Guild Wars 2

D/D is terrible in sPvP relative to the other sets but is a very cohesive set in WvW. A lot of it has to do with the stat caps in PvP not letting D/D do what it has to: deal burst damage. This combined with a very high presence of bunker builds and CnD having 33% less scaling in sPvP makes the set have very little use.

Sadly, that just has to do with PvP’s mechanics favoring bunkering and actively prohibiting faster combat/damage builds. Actually, D/D’s most effective builds in sPvP are PTV offtank and 3spam condi. Very little purpose in playing these, though.

RT is a waste if you use those two points in Trickery. 5/6/0/0/3 has higher damage throughput than 6/6/0/0/2 because 6/6/0/0/2 doesn’t get modified by First Strikes since the +3 init from preparedness isn’t applied, unless you somehow manage to be getting in range to CnD and then out of range again for the precasted BS with steal.

4 signet burst is also a little bit of a waste. The might gain from SoM is negligible at that point and it’s a much better investment to use HiS for the condition removal/stealth if it’s necessary to precast/escape if the burst fails or you get caught by say, another thief.

Valkyrie armor with Scholar runes also allows for a substantially more reliable backstab with a ton more damage and yields a ton of survivability, and ToTC compensates for the lost precision via fury on engage. The added vitality also helps substantially against condition users. HK is of course required for this due to the lower precision.

Each downed skill has its own gimmicks. I think engis are the easiest to finish, though. The thief’s set is atually pretty strong. AOE on the attack to increase rallying with two rally avoidance mechanisms + a blind.

Thief downed state doesn’t really let you rally off of people by killing them while downed, though. For the survivability it has,though, I can’t complain and think it’s pretty reasonable.

Don’t just assume your build is wrong just because you died quickly in WvW, either.

Practice a lot first and don’t get discouraged. WvW is extremely fast with the kills and damage output, so consider why you died before re-investigating gear/build choices. When you find yourself without any answers is when you might need to make changes, although even then it usually comes in the form of skill order (possibly conserving your QZ for a stunbreak if you see a thief/warrior coming at you, and so on, or just replacing it with LR if you feel it more useful). Sometimes it’s just a matter of adapting to/knowing your weaknesses and working your hardest to make those weaknesses less exploitable by your enemies.

As I said earlier, stowing does have its uses with bouncing projectiles.

With RF the way it is, a damage boost isn’t warranted. I’d really just like to see the class mechanic reworked, though (with RF being nerfed but LB being buffed through trait optimization/less dependency on MMS for just a functional weapon, Hunters shot always applying stealth, etc.). Being able to switch to pets/spirits/preparations out of combat would allow players to really define their ranger’s style and fix the scaling problems plaguing the class while also making it more lore/concept friendly and appealing, as the class is stated as being a combination of Beastmaster + Archer + Warden which were too specific to make an entire class with multiple weaponsets around any given one of them.

The problem is ANet won’t do this because they like the animals too much.

I’ve had no problems. You might want to send a bug report in-game after it happens so ANet can dig up log files and hopefully see what’s up.

It doesn’t need more power scaling. D/D stab already has so much damage potential and burst potential. I’d like to keep the skill similar to what it is in that it’s a nice condition applier for very low health targets that use say, endure pain. Any more condition scaling would also just break the skill as then we’d just see condi dire thief evading and spamming 3 for very high bleeding damage and immunity frames at the same time. If anything, it might be smarter to move it to shorter duration bleeds/fewer stacks and apply say, a little bit of vuln.

I’d honestly just like to see a reduced aftercast/increased evade frame duration like SB3. As it stands, the skill is really finicky to use as a dodge but really has no place being anything but.

I find myself without too many problems, though. Usually I’m able to dodge through the applications and end the fight before they can lay them on and sustain. The problem only amplifies if I get immobilized after blowing dodges or simply misplay and then bombed with conditions. I try to do my best to avoid these situations and perform fairly well overall. Thieves have a loss-loss situation with condition removal since LR procced intentionally at the right time by a good player can literally cause the fight to end right then and there. Without LR, I would even further consider the SA line and take the damage hit just because of that necessary condition removal. Because of LR I find SA to be too unpredictable in performance because it becomes so dependent on how knowledgeable your enemy is about stealth and exactly what they do as you enter stealth. My build might be glassy, but it has no dependencies like that which imho makes the build more functional than people give it credit.

Though I won’t deny every now and then I yell in chat about condition damage sources being ridiculous. But I think a lot of people agree with me there and overall it doesn’t really have to do with the build of my character as much as the other. Scepter PU mesmer and P/D thief are a little out of control haha.

But to each his own. Players should pursue their best characters and play them in ways they find themselves the most effective. We can only point out certain synergies or make suggestions based upon supposed style.

Unless there was a change after the patch rolled out, unload’s damage didn’t get decreased by any factor, I had no issues during my testing.

Depends on your build and what mode you’re playing in, frankly.

When your stabs are something like this on guardians, having access to two of them at once would just be bonkers :P

I understand it’s one of my highest stabs as it was a glassier guard, but I rarely ever dip below a 12-15k against even full tank setups.

Too unreliable. Would rather just see it cut current cooldowns of all utilities down by a static 10 seconds.

Stalker becomes really OP, though. AOE 10 stacks of might for 15 seconds + RF = ow.
:P

There’s an immobilize + vuln stacker also built right into the #2 skill on P/P.

Longbow ranger is just fotm and statistically more people are dying to it because so many more people are playing it and thus getting kills with it.

There’s literally almost nothing OP about the skill itself.

I’m sorry but I was not aware 1000+ = 130.

If you LET your opponent get to you as P/P, that’s your problem. Hell, most classes have a really easy way to close the gap on LB rangers. They just refuse to in many instances. This game is overloaded with closers and has too few ways to open them imho. Thieves have an advantage in this regard due to having so much access to openers.

I have few issues with rangers, especially now with the fotm berserker builds. If anything, they’re statistically worse players with so many of them being alts/fotm noobs and have no defense. I consider most rangers free lootbags, especially if they’re using longbow. I actively flee from sword rangers more than anything, since those are the good ones who are much harder to kill and can apply a lot of condition pressure with a lot of evades and battlefield control.

I’d rather see the other skills made better on the longbow, though, and the skill tweaked so that it still deals more damage than auto-attacking (it used to not), but making it less newbie-friendly.

Good longbow rangers are absolutely terrifying with the skill, but so is anyone who’s good and has a counterbuild, really.

Backstab is therefore OP because it takes a hammer warrior two AOE skills to deal more than the same damage.

The same with blurred frenzy and it provides distortion.

And any bomb on the ele tree.

And DS necro since its autoattacks turn into the highest-burst damage skills in the game on autos.

And big ol’ bomb.

Fun fact, actually. P/P thief using unload twice has better DPS and burst than RF ranger in the same exact time frame, and provides a team with more CC and overall utility.

Sebrent.3625:

You can look up Ranger in a dictionary.
Reading is fun.
Reading rainbow

This argument never really holds, though, when people argue that the ranger =/= bow user. Notably because of the ranger class description (I’m not verifying/endorsing the RANGEr definition, however:

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”

Source:
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/

The build’s pretty good – like really good, and far better than most of what I’ve seen. I’m one to agree with you on the food sometimes, but it depends on the situation. Definitely run frittes if I’m doing anything more than picking off single targets and want the extra burst for laughs. I personally do not like haste and would suggest furious retaliation instead since haste’s bonuses are often negligible and proc too early in the fight to mean anything.

I dislike SA due to last refuge. Being forced into revealed by a skilled opponent is a terrible thing. I aim for consistency as much as possible. High points in SA imho are crutch/cheesy specs which just raise the skill floor and lower the ceiling.

I run D/D stab with the highest possible burst damage build in the game tweaked and played slightly for reliability. I have some issues with conditions but ultimately try my best to just not get hit. It offers enough bonus health to usually get past a few ticks should I get hit at all. My biggest issue lies in the new PU mesmer scepter builds because HiS does not remove torment and I have no other cleanses and rely heavily on mobility. The success with a lot of training is the highest I’ve had playing any other class/build just because most players cannot survive the initial burst or panic and misplay/try to turtle and sustain beyond that point. Displayed below is my gear situation with the build. I rarely engage with SoS blown and use it as a clutch bomb-avoidance blind if I absolutely have to since the mobility bonus is far superior to the might stacking. Obviously the numbers would be increased further with more ascended gear.

http://en.gw2skills.net/editor/?fZAQNAoYVlsMpypNOxzJ8PNxLhs9nTr8btuLCA-T1SBABP8AAi4QAc1+jSlbUDALlV4pDYRlgootYhjEQOq+AwJAIAACA38m38m38mFCQwWA-w

Shockwave.1230:

HK is not good as a grandmaster trait. Maybe as a Master it would see use in PvP, but it’s just terribly weak.

In fight you’ll be getting use out of hidden killer maybe 1 hit out of every 7 to 15 seconds. And that’s only if your crit wouldn’t have procced otherwise.

Then there’s Sigil of intelligence which offers 3 auto crit every 10 or 20 seconds depending on if you have 1 or 2. The pre condition on intelligence is also easier to execute.

On 1 stealth weapon set thief 1 sigil of intelligence provides more value than hidden killer. Even though hidden killer gives the crit to you at a more opportune time.

When a sigil is > a grandmaster trait I think it’s probably not worth running, unless you have a very niche scenario.

One HK proc every 7-15 seconds? What kind of build are you running? In fights I’m stabbing every four seconds if possible. I think that has to do with weapon sets and builds/styles more than HK. Permastealth D/P might bank on slow stabs, but aggro D/D will be pushing out as much damage as quickly as possible.

I think it’s pretty alright for a GM. My biggest issue is that GM traits in general come too slow. Stab thief by design is not an effective build until 80 just because it’s so dependent on HK. Sigil of intelligence is not more effective depending on HK’s use, and requires the thief to either make a mirror set which provides less combat utility, or blow a cooldown on swap and therefore be out of his stab damage for an extended period of time.

Wildly OP.

My build already kills most heavies in one stab rotation. Anything more would require nerfs elsewhere, and frankly, I don’t think that’s warranted.

They could start improving the thief by having steal not be bugged with movement skills.

Pretty much feel the exact same way, Swish. Seemingly, so does everyone else I’ve talked to who has been playing since beta/launch.

Ascended gear was designed to only net a 5% increase in stats relative to other armor-stat bonuses if one is fully outfitted with it (armor + weapons).

That 5% increase in stats does not count base stats/trait stats, etc., and looks further diminished by scaling.

Frankly, you get the most mileage per gold by making an ascended weapon versus a given piece of armor.

It’s a bonus. Take it or leave it. If I can squeeze out another hundred or two damage on a stab, it’s worth it.

Vayne.8563:

felessan.9587:

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

felessan.9587:

Really, not rhetorically, does anyone have those numbers?

ANet does. But, that’s it. People have been trying to estimate current user numbers for ages, and we just don’t have any real way to measure that.

Yes, I should have said: “Anyone outside of Anet.” I’m really curious to see what healthy retention rates are considered to be.

Anet seems to think that people were overwhelmed by too many options when they first logged in, so they reigned them in. Hopefully the NPE does what they hope it will.

We know with WoW that only 30% of people who try it ever get past level 10, or at least that was the case then the article was written. I’d have thought it would be higher.

And that was in its absolute prime.

GW2 retention for new players probably hovers at a similar statistic per unit of time spent only on the basis that the game is pay once and done. If you’re playing the game, ANet has already made its expected income from you. So with this type of payment model, the rates here may even be artificially high since people might be more inclined to stay for a product they’ve already paid for.

That said, the retention appears low. Frankly, the only time I’ve seen starter/early maps have sufficient numbers is after the scrap rate from boxes increase and people are farming keys, or new early content is released and people are trying it all out.

phys.7689:

In fact level gating will often be bad pacing in terms of teaching. Leveling is not representitive of a players skill or understanding, it just represents time, and everyone learns at different paces.

BOOM. We have a winner my friends!

And time spent playing for the unlocks is exactly what they decided to keep constant in this update. It was clearly too fast for some and is far too slow for others.

Content delivery mechanisms are what need to be improved so that players fully experience the game but are not blocked off from it because of an arbitrary representation of experience based upon time from an admittedly-failed leveling scheme.

MikaHR.1978:

DeceiverX.8361:

snip

So CEO of Blizzard doesnt know what hes talking about, and now you are here to write some stuff because you “work in the industry”

You may have your opnion, but opinions can be wrong too. And yours is in this matter.

WoW had/has TERRIBLE retention. What it DID have was crapzillion of people trying it. Same goes for LoL in a bit milder edition. And thats one luxury only a select games have (you can count those on fingers of one hand)

Again, we have more assertions without any real evidence supporting your claims aside from an article posted about a 30% rate which was only performed on trial users. You discredit my so-called “opinion” despite what my research has indicated (as with the research of others) on the basis of personal opinion and news media coverage. You’re not providing any counterexamples or any real methods of properly denying my claims aside from “Because I say so.” That study on the pre-10 dropouts would be like if college admissions’ retention rates were reported based upon the number of applications versus the number of expected graduates of that year. That statistic is totally useless seeing as applicants have made no commitment and the ratio of applications : students is not 1 – or even close to it.

And it doesn’t matter if GW2 is catering to new players or not. What matters is not only gaining new players but retaining both old and new ones; the whole mass appeal thing all over again. WoW is/has been “bleeding” exhausted veteran subscribers and simply not gaining new ones at a rapid enough pace. ANet is attempting to try and succeed in performing the opposite by making new players join faster and veterans churn slower, which should be the intent by any intelligent studio. The content gating however will simply not achieve this.

I don’t understand why you’re senselessly denying my evidence as valid or discrediting my experience because you simply do not believe it. I get that people claim to be in the industry to try and give their statements a sense of validity in hopes it garners more attention. The reality of the matter is that I actually have worked in this environment. That’s why I openly invited Colin to PM me if he didn’t believe me – I actually have those credentials at my disposal – and frankly, if he never PM’s me, it either just means he never saw the thread, doesn’t care, or considers the feedback useful whether or not I need to prove said research efforts. I have those references a cell phone dial away. I’m not, however, going to just post my identity willy-nilly to a few million strangers on discussion boards. That’s just stupid.

So if you have nothing more to say than “you’re wrong” with no justification, I am showing you the door to this thread.

And by refusing to run with those players and expressing an attitude toxic and un-conducive to community development you’ve also likely contributed towards creating a barrier for the other less-experienced individuals to also enjoy playing the game.

So no, I totally disagree. If anything, I’d prefer to see stricter penalties on leaving a party once the dungeon has been created.

I’m not disagreeing with giving them help to learn. Good UI design and menu assistance early on is fantastic and the folks at ArenaNet have done a great job at implementing those.

I just believe the level gating was/is overdone and possibly costing them business and that the change initially was senseless in many regards. The amendments are a step in the right direction, but far from what’s necessary to truly provide a better new player experience for both veterans and newbies alike.

For PvE it looks fine.

For WvW stabbing, an optimized damage build is 5/6/0/0/3 for ToTC and bonus initiative so that the 5 pt in crit strikes actually does something for you.

Valk is almost always a better armor choice.

Depends on your needs and your build, really.

All that’s really “necessary” is around 30% on a HK stab build. Power is more important, generally speaking, though.

Running non-stealth/non-stab, you’ll need closer to 50%.

Of course, the higher crit chance you have, the better your DPS, so it’s just about striking a balance where you have enough to survive most situations and kill people at optimal efficiency.

Said this earlier regarding ranger RF buff QQ:
Unload used twice hits harder than RF in the same amount of time.

P/P hurts. It’s biggest shortcomings are mobility and the lack of condition cleansing, though.

That would thus not warrant a reason for the ranger to use the pet at all due to reliability issues. I’m pretty okay with the lack of utility as long as I’m compensated in DPS or some utilities get changed to accommodate it.

And as you state my own research as my “opinion” your disagreements stem entirely off of your personal opinion.

Data tracking from sources like raptr and xfire dictate that for the most part, despite the negative publicity that WoW has gotten recently, its market presence remains almost unchanged. Actually, the only statistic that’s really improved the last few years is League, which also has run no promotions for either of them and doesn’t install any of the software. What this means is that those games have remained at the top despite signups being entirely voluntary, making their statistics possibly deceitfully low. While you can argue all you want that these statistics aren’t genuine in terms of the number of hours played/determining the absolute popularity of the game (relative to other games), they work extremely well as methods of comparing retention to their previous years. GW2 has been hovering in the same position for the past year, and I don’t think its player base has dropped substantially since. Obviously there was a massive fallout after the first few months/year of release, but this is expected in the modern MMO/PC game market.

While it’s good to try and get new players into the genre, and ANet is attempting to create a new-player-friendly environment that coerces players into the mechanics of the game, the gating is still too slow and pushed back. People are smart. It doesn’t take hours and hours of playing and grinding mobs to understand the difference between weapon skills, utilities, and one’s elite. A few well-designed dialog menus and pointers can teach a newbie the difference, and so far, the UI design for the core game has worked wonderously in this regard. The content difficulty has been down-scaled in open world to account for the trait movements, too, so it’s not like the difficulty is there too early on, either, especially since early mobs are intentionally made easier relative to player stats. Unlock a utility skill slot, and just by clicking the box for the first time the skills window opens up with the tree and all. It matters not what level you are when this opens up, or how far into the game you are. You recognize that it’s a different feature, notice the skill point icons on the map are the same as the icon in your menu, and make the connection. MMO’s offer a lot, and there’s no denying simplifying the experience makes retention rates increase. Gating the content to such an extent however, does nothing to actually simplify the experience. The hand-holding element with the UI overlays and notifications, quest indicators, etc. isn’t so much a problem as the gating is. The “experience” if you want to call it that, of acquiring new knowledge/progressive access to some game mechanics doesn’t feel any more fluid. It just feels unnecessarily longer than it has to be.

And it has nothing to do with your specific demographic. As you just said, games with targeted audiences have had very little success. The key is widespread appeal. It allows for better marketing, and ultimately, creates a diverse community where anyone can sign up and enjoy it. This is why the content-gating is bad design and inhibits player retention: it only seems to cater to players who are not at all familiar with the entire genre. This is especially apparent when there isn’t a lot of fluid filler like there is now. Like I said, through better content implementation, the gating can be negated to an extent so that players can play at their own pace, in the way they want, at all levels of experience/familiarity, but nobody’s experience is hurt in the meantime. An easy dungeon with a predefined minimum completion time integrated into starter zones for low level players could allow them to get familiar with forming parties, combo fields, communication, and simply play the game in a group environment without having to worry about wiping, and other players can help them learn the game through tips and guidance, and new players can thus also be integrated into guilds and groups better. The minimum timer also prevents speedrun toxicity from getting involved in the new player experience as well.

This game was so successful at launch and got so much hype because of the mass appeal it generated: Hardcore tight sPvP tied with eSports, massive 24/7 large-scale battles for the GvG-oriented, extensive PvE content and dungeons for the raiders, incredible character customization through dyes and weapon/armor skins for those who care about style and roleplayers. The list goes on. All of this available early. It generated this appeal because of the lack of level gates on all of this content – the game was created on the basis of playing how you want to. Fundamentals to combat and the process of meaningful character progression shouldn’t be blocked off. More solutions for integrating them into the flow of content for new players smoothly is what needs to be done instead.

The article about league claims 27 million DAU in 2014, as does Riot themselves. I believe the 12m was referring to the 2013 statistic.

With WoW, there was quite a bit of competition, albeit less-marketed. Is it safe to analyze current retention statistics or previous ones from when the game was still dominating the market due to a lack of modernized competition? It’s also rather irrelevant in the scope of things: the TIME article mentions that sales are still up despite the falter, and that seasonal shifts and declines were expected. The article also mentions that statistically the retention rates are no different than in previous years due to a lack of new content, and that significantly more return for the content updates, even if the numbers end up leveling off later. WoW has lost almost 50% of its active playerbase since it’s peak in 2010 at 12 million, but one has to question whether or not the same people playing it at release are still playing now, and if gaining or losing players 10 years deep is considered normal. Frankly, it’s an enigma, but overall a successful game nonetheless, with so far no other studio boasting long-term retention rates any higher. Further, the 30% statistic is invalid. That 30% figure is entirely trial users. That means less than 30% of people testing the game think it’s worth buying/staying on. Even for the F2P market, that’s not too bad of a number.

We also need to consider the reason for such media coverage: This is a giant in the industry taking hits. Consider how much news coverage there is when a major company reports a loss. Look at how much buzz Microsoft has attracted. It’s still dominating computing, though. In the MMO world, WoW losing population is news-worthy, just because the game itself has become synonymous with MMO’s in general. Dropout rates might on on the rise, sure, but for how long could we argue the retention rate was far above normal in its earlier years?

What can mostly be said is that the overall retention of WoW was extremely high, and yes, while GW2 is different and designed to be a bit different, ANet is making this game, like it or not, to pay the bills. The same goes for the investors funding them. If player retention is an addressed problem, and an investor looks that it was attempted to be resolved and nothing changes, the investor becomes a lot more skeptical. And skeptical investors mean less funding, which means less good stuff for everyone. I referenced those games because what I am conveying is that those games are successful without needing to hold the player’s hand through content and gate off other aspects and options of the game. The gameplay design in starting areas can be reworked to make the process more contiguous, however gated unlocks on essential game features keeping time as a constant when it’s already a problem only perpetuates the issue. If they made the first 40 levels take as long as 1-15 but made all of the gated content come in between 41-80 and kept the amount of time between 41-80 and all of its subsequent content the same as 15-80 currently is, I don’t think the issue would be resolved to a very good extent; it might help in that the goals are compressed and feel more tangible each level, but are those first 40 levels really significant? Would players stay before this period even ends under the assumption the content never really improves? Would they stop after hitting the wall? There’s a lot to consider there. Frankly, moving the content back doesn’t solve the issue properly. Adding content to make the process contiguous and smooth but keeping the essentials accessible to allow for better/more skilled play and experimentation/learning is the best alternative that resolves this issue.

It’s not that the efforts aren’t appreciated. I just do not suspect that these changes are going to have any major impacts on player retention and the new player experience; if anything, it might make alt-loving veterans less-inclined to play new characters, which usually comes from the player being bored, which may also drive veterans away.

MikaHR.1978:

“Look at League of Legends’ success; even World of Warcraft’s. High-level strategies are apparent in even the lowest level tiers of play for brand new players. in League, and the tutorial for WoW throws the player right into the world with minimal tutorial interfaces or restrictions. Yet the retention rates in both games are incredibly high.”

Im sorry, but you say you “work in the industry”?

please provide some backup on this, because its simply…..not true.

stopped reading after that

League is the most-played game in the world. With a DAILY retention rate of over 33%. DAILY. That’s a HUGE figure in games, and their success is entirely dependent on non-monetization.
Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/223071/Dont_monetize_like_League_of_Legends_consultant_says.php

WoW is still the most-played MMORPG in the western market by an extremely large margin. Clearly, people are sticking around for that one to such extents that it dwarfs others. There has also been extensive research done on the subject.
http://www.artifex.org/~bonnie/WoW_retention_04_24_11.pdf

Now, what’s more intriguing is where your evidence is that states that these games do not have high retention rates, since you claim that this is not at all true?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Iason Evan.3806:

I’d like to reiterate for the thousandth time that this is not the way to go about giving feedback. Telling someone how to do their job is so condescending.

I don’t think his tone came off as condescending. I think it hit a balance of respectful, criticizing, and professional.

The only thing missing is a proposed solution. And, let’s be honest with ourselves, I find it hard to believe any one person could come up with a solution to a player retention issue. It’s just . . . too complex.

Thank you. I try to be formal in these types of dissertations because strictly speaking, as mentioned above, any suggestion to improve the state of the game could be taken as condescending by the sheer implications a player has a better solution to a problem than the developers and/or designers and/or game leads themselves, regardless of how much formal testing was performed by either party.

I cannot provide an ultimate solution to the problem because I lack the data to give concrete number suggestions on exactly what should be done for exactly which levels and when, or how long non-retained players last in terms of game time before they leave. Without this kind of raw data, I cannot provide a solution which would be more valuable than what someone working for ArenaNet could devise.

What I hinted at, however, is to push forward the level gates and/or simply remove some of them while paired with implementing some new content designed to integrate these new players into what the rest of the game has to offer. On one extreme, too much front-loading may leave a select few overwhelmed (as in everything available at level 1 with no tutorials), and would also likely create a vast dead-zone between the level 10-40 gap, however I firmly believe the current system gates too much content too far back to keep players both interested in the game and experimenting.

Gnat.9405:

As someone who “works in the industry” it’s pretty amazing to me that you think three massive walls of text are even going to be read. There are very clear explanations of how to give feedback on these forums and I think you are disregarding all of them

Sadly I lack a direct connection to those associated with content creation and design, and based upon the direct responses made on the forums by ArenaNet, it is only my hope this thread gets mentioned. My experience in working in support and feedback as a side-job dictates this would definitely go nowhere, otherwise, whereas there is some chance it may attract attention on the boards. The length is unavoidable when explaining in full my reasoning and properly conveying my statements. I understand the chances are still small, however the forums attract a surprising amount of attention internally even if they are not often responded to. I do not wish for a response as much as I wish for it to be seen so that down the road the state of the game can continue to improve.

I do not believe I am telling him how to do his job. I am giving a suggestion on my studies of player retention and why the current/previous systems are failing to achieve their intended results, and why such new implementations will continue to do so based upon the results of my studies and experience working directly on this issue. I do not take the liberty to say I could do his job better, and frankly, I do not believe I could. I’m trying to point out the inherent problems with the system so that it can be better fixed in a timely manner to help bolster sales and improve the experience for everyone. Ultimately, if one would believe that attempting to address a problem and come to a better conclusion is considered “condescending” then what are so many of the responses in that same thread, or really, any suggestion ever made? What’s the purpose of a CDI or any company asking for feedback if they would interpret such response as insulting?

I’m responding directly to him because he responded directly to the issue. Making a general forum post about the manner implies that it should be read by and discussed by the players almost exclusively of ANet or anyone involved in the actual production of the game/involved in the new player environment.

Further, with no freshened gameplay for the veteran players and a lack of meaningful contributions to endgame aside from a few token bosses/new dress-up items since release, the lategame has gotten stale, and thus many more players have deterred new ones from playing since the content doesn’t feel fresh nor does any effort appear to have been made in making the endgame experience fresh. By depleting resources for LS content which applies to neither group of players (it does not freshen gameplay, just introduces some new shinies), retaining old players remains difficult while new ones have no new content goals to aspire to as LS content is not marketable as a reason to sign up for the game and play due to its lack of permanence, especially for new players.

Colin, I understand this is a business, and I am well-aware of the importance of player retention (ultimately the game I worked on failed/is failing because management denied my requests to make the game’s new-player retention strategies on the basis said requests may not guarantee an income spike for the next month). That said, I suspect your retention strategies are off from what they need to be, and that these need to be looked at holistically with the concept of permanence in mind. Player retention = money under the assumption that a large player-base is marketable and therefore creates an incentive for people to join playing since so many already do. These gating systems intended on making the new player experience easier do not address the problems with making the game more enjoyable for new players, and ultimately will not create the result you’re pursuing.

I hope you at some point take the time to read this, and if you have, thank you for taking the time to do so.

-DeceiverX

It’s like asking people to wait in line in order to wait in line again before they’re allowed to do something. Lines suck. Waiting sucks. Players want to play and experience what the game has to offer RIGHT NOW. You even said this yourself. So why are players denied the ability to do so? Is it truly the fear of overwhelming players with too much information early on? Many other successful games in the industry could argue otherwise. Look at League of Legends’ success; even World of Warcraft’s. High-level strategies are apparent in even the lowest level tiers of play for brand new players. in League, and the tutorial for WoW throws the player right into the world with minimal tutorial interfaces or restrictions. Yet the retention rates in both games are incredibly high.

Why is this? Because players get the full experience of the game right then and there, with the permission to innovate and experiment from the get-go. As one so involved in game design/theory and the new player experience, I like to perform my own tests as well. So far, in every single case of a player I have recruited to the game, every single one has dropped out before unlocking all of the game’s core features. Not one player stayed. None of them felt inherently overwhelmed or felt as though things needed to slow down. Actually, a lot of them were confused and disoriented BECAUSE things were locked and they didn’t know why. It doesn’t matter if numbers tick by faster or loot gets better. They want to PLAY THE GAME – THEIR WAY – and making them wait to do so is just insulting to them as players and makes the entirety of the early game just feel like a waste of time. Instead of having them focused on actually leveling up or looking at longer-term goals like better gear, stat improvements, clearing content and learning how to fight better, they currently are just merely waiting to unlock features that every veteran considers essential or core mechanics. Making the leveling process feel like a blur and having each level feel unimportant and the rewards of each level feeling insignificant (dead levels, lack of emphasis on stat points from traits, unpredictable trait point acquisition rates, traits themselves being too far set back into the leveling process/speed, etc.), ultimately gives players no goal – they don’t know when they’re going to see any improvements and don’t even know when they’ll be eligible to improve (especially traits, where they are unlocked from clearing content they do not know how to complete or where to complete it, and the target level is totally unknown without doing research/knowing the progression formula in advance).

The bottom line is that retention IS based off of time spent playing versus what the game has to offer and that players wish to set their mind on clear, identifiable goals to make them keep playing. Deadlocking players out of elite skills, class mechanics, underwater combat, dungeons, and so on based upon what is arguably an arbitrary period of expected play time is simply too restrictive and this period of time is indeed way too slow. What’s more is that abiding to the same play time requirements from an admittedly failed system (otherwise it would not have needed addressing/needed a rework) solves absolutely nothing regarding the problem at hand but just pushes the requirements to such systems only further back numerically and makes the entire game less appealing to new players, who get further daunted by the fact they cannot gain access to a skill until halfway to the level cap, or a trait which makes their entire class/build functional until they’ve reached said level cap.

Continued below…

I understand you get these posts a lot (I have in the past), but Colin Johanson, I’m directly calling you out regarding your post for the misconceptions regarding level gating. I’m not insulting you are anyone at ANet. No, this is not a hate thread. This is a true feedback and theory thread designed to help you understand the systems created in GW2 regarding the new player experience. Be warned: This is a long one, because it’s more than an a mere complaint.

With that out of the way, I’d like to introduce myself, currently just a mere player under the account name DeceiverX.

I’ve worked in the MMO industry for several years and have worked in the MMO industry on the basis that my contributions to player retention and resolving community problems as a player – not even as an employee – warranted me joining the force as a staff member for another publisher with unrestricted privileges to community resources to help improve the player experience. I have watched this mentioned game fail on the basis of poor development handling and poor leadership by the executives micromanaging such decisions. I care about your game as a player just as much as the above since I have put in a considerable amount of my time here and wish for that investment to yield a positive experience in return. Do not believe me? I more than welcome you to send me a PM and I will include my game alias/studio name and credentials. I’m absolutely serious in this post.

What you have done is actually manage to create an environment that is in fact so “easy” so to speak that players simply don’t actually enjoy playing early on or even consider it any kind of experience, nor do they actually learn anything from it.

By a system explaining what to do in such explicit detail, with the attitude being that players thus following the instructions will therefore succeed, all that is achieved is helping a player move from point A to point B. You know the saying, “give a man a fish (or in this case, instructions on how to play), and he can eat for a day (or in this case, succeed in a fight); teach a man to fish (or in this case, giving him the resources needed to experiment and learn firsthand), and he can eat for a lifetime (or in this case, understand the ins and outs of combat and menu/game navigation).” Simply put, this kind of attitude does not retain new players. Everyone learns at different paces. Seemingly “forcing” them into a standardized pace designed to keep the slowest players successful will just make things boring, and frankly, very standardized.

The MMO genre of games succeeds on the basis that there is nothing restricting players, and that the community is the driving force in what makes the world thrive. The world is truly open; there is little “waiting” period before people can just dive in, and subsequently, new players feel like content is constantly fresh and can consume it at whatever rate they wish to in whatever order they please, and veterans can skip by all of the frills to get to their goals faster. Simply, gating content – aside from general experience restrictions (levels) on competitive and/or difficult content (GvG/WvW, Dungeons, Fractals, etc.) – is a terrible philosophy to abide by when trying to resolve player retention issues in hopes it simplifies the process and prevents new players from being overwhelmed.

With those veterans’ goals in mind, I would like to discuss the topic of goals further. Goals are what define games and keep players engaged and coming back. As it stands, GW2 does not provide enough meaningful, motivating goals. Goals for a massive percentage of the game consist of unlocking new mechanisms essential to even playing the game on fundamental levels at the high levels. Yes, skill unlocks are a way to keep players motivated in leveling in traditional MMO’s – more powerful skills become unlocked and usable over time – but GW2 does not abide by unlocking these truly “additional” features; things like utility skills, traits, and the capacity to utilize class mechanic abilities are not unlockable power-ups to keep the player constantly getting stronger and keeping the gameplay fresh; GW2’s unlocks consist of fundamental basics of the game, and tightly restrict player options and incentives and ultimately cause a very slow and unrewarding feeling of progression.

Continued below…

This is especially apparent in fights where the enemy has bouncing projectiles; various bosses, mesmers, thieves, eles, etc. The pet in many regards acts as a liability which can guarantee you getting hit despite good positioning relative to your other allies.

It’s also extremely frustrating for positional requirements and counterplay for say, the thief class. Going in for a backtab off of CnD thus causing stealth often requires for pet AI to reset and position itself behind/unpredictably around the ranger. Rangers inclined to not use the pet may thus open themselves up more and have fewer freebie random body-blocks.

While I’d love a DPS/utility bonus attached to it, I don’t think one is warranted at the moment with the changes. I’d much rather see the mechanic reworked, however, to include the options for either preparations on F1-F3 with an F4 switch/use like the pet control mechanisms + virtues, or of course the ranger having the pet as a separate combat entity. Ultimately, I am a firm believer that the ranger class as a whole still needs an extensive rework, but I do not suspect ANet is on board with that.

I genuinely think they’re useless in DPS builds – except for tanking mobs in PvE.

They’re too slow in all regards. The utility is really never on time and the damage would just be better served coming from my own character’s skills.

Most of them are referring to including the damage from fire/air procs, but that’s not at all exclusive to RF.

Cynz.9437:

Yeah, after watching steal consistenly bugging out i don’t even bother doing pvp/wvw on my thief anymore. It is simply unplayable.

Quite. My build went untouched (actually it got buffed), but the steal bug makes the class totally unplayable.

Well you lack more than an 11% damage modifier by not using Critical Strikes.
Yes the baseline scaling is higher on the skill, but the thief has access to way better damage modifiers which ultimately ramp the skill damage way higher than any ranger’s RF. Not to mention Mug + CnD will net the thief way more damage scaling when combined with the stab.

This screen is on an 80 guardian (ultimately edited the build out but I have since revealed it to the public), the first target idk what, but neither CnD critted (they would have been 10k+ each by comparing the mug damage which cannot crit), either (it is post-ferocity nerf since RT is in the screenshot):

I think they’re in a pretty good spot at the moment, frankly. Further buffs, especially in AOE’s when piercing is an option, would warrant them overly-useful in medium sized groups. I could only see barrage buffed if RF would be nerfed since the burst would just be too crazy to handle if it were to be without any negatives.

And no Zord, thieves have substantially better DPS – around three times the DPS, actually, of LB when optimized for damage on both classes.

Fun fact:
P/P unload used twice has a higher DPS than RF and the same casting duration.

Flitzie.6082:

Longbow shines the most in WvW right now. The rangers or now archers best friend is making sure to suprise and abuse the unawareness of the enemy.

This games archery sucks at roaming, atleast the longbow. You need to go glass or you deal no damage and when the enemy is prepared he can counter you sooo easily.
Its all about the suprise factor. Make sure the enemy is busy and probably spent most of his dodges/skills and then BAM 22k damage in ~2.5 seconds.

Make sure to stay at max range all the time and just circle around the hotspots on the map where zergs meet. Circle around your commander but never go closer than 2000 range. Once you picked your pray make a step forward to get in range and kill him. You dont even needto stomp him – just keep shooting.

And that’s exactly it. It has nothing to do with the weapon/class being OP but the fact people have never learned to keep an eye on their surroundings. Frankly, any class that ganks you well is going to have a massive advantage, especially if you’re blowing resources to move across a map faster. Heck, a thief can engage from way further away and deal better burst, but they’re not overpowered.

It’s a combination of now knowing how to counterplay them/refusal to learn and genuinely bad playing techniques in regards to map/situational awareness which are the cause of the class never being threatening before. Those who have played/play other games with devastating ranged damage dealers understand the importance of this and thus just have fewer issues facing the class in general.

Nothing’s inherently OP as much as it is people not understanding how to deal with it yet, and the incredibly high presence of rangers on the battlefield because of it making it seem like they get such easy kills when in reality it’s just that half of the active population is now trying the class again since it’s fun and viable, and most deaths are occurring from rangers because statistically speaking, more people are playing them than anything else. Not to mention that people are desperate for something fresh since gameplay on the rest of the viable classes has gotten so stale.

So you’re going to die from rangers more than anything else until the excitement dies down just because more people are playing them. Your rate of deaths probably won’t be much different, though.

T raw.4658:

This post explains your crusade against any thief build not D/D.

Thank you for clearing up the source of your l2p issues.

That being said I will have to laugh at the entirety of your argument because it’s VERY misleading and chocked full of untrue statements.

1. That pic of thief burst is only doable on a full signet thief. That means there is no initiating from 2100 distance. Also it’s got 2 HUGE tells as in 2 1 second casts before combo. The next point I like is the fact you are from the Maguuma server if memory serves me right……the last time you fought kain was a LONG time ago before ferocity.

2. RF requires zero set up besides pushing a button vs the sequence required to do a full signet steal CnD bs combo. 2nd you are landing RF 1900-2400 units away faster than the above mentioned combo well under 2 seconds which puts the above mentioned thief dead before finishing casting his basilisk venom.

3. If backstab can hit for 20k you’re kitten sure RF can too since it’s multiplier is higher than the 2.4 backstab one.

Now this is where i can tear into your comparison based solely on range/ttk/ease of execution, or I can flip the script with just how miniscule the risk/reward of RF is. Don’t forget ya got great mobility on that ranger build as well due to GS, but keep up the good fight mate I’ll be laughing

1.) So is the high damage from a super-power all-in RF ranger, which will only be applied to one RF every ~ 70 seconds. Wrong. Infil Signet is 1200 Range castable at infinite range (as long as there is a target selected) and will guarantee a 1200 range blink in the direction of the target regardless of how far away he is. Steal has a 900 range baseline. Combine the two, and you have a 2100 range increment at instant speed. No. the screenshot is me from when I was on FC. I’m also now playing on Dragonbrand, and never played on Mag since I prefer not to bandwagon. If you look at the skills in the screenshot, Revealed Training is there and locked. Revealed Training was implemented the same patch as the ferocity implementation. So now you’re wrong again.

2.) RF requires setup in the form of knowing when to cast it. It also will not land 2400 units away. Traited, at max arrow fall-off, the skill will reach 1800. Also, my thief blink teleports to the target faster than my RF arrows with RtW traited even reach the target. Wrong a third time. RF also has a hard counter in the form of reflect and requires positional setup in the form of not being hindered by LoS or body-blocking, unlike a D/D signet stab. A good thief will have already seen the ranger at well beyond 3-5k range and would have pre-casted BV then since it has a 30s duration and rangers do not have access to aegis to need to apply it after getting into combat. So wrong again, number four. Infil Signet and Steal also teleport/break stuns. A good thief has zero excuse to be hit first by the ranger, and even if he is, he has ample time to infil signet/steal through PBS and lay waste to the ranger as well. Wrong a fifth time. Y’know what, I’m gonna stop counting since literally everything you just posted was incorrect. Thief also has a hard-counter to longbow ranger in the form of Dagger Storm since it will directly reflect the damage and prevent KD’s while crippling the ranger and the pet. If a thief cannot execute any of that, or let alone dodge roll and just bypass all of the damage, that thief is bad and needs to L2P. I run a signet thief, and I win these fights. I see zero reason for SA sustain and tankier thieves with better access to stun breaks and evasion have any reason to complain against this matchup. These players are strictly bad players who as I said earlier, refuse to learn how to counterplay.

3.) Wrong again. I’ve taken my thief to over 4.5k power on a 40% damage modifier due to self-stacking boons a opposed to the ranger’s ~3000 at maximum at 20% best-case scenario if flanking and with full endurance. The power difference alone accounts for the lower scaling since it’ll yield an effective 3.6 coefficient before considering the scaling on either. Backstab hits harder on a burst signet thief, sorry.

Except thieves still have better mobility due to shortbow and HS allowing for a faster land speed than swoop due to its excessive cooldown.

So you’ve proven yourself incorrect about every statement you just made.

And lastly, if you’re not playing D/D thief, you’re not playing a real burst-oriented thief. Sorry your damage is lower; maybe next time play with a setup that actually allows for damage to be dealt than sitting in a blind field/perma-stealth or being dependent on spamming evade+ boon strip and wondering why your burst is lower.

This is a prime example of what I stated above about whining players needing to learn how to counterplay and understanding these builds by actually playing them.

Depends on use of RtW. RtW guarantees the attack will land after it begins flight.