is gone already?
The big mistake is not saying that “really guys we are working on it and really have nothing yet to say” but missing the opportunity to keep the excitement levels up or not lose the head of steam. If it were me, I would have a cute post of a dolyak robbery leading to the merchants deciding that they need to reduce prices to regain trust.
For ONE season only, the cost of goods would be lowered. That would move the discussion back to the anticipation of what to buy versus the frustration and now apathy that currently exists.
Change the conversation back to the anticipation of the reward.
As an engineer who plays other classes, I can tell quite a bit about your engineer by watching the hobosack changes (especially as you run around with speedy kits). The sacks can be very useful BEFORE a fight but hardly as useful thereafter. You can see what the engineer is kitting and the animations are pretty obvious too.
But think about the problems you create visually with the OP’s suggestion.
The flamethrower would look just silly without a pack.
E-gun would be the same. Where is that elixir coming from?
Bombs and Grenades could ditch the sack. As for “tells”, you might just need to have the engineer hold a bomb in both hands when using the bomb kit (like holding a siege blueprint) and have a grenade in each hand while in the grenade kit. Tool kit already has the wrench.
The key problem is you can’t customize the sack skins. I wish there was a panel where you could pick between say 5 kit skins (each “nominally” tied to a race). That would be the ideal answer.
It would really be helpful for the community to know what in the heck the issue is that is causing the problem.
Without that, everyone gravitates towards wondering “what the heck could be so hard”. Likewise, given the delay is getting excessive it might help to throw out some bonus such as letting us know if item prices might be discounted on account of the slow delivery etc.
Right now, I think we all are scratching our heads wondering when it could easily just be explained.
Whether you wish to say rangers are bad or simply that other classes are better, the result is the same. . . rangers are lower on the laddering than any other class right now.
You CAN play them and add SOMETHING to most battles (not so much to a zerg in WvW but at least something). The key is that you could have brought more playing another class. . . generally.
There are exceptions. In PvE, a ranger has some unique abilities in the oddest of builds.
In roaming WvW, a ranger can be quite good 1v1 (so can other classes that bring more in other fights).
In Spvp, rangers actually do quite well and arguably are in a pretty good spot (even if you have to play them differently than other ranger classes in other games).
Ranger was my main. Every once in a while I bring her back out. Generally, I just think an engineer does more “range” style play than the ranger and is a better fit (for me at least).
THis is a classic balance the different game modes issue.
In Spvp, I can’t even imagine the crying that would (and should) occur if you could easily avoid refresh.
In WvW, I can’t imagine taking turrets EXCEPT when bunkered down taking a “keep” or defending a “keep” and then only sometimes. In that case, you wish that you could move the turrets as many times as you wanted in X seconds and then they went on cooldown. But, imagine that in Spvp!
I think relatively they are ok.
Yam:
If there was one thing I would change about the HT it would be the oddity that picking up the turret removes a water field but blowing it up does not.
But alas. . . .