Chris saying it’s a well made point when on a reactions that says “For example, I would pay $25 (2000 gems) for player housing that is meaningful and flexible and useful. Would enough players pay that much to justify development by Anet?” is basically agreeing that micro-transaction and the living story model reduces the quality you can deliver.
It’s nice to see a developer say something about that, but then maybe it’s an idea to rethink that model.
As a company you do not only want to make money but also deviler a good product I would think.
I disagree with this. If anything, having a consistent cash-flow helps reduce the risk of developing the game. Expansions can sell poorly, so there’s an inherent risk of losing money and business pressure to constrain the overall effort required. By having a cash shop, ArenaNet should be seeing a consistent revenue stream.
They know their funding model, they know how many resources that buys them, and they know (to some extent) that they’ll keep getting that money in the near future.
That isn’t to say that 1) expansions are a bad idea or 2) ArenaNet isn’t secretly working on an expansion without telling us, of course.
You are correct, though: the developers DO want to deliver a quality product. For most of them, not only do they play the game, they work with it 40, 50, 60 hours/week. This game means more to them than I’d venture it does to us.
I believe they made the decision to go without subscriptions or (frequent) paid expansions because they truly believe it’s the best way to deliver their game, both from a quality and from a profit standpoint.
What do you see as a consistent cash-flow. If they get money every min, every day every month or maybe every year. It’s all consistent just with different intervals so expansions can also been seen as consisten cash-flow. Yes a expansions can have bad sales but gem-sales can drop as well.
The thing is that with something like a housing system is does require an big investment in time. When you then release with there current model it might get some people back that might spend some cash. That also means they will need to put many items related to it in the cash-shop or behind a gold-grind trying to earn back the money invested. That however would undermine the quality of the content.
If you would put it in an expansion it would be a huge selling point for that expansion meaning reducing the change of bad sales and there would be no need to monetize it by putting items in a gem-store or behind a gold-grind. So also no need to undermine the quality.
HP summary page 47 to 52 Part 1
Ok next summary update. Took a bit longer then I though, tying to catch up is burning me out a bit but very happy to finally feel like I’m getting there. Thanks Chris and everyone for all the encouragement. For anyone looking for up-to-date topic information and a complete index of all summaries over the Character Progression CDI The Lost Witch has created CDI – Character Progression – Summaries. Again if I’ve missed anything let me know.
You missed page 46. You where planning to do 46 to 52 now.
This is why I can’t leave this sort of thread alone for a second Q_Q
That is actually exactly my point, Chris/Sytherek. I know very well that game developers have limited resources, oftentimes very limited resources, and that those resources can only stretch so far. it’s why, whenever I make a suggestion in a game forum for any game anywhere, I try my best to incorporate it into the game’s existing systems as much as possible, provide as many notions for how to anchor it into work that’s already been done as I can.
By “twitchy”, I don’t mean I get bothered by/don’t believe developers claiming they don’t have the resources. I can see where the wording of my previous post could suggest that, but it’s honestly not what I meant. By “twitchy”, I mean that I know full well that ninety to ninety-seven percent of things that people will want to do in games like this will Never Get Done, and thus we need to be very, very careful about what we actually decide we want to try and lobby ArenaNet for. I twitch when I see people just casually demand things they have no idea how to implement, or which would be prohibitively resource-intensive to do (Minecraft-level modularity within ArenaNet’s existing art style and engine, as some have suggested? NOT. HAPPENING).
I’ll be completely honest with you: I think player housing is a terrible idea. Making it, as you said, ‘meaningful, flexible and useful’ would eat a lot of resources, which would then be resources unable to be allocated to anything else. We would certainly lose out on many/most other forms of horizontal progression given that the housing system would require the same level of effort as entire new zones, as well as brand new coding and engine work in order to add the modularity and customization options people want. We’d also stand a very good chance of never seeing guild housing, a’la guild halls, because a system for doing such (albeit VERY poorly) would already technically be in place and ArenaNet wouldn’t really be able to justify allocating additional resources to guild halls when those resources could be doing something New and Different instead.
Player housing is an extremely resource-hungry project I cannot see being worth the benefits it brings. That’s my concern, and why I was hoping to raise the subject of guild halls as an alternative instead. No, I wouldn’t pay twenty-five bucks for a meaningful, flexible and useful player house (provided it could actually be all three, which I honestly have my doubts over), but ye know? I freely admit to being a F2P whale, and I would probably not lose much sleep over plunking fifty down on picking up whatever gem shop license lets my guild set up their own hall.
Argument to Finance isn’t really a good way to solve this, though. We could keep seeing and raising like this was a poker game, but really…all I want is for people to realize that pushing player housing is going to cost us a LOT of other things, and to think really, really hard about what we’ll lose before they decide to shoot for this as their preferred proposal.
A system for housing en a system for guild halls is so similar, when you have the one you pretty much also have the other.
About minecraft. It’s not so detailed as you think. If you want the level of detail to be able to place items in your house on the place where you want them then you are already close to minecraft. It’s a grid where you can place items and a block (to build your house) would fit into that grid.
Not saying it would not be a lot of work but making a housing system in general will be a lot of work if you want to put in any form of customization. We are not talking about the level of detail you would see in for example EQN.
The other option would be much of a system like we already have now. An instance and once you unlock something it’s gets added to your house. No real options to customize it yourself.
Problem is that many people will not be very interested in that I think.
So a good housing systems in general will cost a lot of time to build but like I said before it would also be a huge selling point for an expansion.
Colin asked us about the journey if I remember correctly. How do we introduce horizontal progression so that it is interesting and doesn’t feel like a grind?
- events currently don’t feel like a journey to me. They are closed szenarios. It’s certainly a good thing to have those side stories. I LOVE some of the more interesting event-chains which tell a story (the boy in the Norn starter-area who summons bears) and aren’t generic defend/attack loops – much more of those please! But it doesn’t feel like a journey to me.
- quests would tell stories – huge world-wide stories – but they don’t fit in Anets design-idea. Classic quests aren’t repeatable, so when you’ve done one, the zone gets emptier for you. If you’ve done all quests, you’re out of content and find nothing more to do in the zones. They are also static and the wold feels not alive in any way. This is bad as well.
It’s quite hard to think of a system which takes the best of both, because things contradict each other.
Then Anet stated that they want to go away from instanced content (came up with the Queens Gauntlet update). I agree with this, since it takes people out of the world.
quite a nut to crack
I think the traditional quest are exactly what you need. The only way they really don’t fit in to the design-idea is that it has to be different but then maybe change that idea.
The fact that quests aren’t repeatable also makes them give you more the feeling of having some small form of impact. A dynamic event that keeps repeating feels sort of useless to do.
When you done all the quest you are indeed out of content but they can add quest and there are the dynamic events that still keep on going.
I think the combination of the two would work great. It are both nice systems but not substitutes for each other while the dynamic events are now supposed to be substitutes for the traditional quests. Thats part of the problem.
Mix the two and you have the pro’s of the dynamic events and the journey and story feeling from the normal quest.
That makes sense, and it’s occurred to me as well, but I’ve certainly seen my share and a half of completely nonsensical garbage out of all manner of game developers, almost always justified by some variation of the excuse “We don’t have the time/resources to do that. Make do with what you have.” It’s made me…twitchy…over the years >_>
I’m a game developer but not from ANet, so perhaps I can try and clarify. Exactly why does “we don ’t have the resources” make you “twitch”?
Is it that you don’t believe the developers? Is it because you, a non-developer, think these things are easy?
Do you think they should hire more staff? Can they, given the economic model of the game?
A company exists both to pay its employees and make a profit. A great idea may simply not be economically or logistically possible, no matter how much it may make you “twitch”.
Here’s another angle — just how much do you expect to pay, in real dollars, for guild and player housing? Will adding such items improve player recruitment and retention, and if so, to what extent?
For example, I would pay $25 (2000 gems) for player housing that is meaningful and flexible and useful. Would enough players pay that much to justify development by ANet?
ANet must allocate resources effectively to stay in business and grow the game.
A well made point Sytherek.
Chris
Let me then make a point.. No if people pay $25for 2000 gems to get player housing that might indeed not be enough.
Then again, many people are asking for expansions and imho the whole model based on micro-transactions does not fit GW2. It’s something for a F2P game.
Base income on expansions. In that case releasing a big expansion will give the money you need for quality content.
Having advanced housing options available in an expansion is that sort of quality content that will be a huge selling point for expansions.
I and many with me have rather less LS, no cash-shop but in stead expansion with higher quality content.
Chris saying it’s a well made point when on a reactions that says “For example, I would pay $25 (2000 gems) for player housing that is meaningful and flexible and useful. Would enough players pay that much to justify development by Anet?” is basically agreeing that micro-transaction and the living story model reduces the quality you can deliver.
It’s nice to see a developer say something about that, but then maybe it’s an idea to rethink that model.
As a company you do not only want to make money but also deviler a good product I would think.
I’m guessing you propose the land around this guild hall also be instanced?
I do see merit in setting it up that way, but at the same time I wonder what becomes of the home instance in your starter city, and how to handle people in multiple guilds. That much real estate could be quite some work.
Principally I like the idea of guild hall-based housing because it allows a (potentially) large number of people to see what you’ve got without sprawling across the open world. The home instance doesn’t have that freedom, though it has a stronger connection with the individual character.
I am more talking about some new maps being used (dedicated) for that. So you would then not have it sprawling across the hole world no. But it’s more then just a separate instance.
Conski said it very well. Guild halls tend to be customized by the guild leader, all well and good but guild members need places to hang their hats as well. I know my guild leader desperately wants an airship for a guild hall. That’ll be fun but my conman noble needs a mansion, my seamstress commoner needs an apartment over a shop, my street rat could use any old hovel or even an alleyway or barn. I have a sylvari who recently moved in with her first love, he has a tiny pod jammed with books and musical instruments. A one-size-fits-all guild hall simply won’t match up with all the individual tastes out there.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have guild halls, or perhaps allow a guild leader to build two properties and design one to fit the guild needs. Hmm. I mentioned all the different living styles of just a few of my alts. Are we going to be able to do character by character, or will KISS mean an account wide home to customize?
Ok so go back to open world housing for a moment. How about a guild can control land surrounding his guild-hall. Guild-members can then build there houses on guild-controlled land.
That adds a lot of stuff. Guild halls or rather castles. New type of PvP, Player-housing and all the stuff that comes with it (collecting blueprints and so on)
Of course there can then also be non-pvp housing maps for people who like to build a house but are not in a guild or don’t like PvP.
I do would like to see this added in expansions, not without because it has to be paid somehow and if the gem-store would get mixed up in it, it might become just a boring grind as we now see with mini’s, dyes, crafting and much other stuff.
It should be fun mechanics to get the stuff you need. Then it would indeed add great new elements to the game.
(edited by Devata.6589)
Bad for the game in your opinion. I like the fact that anything can be purchased with in-game gold, something that would not happen if they only relied on expansions, as they did with GW1.
There are, as you can see, pros and cons to any business model.
If you support the game with expansions you can buy everything with gold with the exemption for the expansion itself.
That is because the game is financed with those expansions and not with a cash-shop.
I know there are and I don’t like the cons that come with the micro-transaction model. Thats why I was so interested in GW2. Thinking it would be a proper B2P model that mainly financed there game with expansion sales.
But yeah imo. If this was a F2P game I was not complaining about this. Even if I would be playing it.
Imho, such rewards for buying gems is always bad behavior ‘love you more’. But I said enough about the cash-shop focus in many threads so I will leave it with that.
Anyway OP. Last times every time they gave these gift of shames (as I have come to name them) they would eventually end up in the gem-store. So you might still be able to get it.
Right because a mini and a quaggan backpack, neither of which affects anything in game, is problematical.
Anet is thanking customers who support their game for supporting their game. It would be different if they gave everyone in game gold, or extra power. A quaggan backpack and a mini should be perfectly acceptable.
Heey Vayne,
I think we have had this discussion before already (when they also gave out gifts before). You might not remind it so just a small summary.
First of all people who buy gems get what they paid for, so giving something extra is really the ‘love your more’ idea. I paid my game, even a collectors edition, got all those nice things I did pay for but not a few months later a gift to thank me.
Thats because they are now focusing on gem-sales and as you might remember from talk we had before I do think the gem-store focus they are having (in stead of a expansion-focus) is bad for the game. So they are loving people more that imho are helping to get the game in a worse shape. Might you not remember again why I thouth that focus was bad read it here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/A-focus-on-micro-transactions/first#post3324571 it has nothing to do with the items giving you a benefit or not.
Of course you can say.. Well they do get money from those people so make sense they do love them more. Yeah thats nice but I am still waiting for my change to give them money… With an expansion. So it’s not like I am not willing to give them money. I did sign up for a B2P game and now they are generating money with micro-transactions. Something you mainly expect from F2P games.
So those actively supporting the game now, who get a nice thank you for doing so, aren’t deserving of it. It’s fluff stuff that’s all. It doesn’t change your game at all.
You’re waiting to support the game, I’m actively supporting it. So I get a thank you for actively supporting it. You don’t get a thank you for actively supporting it, because you’re not actively supporting it.
It’s called a loyalty reward and it’s fine. Other games have loyalty rewards too. Subscription based games have them for buying many months at a time sometimes. They’re not gem store based, but they still offer incentives for buying more time.
I bought more time for Rift and ended up not playing and I did it before incentives to buy game out. I didn’t get a cool mount for buying that time.
This isn’t a problem with buy to play or gem store or subscription. It’s normal for businesses to offer tokens to people who support them, because it’s good business.
No matter your business model.
Like I said again.. It’s not the fact that it’s just fluff. It’s how the focus on it influence the game in a bad way. What you are doing is helping to keep that focus and so you are mainly helping to destroy the game, not to support it. BTW, I am here thats supporting, so while I am waiting to support it with money I am supporting in other ways. Then again, as long as they keep a focus on gem-sales they might never give out an expansion so I might only be able to support this way.
It’s called a loyalty reward and it’s fine. Well thats your opinion. I think it’s rude. “Other games have loyalty rewards too.” That does not make it any better.
“It’s normal for businesses to offer tokens to people who support them” Well I did support them extra buy buying the collectors edition. I did get all the collectors edition stuff.. just like you got the guys you did buy. But I never got an extra bonus thing added to that. Thats because at this moment they are only interested in the gem-sales so thats all they care for and it’s that interest in those gems (cash-shop focus) that is bad for the game.
Imho, such rewards for buying gems is always bad behavior ‘love you more’. But I said enough about the cash-shop focus in many threads so I will leave it with that.
Anyway OP. Last times every time they gave these gift of shames (as I have come to name them) they would eventually end up in the gem-store. So you might still be able to get it.
Right because a mini and a quaggan backpack, neither of which affects anything in game, is problematical.
Anet is thanking customers who support their game for supporting their game. It would be different if they gave everyone in game gold, or extra power. A quaggan backpack and a mini should be perfectly acceptable.
Heey Vayne,
I think we have had this discussion before already (when they also gave out gifts before). You might not remind it so just a small summary.
First of all people who buy gems get what they paid for, so giving something extra is really the ‘love your more’ idea. I paid my game, even a collectors edition, got all those nice things I did pay for but not a few months later a gift to thank me.
Thats because they are now focusing on gem-sales and as you might remember from talk we had before I do think the gem-store focus they are having (in stead of a expansion-focus) is bad for the game. So they are loving people more that imho are helping to get the game in a worse shape. Might you not remember again why I thouth that focus was bad read it here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/A-focus-on-micro-transactions/first#post3324571 it has nothing to do with the items giving you a benefit or not.
Of course you can say.. Well they do get money from those people so make sense they do love them more. Yeah thats nice but I am still waiting for my change to give them money… With an expansion. So it’s not like I am not willing to give them money. I did sign up for a B2P game and now they are generating money with micro-transactions. Something you mainly expect from F2P games.
Imho, such rewards for buying gems is always bad behavior ‘love you more’. But I said enough about the cash-shop focus in many threads so I will leave it with that.
Anyway OP. Last times every time they gave these gift of shames (as I have come to name them) they would eventually end up in the gem-store. So you might still be able to get it.
- Then I don’t really understand your ‘personal story’ or how it would be different from the living story.
It’s “personal” because it’s advanced by your character at your player’s pace. And you could put a decisions . . . hopefully ones with impact . . . rather than it just be simple quests. Though I don’t know how much I’d mind that if they were done well enough to allow some freedom in how to approach/solve it.
And it’s different from the Living Story because it wouldn’t be temporary and disappear when the window closed, it’d just be appended to the end of it until you felt like proceeding.
You missed “Seven Spires of Rata Sum”? You missed out on the Mini Inquest Ravager Golem? Oh, well the housing NPCs still have the material all ready for you if you go say hi to them. [/quote]
I get that part now. Problem might be that eventually it can become almost impossible for people to pick up.. If they ready add some decent stuff every time.
About the personal touch on decisions. You might think my vision of housing is to hard but I do consider those ‘decisions’ to hard.
Imagine that with every addition there are 2 options / decisions you can pick from meaning you are going in a different direction with your ‘personal story’. That means that the second update / branch they need to add 2 more branches for the 2 previous branches they added before (so 4) and then 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 265 well you get the point.
Thats the problem if you want to design something personal. The only way you can really do that if by giving more freedom. So for me in an MMO the real personal story is just me paying the game. The tings I see, the goals I set for myself and so on. Thats the freedom many MMO’s give you. We we taking about mine-craft before. There everybody’s design is his ‘personal story’ (his personal design). So I personally think that if you want to have people feel like they are having there own personal story you should give them more freedom. To make your ‘choices’ have more impact you need more real dynamic behavior. Not do diss the Dynamic events but they are also still scripted events not really dynamic. Want give people the option to make an impact? Make things really more dynamic.. Stuff really reacting to you in a AI way, not in a scripted way.
So in my vision, freedom gives you a personal story and more dynamic system give you more impact on the world. (Or on the dynamic systems at least)
Scripted choices can’t really give you that imho.
That’s way to modular. People like the freedom to make there unique place. You did refer to minecraft. The fact that games like minecraft are so popular proofs that it’s a high level of freedom in building what you want that is so popular. It’s also the reason that GW2 has such detailed options for the looks of a character. Why then choose for such a modular option for housing. Just because it’s hard?
To be blunt? Yes.
I’m trying to at least temper my suggestions by the knowledge there are developers who have to take what I suggest and make something out of it. Minecraft building is “easy” and yet incredibly time consuming. (And I should know, I’m “on call” somewhat within my circle of friends to do small builds or help with layouts….)
Minecraft, and Terraria and Starbound, all take some of the mess out of player building because they align edges and bounding boxes for you. (For those who don’t know, that’s where your models can walk or are stopped from pushing through.) They align textures for you. Torches and other light sources automatically set up the light level for you, and then the rendering engine in the game figures out how to send shadows.
The devs for GW2 very likely, and it is my assumption they do, have to do this by hand. I tried it once for Doom maps. Let us say it was a definite learning experience about the process.
So yes, I will definitely confess to that. I make it modular because it’s easier and less work to expand on than allowing a player to access it. I suppose if it was a kit similar to “custom arenas kit”, then it might work out. Assuming the custom arenas kit has a high degree of flexibility.
Besides, the personal story should never be something you need to do so linking it to that would not be so great imho. Same for the Living Story. I do not find it very good what they did with the nodes. Now many people simply never have the option to get those nodes they missed.
I differentiated between “personal story” and “Personal Story”. What I’m talking about is a different and separate track from the Living Story where it wouldn’t go away every two months but would receive updates every two months, nor would it require progression in the Personal Story.
(A lot of people abandoned it at some point or just don’t care. I’m very aware of this so I don’t want to put out a proposition which will force them to take part in it. Any more than I’d make it only available if you did WvW until your World Rank was 20, or sPvP until you reached Rank 2348. I want this to be open to everyone at the start, and if they have to walk away . . . they can come back and those NPCs are there waiting to keep going.)
You can’t just ignore the world around you just because it would be hard to implement.
May I correct you? Yes, I can, but I probably shouldn’t. But what I want to do is keep from forcing people through as many problems as I can when I design this stuff in my head. I want to make it easy to access, easy to work with for everyone involved, and hopefully fun.
If that means going “this won’t interact well with this, so let’s not do that”, I’m game for it.
Sorry.
- I do understand it’s a lot of work especially because there is nothing in the game like it yet but on the other hand the basics would be making a grid system and then building means you just place an item somewhere inside that grid so I do think it’s in the lines of what is doable. It also depends a little on how there core works at this moment. So how they can create the world.
- Then I don’t really understand your ‘personal story’ or how it would be different from the living story.
Nearly anything they introduce would be percieved by some group as a grind, (oh you’ve added subclasses? now I “have” to grind that for all my characters to remain completely effective.)
It’s an optional objective for people who want to pursue it.As for temporary available unique rewards, personally I like them, it adds flavour, and for a game claiming a living story shows that the story changed, an event happened that you had to be there for.
Newer content does as you suggest also, it leaves behind new content and achievements (atherpath, Teq, New fractal achievements).Edit: @Devata Thanks for your support on my idea of housing but you do realise I was supporting modular build design like Tobias, and that my version of housing is instanced, both points you were against?
I placed the other options in the question so people could choose what they like.
For the grind part it really depends on the way you implement it. I always want to make a difference between grinding (pretty much just doing one single activity that is most rewarding to then use your gained currency to get what your need). Farming on the other hand I see more as more going directly for your goal. I usually take mini’s as an example.
You can do stuff in the world to get money and then buy your mini. That usually means people will do whatever makes them the most money in the shortest way. At that moment they are grinding to get there mini.
On the other hand, that mini might drop from a specific dungeon. Then you can also star farming that dungeon hoping to get the mini to drop.
Same for the sub-class. Lets say to unlock the subclass you need to earn laurels yeah then people feel they need to grind there way to get it. Ad quest they can do to earn there sub-class (so you can directly work for it.) that it will be less of a grind. Of course you can still make it so then you can also unlock the sub-class with laurels or skill-points or whatever. In that case you allow for a grind and for a more direct approach.
Have to disagree about that it adds flavor because what now happens now is that when a new LS has some skin rewards you suddenly see everybody with that reward. Then a month or two later they moved on to the skins of a new living story and suddenly you see everybody with those new items. So the people around you seems to have a lot of the same skins.. Then you will say.. yeah but there will always be a few that will use that skin form a few months ago so thats the flavor it adds. True, but how is that different from if you can still get them. If there are many skins in the game some will be more rare then other. Does not mater if the reason is because it was only available a few months ago or because it’s a item that is hard to get. The only difference is that if you then see somebody with a great looking helm and you want to go for it (play the game) then in the case of a temporary reward you hear thats not possible. However in the case it’s just hard to get then you have a new goal in the game that will keep you busy for a long time.
And about the housing. Oow oke, yeah it was a little hard to follow because of all the quotes. I though you did want a more dynamic way of building and where at least thinking of multiple manned instances for housing in stead of a single person isntance.
Hi Tobias,
I like your commentary on housing. In a game like GW2 I think that the focus is best pointed at ‘Character’ Progression rather than ‘World’ progression and I think your housing ideas fit nicely within this paradigm.
The focus should be on the character and the story and the synergy between the two.
Chris
A dev responded directly! Quick, someone check my hair…
I think the housing idea is something which can be meshed very well as a quality-of-life improvement and in a weird way can also serve as a replacement for Guild Halls on a lower level. (“Guild meeting will be at the leader’s house this week.”) It can’t truly replace how Halls worked, or work in other games, but it does remind me somewhat of “Guild Airships” from DDO. In that they were real nice for a few things.
The housing idea can easily also dovetail out into personal story bits (not “Personal Story” exactly) as players are willing to unlock or otherwise seek out starting threads. A Living Story concept which would take prior-introduced housing and thread in unrelated but ongoing stories through some NPCs which evolve over time?
Lets the player progress through a different story if they don’t like the current one, at their own pace, and progresses something intangible or purely a cosmetic effect. Such as helping a charr gladium set up shop and as you assist him/her more options open up for your housing.
(Save that one for a Living World CDI or if it’s already passed, I’ll leave that here.)
That’s way to modular. People like the freedom to make there unique place. You did refer to minecraft. The fact that games like minecraft are so popular proofs that it’s a high level of freedom in building what you want that is so popular. It’s also the reason that GW2 has such detailed options for the looks of a character. Why then choose for such a modular option for housing. Just because it’s hard?
Besides, the personal story should never be something you need to do so linking it to that would not be so great imho. Same for the Living Story. I do not find it very good what they did with the nodes. Now many people simply never have the option to get those nodes they missed.
You can’t just ignore the world around you just because it would be hard to implement.
1. Communities or Solo instances?, do you want to see groups of players houses in the one instance or a private instance with only your house in it? (people can still visit either way.)
Snip…
2. Construction, what level of involvement would you like? building it block by block? A room by room function where you can pick and choose rooms to add? A series of set designs?
I love games like Minecraft and Terraria’s control over what you can do and the sheer RIDICULOUS amount of effort people can put into doing things terribly unique with construction. I’d rather they stick to those games than Guild Wars 2. I’m sorry, don’t get me wrong, those of you who do things like rebuild Minas Tirith or make soaring citadels of glass and stone which look like they took hours – I salute you. But trying to satisfy you with that level of control is going to drive the developers MAD. MAD I SAY.
What I’d expect is a modular approach. You can choose a floorplan/blueprint from a few predeveloped shells with “X large rooms, Y small rooms, and Z floors”. Then you can pick and choose from a list of “large rooms”, “small rooms” to fill it in. Things like a trophy hall, a crafting workshop, or something just decorative . . . like your asura has a golem foundry, my human has a chapel to Grenth, his charr can have a room where he works on his charrzooka or mortar system. But almost all of the basic rooms come unfurnished.
Then you can use artisans or interior decorator NPCs to create from a menu using some materials (not huge amounts though) to craft furniture or decorations which get placed like siege blueprints – you get a bundle item and a red outline turning green where you can place it. Standing close you can target it for context specific things . . . like sitting on the couch or posing before a trophy on the wall.
3.Functionalities, I think we can all agree at a basic level housing should allow for some storage and display of trophies/achievements/weapons/armor , in addition to this what would you like to see, Farming? nodes? intractable objects? side missions?
~
4. Interior customization, placing objects within the house how would you like it to work?
~
5. Getting items, How do you get items to put in your house?
~
6. Linking to other content, is there anything you would like to link with housing? (i.e in a perfect vision of the future I could walk out of my house onto an airship dock and take my airship into combat)
~
Hi Tobias,
I like your commentary on housing. In a game like GW2 I think that the focus is best pointed at ‘Character’ Progression rather than ‘World’ progression and I think your housing ideas fit nicely within this paradigm.
The focus should be on the character and the story and the synergy between the two.
Chris
I do think the detail level is important so in that way the block by block idea is not that bad. It’s the same as when you create a character there are many little details you can adjust. Eyebrows , nose width and so on. In an MMO setting up something personal is part of the fun and the more details you have the more fun it can be. So I don’t see why the house itself should be a more modular approach. Yeah it’s a lot of work but other games show it’s possible.
Anyway, the stuff you put in the house and the colors and so on you could indeed make more modular so you can collect them in the open world. Once again there bing careful it’s really something you can go for in the open world not that it becomes yet another very grindy element of the game. And grinding meaning you can’t set as goal going for one item itself but you are pretty much forces to grind for gold to then buy it. Then it would add something nice to the game that I see ad character progression because in a way the house is also part of the character, just as the armor he wears, colors he use and mini he has walking next to him.
Then where to put the houses? A few years ago that would be in instances but now it would make more sense to put them in open maps. Claim land and build the house there. I am not sure what you mean with “world progression” but it’s all link to your character / account.
All in all I had to go for Conski Deshan vision of housing. It’s just more interesting.
(edited by Devata.6589)
A lot of the ideas boiled down into variations of one of these two options, and really both have a lot of cool concepts and ideas. Can folks think of anything else that’s a bit more outside the box for something bigger?
I had suggested several times about Global Dominance system. Similar to WvW…we as players and as a server, complete events across the entire map of Tyria and receive passive bonuses based on the % of the map that we control as players. So if we leave entire zones(say the lesser traveled zones) to be completely occupied by centaurs, for example, we won’t be receiving maximum benefits. And you can use most of the existing dynamic events to accomplish this. There are many DEs that take over way points and camps that we as players can complete and push enemy NPCs back…thus acquiring a larger portion of the world.
This encourages players to play in more than one zone, get sthem out in the world, etc.
On top of this, put in a reward system for completing unique(different) dynamic events in a month. I.E. Complete 90 unique dynamic events in January and receive a Cesmode mini(just kidding). But you get the picture.
Is that big enough and outside the box?
Just catching up now. I really do like this idea, always have. I see this as a base system that would be applied to content across the board that would impact many features and mechanics, not just Horizontal Progression. I bet this idea comes up in many more CDIs as it has already done in the past.
Chris
Not to be a gamebreaker but why would people care about not receiving maximum benefit. There is already a system like that in place. Killing mobs that haven’t been killed in a long time are more rewarding. But that does not work.
The only way I think this would work if is the economy is tight to it (you buy stuff at a vendor but he needs materials that are being collected with some event so if that event is never done he does not sell it). In a way thats also already in place but then the problem is that vendors don’t really sell stuff you need.
Another way it might work if you would have factions and are competing with another faction over territory. Problem there is that one faction has more people and so is always dominating. But there might be thinks to balance that out (giving the faction with less people more NPC’s to fight over territory). However we do not have factions.
About the reward. Please not like that. That would mean yet another grind. If you follow the forums a little bid you can see how grind is one of the main complains. And not only a grind even worse, a temporary grind (that other complain you see all over the place). “Oow nice mini you have there, where can I get that?”, “You can’t, that was last months”, “oow:(“, “Well maybe it’s on the TP.. Go grind gold and buy it”, “More grind??? I just want to play for my rewards, not grind”.
Seriously. Rearding for something like that with unique rewards would introduce yet another grind and we should lose some of the grind.
Do the oposit of this with the LS. A living (temporary) story without achievements and rewards that leaves behind content that might have achievements linked to it and new drops and rewards. Then you add new stuff to the game.
Making it temporary rewards would just introduce a new grind.
(edited by Devata.6589)
He seems to be referring to a raid dungeon system. So thats something you do with a guild. That does not split the community more then overflows or dungeons, home instances and so on do.
sure, raids are for much more than 5 players, it does. And yes, dungeons and overflows do split the playerbase. Is it an optimal situation? No.
Well it’s my personal opinion. If I were in a guild and had time to play on schedule like many years ago (which actually drove me away from WoW) I would probably like that idea too. Today I play GW2 because it isn’t a game about raids mostly. A safe haven of all the other “hardcore raiding” games.
Tequatl (the new one) was just the experience I had with raids years ago, but with the fine difference that I won’t hurt anyone when I have to leave in the midst of the battle. And I won’t hurt anyone if I don’t show up regularly either.
Yeah but it has problems of it’s own like you require teamwork / roles but that means just a few people can mess it up for the rest or you take that away but then you miss the teamwork you can get in a raid.
Anyway, I don’t feel this is still about horizontal progress so will leave it with that.
Basically it comes down to this:
GW1 kept players playing by having multiple alt-characters. It was super easy to level up and max equip a new character. This means newbies zones are rarely empty, because veteran players will be bringing their alts though those newbie zones. Most players have a decent understanding of multiple classes, because they played though them all.
WoW kept players playing by power creep. It takes a lot of time and effort to max equip just one character. And so everyone have to focus on one character, that’s it. The newbie zones are emptied out very quickly, because veteran players do not have time to play an alt. Since most players only ever play though 1 class, they often have great misunderstandings on other classes.
I personally prefer GW1’s method. And so it was disappointing to see GW2 going toward the WoW method.
That’s a great, succinct summary of the two extremes, but I think GW2 is a lot more nuanced than that. GW2 has tried to shorten the leveling curve from WOW greatly, and has given people more reasons to go back to early zones through the Sidekick system, living story, dynamic events, and world completion.
The allure of the GW2 world is that it is really a living world where new challenges erupt in old places, and those challenges can bring in players all along the experience curve.
GW2 has flattened the gear curve immensely, and expanded the world on offer to max level players to avoid the trap of MMO’s which are just “get on to raid” or “grind out reputation.”
The more GW2 can do to make itself utilize that world and expand the content in there, the more people are going to be happy with horizontal progression and new experiences, rather than chasing higher stat gear.
Problem is that those events take place in one spot so while it might get people back to an older area it’s only in one spot or maybe a few spots but not the whole world.
If you really keep adding the content (Like I said before, so the LS is just a story but you leave behind the content that has new achievements and rewards) you are not only adding more stuff to do all the time also you give people more reason go go back to those area’s.. also later because not everybody will have been doing it right after (or like now during) the LS. At this moment it means they missed it but in my example people who missed it are likely to go there at another time.
But what would be your issue if such instanced Content is created for People that want it if for example the shatterer and all world bosses are instanced as well as open world it woulnd’t harm you and it would be able for People to get hardmode on those bosses same with dungeons. The Point is if you have to kill shatterer or tentaql instanced with loads of debuffs gambits whatever you Need certain tactics to succed. In open world as you said People like you don’t wanna Play a certain class and mess up the Strategie of others soo instanced is always nice to push boarders let People figure things out without waiting 2 hours for a Boss to spam just that People mess up with going on Canon and Shooting somwhere in the sky…
It would split the playerbase, just like some suggestions before this one. Who would do these big events with us “Randoms” when we already struggle to get enough people for some events?
He seems to be referring to a raid dungeon system. So thats something you do with a guild. That does not split the community more then overflows or dungeons, home instances and so on do.
You guys are totally kittening annoying they make a game with loads of free contents, some permanent most temporary they work hard as well to make this game, seriously if you guys dislike the game so much and what they are doing with it why the kitten are you still playing?.
I just don’t get it.
Free content? I paid for this game. And was willing to pay for an expansion so they did not have to go generate income with micro-translations because that always destroys a games. Sadly enough they did go for the micro-transactions. Makes you wonder why I paid in the first place. More then enough F2P games on the market and I don’t play them because of the way it effects the way the game is designed.
Anyway, don’t talk about free content. I paid for this game and was very willing to pay for upcoming expansions. Looking back it’s rude they asked money for a game that is just going the F2P way with there micro-transactions.
except none of the micro-transactions affect another player’s ability to beat you into the ground, meaning they have no combat advantage for buying and spending gems. look up Forsaken World, and see what their cash shop has done to the game. be happy Anet did their homework with micro-transactions.
You say it are not P2W items. True most of them aren’t (I think 2 or 3 where like the SAB coin) but that was also not what I was saying. There are other elements that get effect in negative ways because of it.
So no if it comes to P2W GW2 is still doing it pretty good as in it not being in the game a lot.
Another example can be the instanced based maps. Once again, it takes way a lot from the game. No walking into a new zone, something that tents to really stick to your memory. No a loading screen and then being thrown in a new instance. Suddenly you party members get black in the party screen and it simply does make the world not feel like a really big open world. Because it isn’t.
Now some people say.. well I love the fact that you don’t need to get into a que before getting into a game but that they have overflows and you need instanced maps for that.This is also not an example of “quick and dirty”. This is a technical design trade-off. I modded a game called Dungeon Siege and one of the really cool things Gas Powered Games did is come up with a way of defining their maps so that there were no loading screens. It was super cool – until you wanted to teleport somewhere. It was unbelievably complicated to get that working correctly. It was also really hard to transition the lighting of different areas in a smooth way.
Just because you would have preferred a different design decision be made, doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the design decision that was made. It’s really hard as an end user to really understand all of the trade-offs that caused a particular decision to be made because sometimes you have to have a deep understanding of how all the other systems impacted by that decision work. It’s not always obvious by looking at the surface of things.
It’s for sure a design trade-off or better a design choice but if you go for the ‘easy’ solution then it gets close to quick and dirty imo. But you are correct. The open world vs instanced zones is the weakest example because you could indeed also see it as just an design choice.
What Gas Powered Games did was then also to much based on one idea. Many mmos with an open world do have some form of teleportation so they always allow both systems to work. I think we both agree thats harder then only make one of the two work. So when you only build 1 thats the ‘easy’ solution.
But you are right, it is the weakest example because indeed you could see it as just a design choice.
Something that almost always come with the quick-and-dirty method is that fixing bugs or changing thinks will be much harder. That might partly explains why many bugs take so long to solve and when solving you suddenly see some new strange bugs come in.
An example of this mechanism can be shown using SAB. When SAB was released one of the developers (don’t have a link) told something about the development. One of the thinks was that they had to use a lot of ‘tricks’ to make it work. For example when falling you get into combat (bad design imo) and so slow down. If designed very good you should easily be able to turn this of. However apparently it’s really embedded deep in the code because when they made SAB they could not turn it off in stead they had to implement a speed-boost to you when you got into combat from falling. (People noticed that.)
I think you’re confusing “quick and dirty” with evolving requirements. SAB was a new thing that probably wasn’t in the original design requirements. So, yeah there’s some kludgy stuff that you have to do to bend an existing architecture to handle something new that you didn’t anticipate, but that doesn’t mean the design was bad.
There is a point in every software’s design when you have to make the decision to either making it really flexible and extensible, or just get it done. I’m terrible at software design because I can’t stop abstracting my object hierarchy until I have a class named “Universe” at the root, and then start thinking about whether that’s really a singleton or not…
In my development world, quick and dirty means churning. You tried to get something fixed really quickly, but it didn’t work and 16 iterations later you would have been better off taking longer and just doing it right in the first place. I don’t see that happening in GW2. Almost all of the changes have been really thoughtful in my opinion, with plenty of consideration given to how changes impact other parts of a really complex piece of software.
Just look at the revamp of the magic find system. They took MF off off of gear, figured out how to fairly adjust the existing gear, and added in a system for boosting your account wide magic find that turned previously worthless items into something of value. I was impressed that such a major change was possible in the time frame they did it in – to me that speaks to a really well thought out architecture.
You can make a system that is very flexible and extensible. I use the SAB example because it did show something about there core that you normally can’t see. In this case how hard it was (well not really possible at all) to just turn of the fact that you start walking slower when taking fall damage / when in combat. That shows the system is not very flexible. Yes SAB was a new thing that probably wasn’t in the original design requirements. But so is every bug and that means so are many bug-fixes or other changes. The more flexible the easier to change thinks you did not original design.
Yeah I have the same and what I am saying here is that they did not took it far enough.
Where did you see difficulties with the MF change? They removed a stat (variable change) then added a function to it (that part I see as a bugger change but in the end it’s till just adding an function to a class) and made it account-bound (variable change). Then they added a stat to the account (variable). Personally I don’t see where a non-flexible system would be a problem there but I might be missing something.
Anyway, I think we do understand each other just the difference is that imo they did not go far enough with there flexible and in your opinion they did. If we take the example of the core.
Problem with better AI is the logical choice for an AI boss who is outnumbered 50 to 1 is to run away. And as funny it would be the first time to see a boss being chased by 50 players across the map to his lair, if he succeeds getting there and unspawning you end up with 50 ticked off players wanting loot.
Now if it’s a group of intelligent critters, I don’t expect this from say Dolyaks, to use squad cover/retreat tactics or attempt to encircle or flank a player or small group of players. That would be impressive. Except you do realize you need to multiply the CPU cost of executing that AI across all current encounters and that may result in the need to amp up the server’s CPU power requirements. That’s why scripted attacks, simple state machines and large hit point pools are generally used in their place. Those require trivial amounts of CPU power and still provide a “challenging” encounter.
I can’t say I’ve ever found an invisible wall in this game. Steep inclines, death inducing drops and Asura force fields yes, but a straight up invisible wall (well at sea yes and you can’t throw yourself off the pale tree). And some cases of invisible walls in games are simply used to keep players from repeatedly dying due to their own ineptitude of using the controls.
As for a zone free world. That’s not all that easy to accomplish. Most MMO development tools assume that each “area” can be walled off so an instance of that area can run inside it’s own dedicated server. This isn’t a nice single player RPG where you can have that kind of open world because there isn’t anyone still in the area you are leaving from. Also the large load times in this game is a result of their choice in making the world as beautiful and complex as it is. Thus needing a dump of the previous zone 3D data and a fetch of the zone 3D data you are entering. There was no need to standardize on trees, shrubs, rocks, ect. between adjacent areas of the world. Each lead artist for that zone could start from scratch and craft a truly unique landscape. Sure NPC critters are pretty fixed with a pallet shift between certain areas but the landscape in the Shiverpeak Mountains is very different than what you find on the plains of Ascalon. So big data dump followed by a long disk intensive load of new zone data.
Not sure how you did not notice all the invisible walls. I see them a lot but I am a person who like to jump on everything. If you always stay to the path you might not see them so much. Maybe thats the difference. But trust me there are a lot of them
About the other things. Yes they are hard. I never said it would be easy. Quick and Dirty means you go for the easy solution in stead of the harder but better solution.
Besides you act like if only single player games have an open world. Most MMO’s these days (and for the last + 10 years) have open worlds. You then simply load in an area surrounding your location and when moving you dub something that gets further away and load in something that gets closer. Difference now is that you load in the whole map at one time while with the other mechanic (I think it’s named streaming) you are loading in constantly in the background. Meaning you only have to load if you would portal to a completely new area but for as long as you just moving along you would never see an loading screen also if you move from one area to the next.
I will also add that Living Story reward should be account wide. Right now everyone only takes one character though the Living Story because of the time limit nature on these events. So of course everyone will be using their primary favourite character.
If the reward for Living Story is account wide, it won’t matter which character they take to do the LS.
Most of the rewards are not bound at all or account bound. Not soul bound. Or do you mean after use?
I will also add that Living Story reward should be account wide. Right now everyone only takes one character though the Living Story because of the time limit nature on these events. So of course everyone will be using their primary favourite character.
If the reward for Living Story is account wide, it won’t matter which character they take to do the LS.
I’ll drop this here.
Add Living Story achievement-related rewards to the “Achievement Rewards” locker so they can be retrieved just like the Zenith skins.
Would be nice but only work for account-bound items really. Then again you may wonder if you want to give out rewards and achievements in the LS.
We are talking here about horizontal progression and rewards (as collectibles) and achievements are part of it. When you keep the Living Story just that.. a story, no rewards, no achievements and then the story leaves behind permanent content that has achievements and rewards linked to it then you you keep adding up elements to the game people can complete.. a form of horizontal progression.
By putting it in the living story it gets taken out meaning players who missed that also miss that part of the horizontal progression.
Hey Chris, welcome back!
Although it’s not relevant to the progression system being discussed, have you seen the “Let the night be nighttime” thread yet? I added a thought in there as to how we could use making the dark darker to enhance the overall game play. It may be worth your read.
Thanks!
I saw it last night while I was reading the forums in bed but that was the one topic I didn’t read, sorry.
I will read it tonight but based on what you just said I am very intrigued and can imagine what the content will be (-:
Chris
Actually, look at this one instead People are starting to add some brilliantly creative ideas to it.
Thanks for your addition but lets stay on topic. Maybe that would be nice for another CDI.
One the idea of invisible walls, I don’t think of them so much as an easy answer to the problem of getting to places you’re not supposed to be. Honestly, I think they’re a necessity, and most if not all games use them… some more than others.
I also think the zone instancing is fine as it is. It eases the load on servers, and there’s a nice break to let you know that you have exited one level of area and entered another.
Yeah and if you would use the invisible walls to only close off the outer edges of the maps thats fine. It’s the fact that they are being used so extremely much. Like you say, some games use it more and some less (some pretty much, not at all). GW2 uses it a lot.
Not sure how a zone eases the load on servers a lot. It really depends on the implementation and you are the first person I see that calls it “a nice break”. I really miss it, it takes away a huge part of the immersion. Like I did try to explain in my first post. Most memories (like locations / exploration) I have from other MMO’s is when you walk from one area to another. Now that part is a loading screen remembering you again you are not in some fantasy world but in a game. But it’s good to know some people see it as a nice break.
Think about invisible walls. Personally I hate them. It’s like developers cheating. Same for non-existing objects (so object without collision-detection). They are in many ways game breaking and simply annoying when you try to jump somewhere but it’s not possible because there is an invisible wall in the way or the item you jump on is not really there making you fall to your death.
They also take you right out of the immersion of the game. However when you as game-designer want to close of an area they is the harder way, make sure nobody can get there by making the ground higher of putting a fence in the way and so on, and there is a easy way. Just throw in an invisible wall and be done with it.
I think invisible walls are a good thing. Otherwise big steep hills would be everywhere and that would look awful. And if you just dont implement something to go behind maps everyone would think “man, thats ugly”. So i dont think you can really call this quick and dirty. Rather its just the best solution.
If invisible walls would only be there on the edges of the map I could agree partly but thats not the case. They are on many many more places.
Why would I then only partly agree. Because like I said in the post, not making an real open world but instanced maps is also part of quick and dirty. When you would work with an real open world then not every map would have an edge and so need an invisible wall. Of course, even one big open world has outer edges (4) and yes in that case, and only in that case I would say they are okey to place at those outer edges.
But it’s really the fact that they are being used so much that I refer to it as ‘quick and dirty’. “Oow somebody should not get there. Then we put an invisible wall before it.” Easy solution but nut a real neat solution.
With buying gems you are not supporting the game you are helping to destroy it. And I will not explain why again.
Explain in the current model how you financially support the game without buying gems please.
You can’t beyond box sales — which is a problem. We will continue to get more gem store fluff unless the current model is changed. I have not, and will not, push RL cash into the gem store — ever. I will give RL money for expansions (but at this point I would have to see what the expansion offers as my faith in the franchise is shaken).
Gem store fluff is good. It’s better than good… it’s wonderful for the game. My engineer is decked out with gem store fluff because I like the look. In exchange for purchasing a look I happened to like I supported ANet a bit for their efforts and everyone wins. I also have other characters with looks I like that don’t have any purchased skins. Options are good. More options are better. The option to purchase options allows players to optionally help support the game with optional fluff. I like that option.
Post of the day +9000
:D
lol. Yeah +9000 for not seeing how the one thing effects the other.
It was more for his multiple use of option, but your attitude has brought me to his side regardless. Yay!
Congrats! Very happy for you.
It’s their product so they can do whatever they want. If you don’t want to buy it just don’t buy it, or move on to another game.
I did pay for it so I can give criticism about it if I like. Came with the package. You should be happy that some people do leave criticism because if they didn’t and everybody would just leave the game did not even get a fair change to fix there mistakes.
On the gem store…
I enjoy the game, I like that I’m not required to shell out $15 a month to continue playing, and I enjoy that we don’t have our content and progression segregated into “pay for expansion to win” style deliverable. (In the expansion model traditionally there is an increase in item power and or character level tied with the new content to force everyone to pick them up to remain competitive)
Another side effect of most expansion driven MMO’s is that you usually get completely new isolated content in the expansion and everything else rots. There is a mind set caused by the business model that because it’s not new, it’s not what people are paying for. Anything added to the old areas beyond small quality of life issues, is not driving forward your profit-model. An example of this: how many years was it before WoW revisited the vanilla areas. They only did so when they became pain points for new players and they needed to touch the areas anyway to implement new tech for an expansion.
Love or hate the living world story, but we’re getting a trickle in expansion effectively. New skills (arguably of dubious use in some cases), some temporary and permanent content, and because of the model they don’t need to worry about segregating the content, or effectively making it “pay to win by expansion.”
It is a rather interesting idea to me that even the person who bought the game on sale and never dropped another penny into the game can be competitive with someone who has sunk a hundreds of dollars into the game.
There isn’t any other MMO, I think, that has pulled it off to this level of effectiveness without a subscription while pushing regular content.
~
It should be “On the gem store focus..” thats where you make the mistake.
And yes many MMO’s have vertical progression (whatever model they use) so once they release an expansion (new content / new level) there is vertical progression locked behind it. Then again, if you decide to not have vertical progression in your game thats not the case. The vertical progression is not a requirement for an expansion in any way. It; not like the one belongs to the other. The one big game that was expansion driven for example was GW1 and there was no vertical progression after the original game.
“Another side effect of most expansion driven MMO’s is that you usually get completely new isolated content in the expansion and everything else rots.” If you would not do it in the correct way. But if you do it good skins, quest, new game mechanics, new hairstyles and other items can be added to the world thats already available (but some of it only for those who did buy the expansion). And in some expansions you can also come back to an old area. I am just going to refer to WoW here because you so as well. In it’s expansions they did not forget the old area’s. When they introduces flying mounts they did a lot of work on the ‘old’ maps. They also upgraded graphics for example the upcoming expansion has new (higher quality) models for existing races and they also did a patch where they gave old maps a big overhaul. So no, when done correctly you don’t forget about the ‘old’ area’s.
Let me also answer your question. Little thinks had been adding even with the first 2 expansions (items, graphics and so on). The 3th expansion was a huge overhaul for the beginning area including adding the ability to fly there with mounts. And the 5th expansion will update the model from multiple races that where in since the beginning. Can’t say they ‘forgot about it’.
If P2W with expansions means you have no access to content when you do not have the expansion then LS is P2W for those being able to play every temporary living story. Of course both is not P2W but I am just following your logic here.
“It is a rather interesting idea to me that even the person who bought the game on sale and never dropped another penny into the game can be competitive with someone who has sunk a hundreds of dollars into the game. “
This has really to do with P2W but thats only interesting in the PvP area. I am mainly talking about how it effects the PvE area. Somebody who came in much later might can get just as strong but did miss a lot of content. Then again, now it becomes to much a LS discussion so I will leave it with that. I just want to stretch again thats it are not so much the items itself that are the problem but how the focus on selling gems effects game mechanics in a negative way.
With buying gems you are not supporting the game you are helping to destroy it. And I will not explain why again.
Explain in the current model how you financially support the game without buying gems please.
You can’t beyond box sales — which is a problem. We will continue to get more gem store fluff unless the current model is changed. I have not, and will not, push RL cash into the gem store — ever. I will give RL money for expansions (but at this point I would have to see what the expansion offers as my faith in the franchise is shaken).
Gem store fluff is good. It’s better than good… it’s wonderful for the game. My engineer is decked out with gem store fluff because I like the look. In exchange for purchasing a look I happened to like I supported ANet a bit for their efforts and everyone wins. I also have other characters with looks I like that don’t have any purchased skins. Options are good. More options are better. The option to purchase options allows players to optionally help support the game with optional fluff. I like that option.
Post of the day +9000
:D
lol. Yeah +9000 for not seeing how the one thing effects the other.
With buying gems you are not supporting the game you are helping to destroy it. And I will not explain why again.
Explain in the current model how you financially support the game without buying gems please.
You can’t beyond box sales — which is a problem. We will continue to get more gem store fluff unless the current model is changed. I have not, and will not, push RL cash into the gem store — ever. I will give RL money for expansions (but at this point I would have to see what the expansion offers as my faith in the franchise is shaken).
Gem store fluff is good. It’s better than good… it’s wonderful for the game. My engineer is decked out with gem store fluff because I like the look. In exchange for purchasing a look I happened to like I supported ANet a bit for their efforts and everyone wins. I also have other characters with looks I like that don’t have any purchased skins. Options are good. More options are better. The option to purchase options allows players to optionally help support the game with optional fluff. I like that option.
Supporting the game. No you are helping do destroy it. If they know you will buy fluff in the gem-store when it’s available there they will put less fluff in the world to get trying to get you to buy it in the gem-store so effectively removing a game-element of the game (why is it so hard to understand this? I really don’t get it. That the gold trick they use is a little harder I understand but this sort of mechanics). If you want to support a game you could buy an expansion.
With buying gems you are not supporting the game you are helping to destroy it. And I will not explain why again.
Explain in the current model how you financially support the game without buying gems please.
The current model is focused on gem-sales. Thats what I am pretty much complaining about (or the effect that has).
So how to then finance it.. Change the model to sell expansion. How I then support it?
Buying expansions.
So pretty much this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/VIP-Membership/page/9#post3476488
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ [Had some problems getting it to fit.]
And I am not talking about exploits so people get extremely big amounts of such an item.. No just the ability to farm it much like you can in many mmo’s.
They did it in Guild Wars 1, almost constantly.
I’ll start by pointing out there was a farm well known in the Crystal Desert which was lucrative and got beat with the nerf stick pretty fast. Before Factions, in fact.
You say “maybe we should address how gold works”, thats what I do when I talk about how the gems effect the game mechanics. It are not 2 separate things.
It’s part of what’s going on in the CDI, how do we use “skill” as a sort of currency to allow people to earn their stuff rather than time/grind or gold/cash.
- Not sustainable? GW1 was the only big name that hold for multiple years next to GW2. When they released Eye of the North they where already working on GW2 (thanks to the success of GW1) and implemented a cash-shop, likely to generate money when not focusing on gems anymore as GW1 was then an old product. If it was not sustainable you would not have been playing GW2 now.
Underlaying issues (like GW1 not being an open world / MMO maybe? and the skill thing you say). They did not say they could not support the game. If they could not they would not have gotten the money for GW2.
They say it did not influence the game that much partly because most of it time it did have no or only a very limited cash-shop and not a focus in the world on it. They introduced the cash-shop much later and probably around the time they decided to go work on GW2. Until then GW1 proven itself with it’s expansion based model
Yes I would consider that a good step and I did post it in the CDI. However the mini’s is an example. It’s the same for getting dyes or getting much the the ingredients you need for crafting or going for a legendary. Many stuff require you to grind gold (or buy it with gems) and then buy the items in stead of going for it in the world. And while I did put it in the CDI I think it will not be solved as long as they keep generating income with gems. Sure they can throw some items into the world (they already did that with a few mini) but most of them will still be a gold-grind.
The way you describe gold it pretty much works in every MMO. But my example with the mini’s (what you agreed up on) shows how pretty much the only way to get them is with gold. Thats what I mean with “gold is everything”. If you would get your mini’s in the game, and could farm high tier materials for crafting in the game and so on you would still also be able to buy them with gold. That stays the same. However the way it’s now implemented gold really the only good way (best) to get it. Most of the higher tier crafting material I can not farm somewhere (extreme low drop change or general drop-change so I can not focus one type of mob).. I am better of grinding gold and then buying it from people who most likely did get it as an accidental drop. Thats what I mean with “gold is everything”. Not that you can buy so much with it (thats in many mmo’s the case) but that it’s really the own reasonable / best way to get it while ‘farming’ the items directly in the world isn’t. Hope you now understand what I mean with that.
With my explanation about ‘gold is everything’ I hope you also understand this the way I feel it. Meaning that the game is deliberately implemented in a way thats it’s very hard or impossible to farm for items directly. Thats a choice you make as game-designer and it does mean that then getting items is always done best by farming gold and so making gold more important.
Only played GW1 a very short while long after they stopped developing it so can’t say much about that. However I want to imply that there is a difference between now allowing people to easily get an items and making farming items pretty much impossible and by that making gold always the optimal way. In your example you are also talking about ‘a lucrative farm’ but that raises the question. Was is then maybe more then being able to farm it. Anyway, would love to compare those patches but simply don’t know enough about those to try and do that.
The gem store in GW2 isn’t a problem. The lack of new armor sets outside the gem store is the problem.
That’s the same as saying “the gem store is a problem”. Why do you think there’s a lack of new armor oustide the gem store? Why would ANet create a situation where the new armor sets are in the gem store?
- light bulb moment *
This is the link (well one example of it) some people do not understand. It would be good if they did. But some might never understand it.
What’s hard about it? What’s to even understand? Someone can teleport to a friend in an area they haven’t been to yet… and then they’ve been there and can waypoint with ease. OK, they saved a little time running. How is this a huge benefit? A little time saved by someone means what… they start gathering mats in an area ten minutes faster? Maybe they port to an event that’s happening and really shake things up by having fun. I’m seeing a lot of complaining about a whole lot of not much.
Pretty sure your reaction is about buying gems and my general complain was about how the focus on gems is bad for the game. I will not explain it yet another time for you, will be a waste of my time.
I explained it many times in this thread, liked to another thread with an explanation. If you still don’t understand it I can’t help that. Thats then to bad but I will not keep repeating myself.
(edited by Moderator)
The gem store in GW2 isn’t a problem. The lack of new armor sets outside the gem store is the problem.
Don’t you think the two might be related?
Thats what I am talking about here all the time. How an item in the cash-shop might not be a problem but how the focus on cash-items will still effect the game itself.
But for some people this is a very hard concept to understand.
(edited by Devata.6589)
2 For that person it would indeed not matter. Problem is that the fact that people buy gems always effects the game in a negative way.
. . . always negative? Really?
Well the focus on cash-shop seems to be always negative yes. Never seen a game where a focus on the cash-shop has no negative effect.
And by buying gems you are supporting that focus.
By buying gems you are supporting the game. Anet needs to make a profit to keep the game up.
Most of what’s in the cash shop are vanity items and toys, so you can mark those off from being a negative effect. The rest are boosters and convenience items which can be obtained through playing the game without buying gems.
The gem store is fine, unless you want GW2 to be a subscription game.
With buying gems you are not supporting the game you are helping to destroy it. And I will not explain why again. Just read here https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/A-focus-on-micro-transactions/first#post3324571 how the cash-shop focus (what you help to create when buying gems) effects the game in a negative way.
And even in this thread I said many times it’s not about specific items! It’s about the focus!
“The gem store is fine, unless you want GW2 to be a subscription game.” Yeah indeed or inless I want GW2 to be a game that generates it money with expansions in stead of with micro-transactions. Like a proper B2P game should do imho. Guess that. Thats indeed what I want.
You can only instantaneously teleport to waypoints you already have so if a friend is leveling somewhere and you want to go there with your alt to level but don’t have the waypoints yet then it can easily be a 15 min walk. This benefit would take away those 15 min. I think thats pretty huge.
If I waypoint to a friend at a new location as you mention, how does this harm your game play in any way, shape or form? Shoot, would you even know I did it?
I said that it gives a big benefit and so not just being fluff, I never said it did harm me directly in any way. It doesn’t. If they would implement a few new maps that are only allowed for VIP it will also not harm me directly. Does not mean it’s a good idea.
2 For that person it would indeed not matter. Problem is that the fact that people buy gems always effects the game in a negative way.
. . . always negative? Really?
Well the focus on cash-shop seems to be always negative yes. Never seen a game where it has no negative effect.
And by buying gems you are supporting that focus.
It’s worth pointing this out:
- While there were no Gems in Guild Wars 1, there were things to purchase for a dollar amount. Hence, there was a cash shop. There are those who would say the game did not suffer from this.
- The notable difference is allowing Gems to be converted to or from Gold. This is pretty much the linchpin of all arguments about how Gems are bad, so really maybe it should be addressed how Gold functions in this game rather than how Gems are “ruining it”.
- GW1 focused on the selling expansions (most of it’s life.). So yes GW1 was a game that did not have those negatives but it also did not have a focus on the cash-shop, it had a focus on expansions. Thats why I use GW1 as an example of expansion focus.
- Not completely because mini’s are in the gem-store not in the world. So it would even effect the game without the gold (in the way that most mini’s are not in the open world).
And about the gold. Yes the problem is the way gold works but why do you think it works like that? Why do you think gold is everything in GW2? The reason for that might not be because people are then more likely to buy gems to convert to gold? That exactly one of those game mechanics I am talking about if I say if effects game mechanics and it not only about if an item in the store itself it nice or not. You want people to buy gems, you allow gems to be converted to gold.. How would you then try to increase sales.. maybe, just maybe by making sure gold is very useful in your game and many elements of the game can only be collected with gold not buy farming for the items.
Why do you think everything people find a way to farm an specific item it gets patched out. And I am not talking about exploits so people get extremely big amounts of such an item.. No just the ability to farm it much like you can in many mmo’s.
Because they want you to need to buy the items with gold so gold is worth much and so people are more likely to buy gems.
You say “maybe we should address how gold works”, thats what I do when I talk about how the gems effect the game mechanics. It are not 2 separate things.
I don’t mind GW2 having a subscription model.Also I won’t mind those VIP benefits for two reason:
1.They all are mostly fluffs with the only exception being that Ressurection buff.
2.If there is a person who on a regular bases buys gems from the shop then a subscription model will fit him more.Will he pay for gems or a subscription which gives him the same benefits won’t matter.All of these things essentially are already available via the gem store in the form of account services and consumables, and are simple conveniences.
Anet:‘Hey, we notice you buy gems a lot. Would you like to make this a regular thing? If so, you get extra boosters and minor conveniences.’
This is in no way going to be forced on anyone.As long as new content is still free, I’m OK with people being able to buy a monthly sub for fluff. Lots of F2P games have a monthly sub that gives you extra bullkitten.
I repeat Rez buff is the only power item, the rest is fluff.1 And the waypoint to a friend.
2 For that person it would indeed not matter. Problem is that the fact that people buy gems always effects the game in a negative way.Nah i don’t see how can a wp to friend affect by anyway the current game.We already have instantaneous teleporting anyway so i don’t see the big issue about port to a friend.
I mean thats more then fluffs. You say the rest is fluff. I don’t say it’s an ‘issue’ but I do say it’s a huge profit to have that. I have had that option in a game once and since then I miss it. That shows how nice that option is.
You can only instantaneously teleport to waypoints you already have so if a friend is leveling somewhere and you want to go there with your alt to level but don’t have the waypoints yet then it can easily be a 15 min walk. This benefit would take away those 15 min. I think thats pretty huge.
In addition I do expect we will get mounts in the future and likely that means a reduction of waypoints at least on new maps. In that case the advantage even becomes bigger in an area where you do have all waypoints.
2 For that person it would indeed not matter. Problem is that the fact that people buy gems always effects the game in a negative way.
. . . always negative? Really?
Well the focus on cash-shop seems to be always negative yes. Never seen a game where a focus on the cash-shop has no negative effect.
And by buying gems you are supporting that focus.
I don’t mind GW2 having a subscription model.Also I won’t mind those VIP benefits for two reason:
1.They all are mostly fluffs with the only exception being that Ressurection buff.
2.If there is a person who on a regular bases buys gems from the shop then a subscription model will fit him more.Will he pay for gems or a subscription which gives him the same benefits won’t matter.All of these things essentially are already available via the gem store in the form of account services and consumables, and are simple conveniences.
Anet:‘Hey, we notice you buy gems a lot. Would you like to make this a regular thing? If so, you get extra boosters and minor conveniences.’
This is in no way going to be forced on anyone.As long as new content is still free, I’m OK with people being able to buy a monthly sub for fluff. Lots of F2P games have a monthly sub that gives you extra bullkitten.
I repeat Rez buff is the only power item, the rest is fluff.
1 And the waypoint to a friend.
2 For that person it would indeed not matter. Problem is that the fact that people buy gems always effects the game in a negative way.
lol @ all the chicken littles in this thread.
I looked at the pictures on reddit and I just thought, “That really doesn’t seem worth it to me”
If this game was buy to play I would expect all content available at launch until the next expansion with the exception of transfers, storage, character slots, boosters, which would be available in the MTX store, then I would buy the next expansion for additional content.
If this game were Free to play, I would expect all base launch content available at launch with everything else to be purchased from the MTX store, including new skins, vanity items, transfers, boosters, character slots, storage etc etc.
If this game were subscription model It would include launch content and all future content available at subscription price, this would mean makeover kits, transmutation crystals, character slots, bag space, bank space, skins the whole darn lot would be available for your subscription price. If an expansion ensued, it would be at the cost of an expansion, not a full game. I would not pay a subscription for anything less personally.
This game seems to be trying to blend the top two models together in an attempt to get more out their business model, and then offer gimmicky VIP’s for additional money. Whoever is running the show is going down a very slippery slope if the OP is legit.
I totally agree on your 3 options.. Well maybe boosters should also not go into a B2P model but I can live with transfers / extra char slots and name changer but that’s really it.
I did go for and had much hope for GW2 thinking it would go the B2P way as you describe it and much like they did mainly in GW1.
Sadly it now indeed looks more like the second (F2P) one with the difference that you do need to buy the game first.
In comparison, I can play Neverwinter for free and still not feel forced into the MTX store as much as I do in GW2. I agree with the Nexon theories tbh
How? Lol. Never winter store has MUCH more pay to win than gw2. I purchased a $40 mount on never winter so I could keep up in PvP. Need that 150% speed bonus
I never played Neverwinter so I have no idea but I can understand how different aspects of the game gets effected. If your way of getting people to buy items is with a P2W mechanism it will effect the PvP element and if you mainly focus on horizontal progression or skins then it is more likely to effect the PvE element, and of course it’s also possible both gets effected.
In GW2 I think the way it effects WvW is mainly that they had to wait longer for updates but in the game mechanics WvW does not get much effected buy the cash-shop focus.
The PvE element on the other hand gets effected a lot.
Now in Neverwinter it might be just the other way around idk? But that might be the reason why one person feels the game gets effected by it and the other doesn’t.
I usually play all elements of the game (well for PvP only open PvP) so will always be effected in some way.
….I still don’t see the problem with a bought VIP status ……
Then you are part of the “new player base” that have driven this game into a failing state that it is in and will continue to be. By failing I mean, not living up to what was sold/hyped (by Anet themselves).
With a bought status comes a bought power.
“But anet said they would never sell items that grant more power to the player than what can be earned!!”
They also said that the game wouldn’t be grindy and focus on looks rather than repetitive actions. The path you walk knows no bounds and will continue to drain pockets rather than aim to provide the best gaming experience possible.
I’ve actually been playing since Gw1 in 2005. And I’ve played other MMO’s with a ‘VIP’ status….
People suddenly getting a VIP status does not affect me in any way, plus, I’m not paying Anet extra money for whatever VIP gets them (which I assume is limited to GEM store discounts and such like that, not any actual combat advantages). It literally doesn’t affect me in any way since all new released content is free when through the Living story, and I will probably have to pay for an expansion, but so? So will the VIP’s! Also, that extra source of money will help Anet to develop bigger and better content in the future.
So I will say it again….
ME!!!!“….I still don’t see the problem with a bought VIP status ……”
Biggest difference is that while you are a person who obviously does not care about how cash-shop effects a game, many people who did buy GW2 do. Thats why they did buy GW2 and did not just play any F2P game (like you say you did). You also say you support them but with buy gems imo you help to destroy the game. You see how people can have a different look at something. It all depends on what your expectations are from a game. GW2 did draw in certain people with there B2P model and those people do not like this. Do exactly the same in a F2P game and it would not be a problem. It’s something you can expect in such a game.. thats why I do not play them much.
That is the difference.
NEXON s…t.
Well at least someone knows who actually calls the shots on everything these days.
Honestly I’ll keep posting this image until that ridiculous rumors like that are dead and buried.
What rumors? That Nexon acquired a 15% interest in NCSoft?http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Meleagar/112012/24237_NCSoft-Sold-Arenanet-and-GW2-Out-For-Nexon-Investment
According to that pretty reliable site thats a fact, not a rumor.Taken from the article linked:
’The point is that shortly after Nexon and Crystin Cox arrived on the scene at Arenanet, that company threw 7 years of game philosophy (whether you agreed with it or not), trust, and credibility down the drain in order to, apparently, introduce a gear-treadmill monetization scheme that would require people to either endure a massive grindfest to keep up with top gear stats, or pay to keep up by buying gems in the cash shop, converting them to gold, and then buying Ascended gear and infusions off the trading post.Essentially, the game has become a pay-to-win scheme."
I stopped reading that stupid article after that paragraph. You can’t buy ascended gear and infusions from the trading post. At the time that this article was written (Nov of 2012), you could either not get ascended items at all (I can’t remember when they came out exactly), or, if you could get them, they were from FotM or laurels (again, I can’t remember when they put out the laurel system). Both of these methods require you to actually play the game, not just purchase gems and convert to gold. This is a bullkitten article that was just trying to get views from a sensationalized headline.
Well only the “Essentially, the game has become a pay-to-win scheme” sentence is indeed not so true. Then again. The rest is.
So dismissing the whole article on that one sentence is a little strange.
Like you say yourself, the article was written before much was released meaning they still had to see how everything had to work out. Turn out the pay to win element was indeed not the case as they expected. That does not change the fact that the rest was.
(edited by Devata.6589)
~
~
You didn’t explain anything at all. How does an optional sub mean more money needed from the gem shop but optional expansions doesn’t mean more money needed from gem shop?
And your last statement saying my theoretical isn’t the case here. Prove it. How is that not a possibility. Point to evidence. You can’t, because we have no evidence what is going on. Lets not spread FUD when we have no idea what the specifics are.
Well then I guess I did not understand your question and to be honest I am still not sure if I get it.
What do you mean with an optional expansion?When you focus on expansions you don’t need to focus on a cash-shop.
Pretty much you don’t need a cash-shop because you focus on expansion.With an optional sub the focus is usually still on the cash-shop and the optional sub mainly gives you some thinks automatically that are in the cash-shop plus some other little thinks.
So then the question becomes. Why a focus on expansion in stead of a focus on a cash-shop and I did explain that in the link.
About the theoretical option.. No thats not the case.. GW2 does not have the option to buy expansions or a subscription.
Did you play GW1 at all? That is a good example of optional expansions. Several people have replied with explanations of optional expansions and how they split the player base. I think you might need to research a bit more if you are still having problems understanding what an optional expansion is.
And again, explain how focusing on optional expansions means you don’t need to focus on the cash shop. Explain the economics. How will the expansions be able to provide enough funds without the cash shop but a sub will not provide enough funds without the cash shop.
This is all theoretical, of course, because as is now proven, there won’t be a sub for the west. So all the instant doom and gloom is proven false. It still doesn’t make the lack of supporting evidence for the sub vs expansion argument you made acceptable in an argument. My position has always been we did not have enough information and requested more. I still would like that information.
GW1 did have expansions yes but the bit difference was that it where totally different campaigns meaning it where different games.
Obviously when I talk about expansion in an MMO it does not mean an expansion adds a ‘new game’ but that it adds new abilities, new items to drop and usually a new continent. So in that of of ‘splitting up the player-base’ it’s not comparable.
About me not understanding what an optional expansion is. I might not understand your definition of it. Expansions are pretty much always optional. You are not forces to buy an expansion to play on, it’s always something optional that can give you access new items in the game. Anyway, you are referring to the way GW1 did it so thats your definition for a ‘optional expansion’. Well GW2 is an MMO so an expansion would work here not like it did in GW1 where it indeed pretty much meant it was a separate game. In GW2 an expansion would mean it add something to the current game.
“And again, explain how focusing on optional expansions means you don’t need to focus on the cash shop. Explain the economics. How will the expansions be able to provide enough funds without the cash shop but a sub will not provide enough funds without the cash shop.”
I never said a sub will not provide enough funds. I even said focus on expansions would be similar to a focus on subs. I said that an optional sub (Like this VIP thing seems to be) would not bring in enough funds because such a option subs (VIP subs) are always being used in combination with cash-shop and usually they give stuff of the cash-shop automatically. It’s pretty much the same system as the cash-shop only with some automated part. SO I am pretty much saying it’s the same. Have you ever seen an MMO where you can buy a full subscription fee but can also play for free and where there is no real cash-shop or at least it has not a big role? I have never seen it because in those cases not enough people would buy the sub to be able to keep the game running.
“This is all theoretical, of course, because as is now proven, there won’t be a sub for the west. So all the instant doom and gloom is proven false. It still doesn’t make the lack of supporting evidence for the sub vs expansion argument you made acceptable in an argument. My position has always been we did not have enough information and requested more. I still would like that information.“
Once again you are suddenly talking about a sub. I was talking about a optional sub as in a VIP model. The ones you always see in combination with a cash-shop focus. Not a sub like in WoW.