Guild Wars 2

Professor Marvel.7584:

That right there is what I’ve been saying all along as well. ANet will make the game that the people want, and if the people want to play Farmville Wars 2 then that’s the game they will get.

If you don’t want that kind of stuff, stop doing that kind of stuff.

The problem isn’t the developers, it’s the players.

-PM

I think the biggest problem started when they made GW2 for a different type of player than GW1 was. You kinda get that when two games share the same name.

Also the marketing of MMO makes any MMO sound like it appeals to everyone. It’s sadly common practice. It generates big box sales at the start and a mass exodus within a couple of months. GW2 is no exception there either. Marketing is simply the ability to make people believe something without actually saying it. That way everybody thinks the game appeals to them and feels lied to when they don’t actually like it.

Anet didn’t invent that type of marketing, but they also didn’t shy away from it. Who does really?

Tom Gore.4035:

Gehenna.3625:

Why on earth did you make another thread about this? Yesterday there were already at least 4 I identified that talked about this numbers game from Anet.

You didn’t even look at the one he had done, did you?

No idea what you are trying to see, but these number pages have had multiple threads created already by different people and I just wonder why people feel the need to create more threads on the same subject.

Vayne.8563:

Gehenna.3625:

Oh crap, just when I thought I found all 3 threads about this, there is a fourth one….lol

Numbers without context are what people want them to mean.

I’ll give a couple of example.

It’s about the first year. “Fastest selling MMO” is fastest MMO selling in the west in the first NINE months since release as calculated by a company that was asked by Anet to do these numbers. Take that for what it’s worth.

460K concurrent users (at one time)…Yep when the game came out. Great spin to advertise with that a year later when I think we all know it’s nowhere near there anymore.

So GW2 has got some big numbers, but what they actually mean? Well, it means one thing: Anet is advertising their game, that’s what it means.

So how many MMORPGs can you name that reached 3.5 million sales ever?

Not many. It is an an amazing amount. But that’s not what I was referring to. If you reread you will see that I was talking about fastest selling, not about the 3.5 million total. Those are two different items. I hate inconsistencies. So they calculated sales of 9 months but now they do a year update. They did really well in sales. I don’t argue that, but I just don’t like the inconsistency of 9 months vs 1 year. It’s just how my brain works. So call that a preference or OCD issue of mine.

But if you want to talk about the 3.5 million number I have some context for that also.
I know SWTOR sold millions for example, but then with f2p added they don’t sell too many boxes anymore…how does that compare then? Since f2p they had over 2 million new accounts made after already selling 2-3 million copies before that… How to compare that? In fact a lot of other MMOs nowadays have f2p added, so again no clear comparison can be made. And this is what I mean. Now Anet are proud to sell 3.5 million copies. I would be too. But it’s a bit of a skewed thing in a time where most MMOs have a lot of f2p accounts next to subs and aren’t necessarily getting income from box sales anymore. For Anet it’s a big part of their income still a year in. You can see that because compared to other games after a year, their box price is still kept high. A fairer number to quote is actual sales in a given currency. Another one is concurrency.

Now you didn’t respond to the concurrency point but I think I can say, we both know that that number came from last year. I personally find it misleading that they quote it now as a year achievement. Sure, they achieved that in the first year so they didn’t lie as such, but it’s not a neutral presentation. It does imply the game is doing that amazing today. If they had 460k concurrent players today I would applaud them, but that’s not the case. Personally, it was a great start, but I am more interested in concurrency today. If you advertise a game with year old figures, that smacks a bit of well, it doesn’t feel honest to me.

Also the amount of TP transactions can use context. I’ll keep it simple. You can’t trade between players so you have no alternative.

That they sold 3.5 million copies is amazing. They were also lucky I think, because the game came out just before all those other MMOs introduced f2p to their games. But it’s ok to be lucky. No matter how anyone turns it, selling that many copies is a great feat. In fact that’s probable the only number that I will support. It’s a very clear number that can’t really be misinterpreted.

Why on earth did you make another thread about this? Yesterday there were already at least 4 I identified that talked about this numbers game from Anet.

Antiriad.7160:

I checked the laurel merchant and while he’s got amulets, rings and accessories, he is missing backpieces.

To be specific: I need a berserker’s backpiece.

I don’t remember exactly where I got mine but definitely not from the guild merchant (I am not in a guild).

If I remember right though it was either the armour or weapon vendor next to the laurel and karma vendors in the WvW capital of my server.

Not sure if they sell all stat combo’s though.

Although stats are dead easy to get (too easy in my view), the game as a consequence does revolve around gold.

There really isn’t another goal out there really, just gold gold gold. For me it cheapens the experience, not because gold is important, but because there is no challenge, it’s really the only thing to go for next to a legendary, for which you need lots of gold.

It’s a mistake that berzerker gear is best for all classes. It devaluates any class variation there might be. It’s also a mistake that exotic gear is dead easy to get. And it’s a mistake that cosmetics are just a matter of gold and not challenge. I know, it’s my opinion but that’s how I feel.

And beyond that there is very little gear that I actually think looks good in this game, which is odd considering the great graphics. It just shows you that technical skill still doesn’t trump artistry. And what I mean is that the team behind the graphics has done some great technical work but have failed to create a world that pulls me in and the design of the armours makes it so I don’t want to collect them.

I played for not even 3 weeks, got a character to level 80, in full exotic gear and 40g to spare. I don’t need the gold for anything cause I could easily double or triple that amount of gold if I kept playing. But I don’t want a legendary (I think all of them are either ugly or so so, none great) and there are no armour sets I want to collect.

This game does revolve around gold and though I don’t need it to be very difficult to collect gear, being able to buy a complete set of exotic gear from a vendor the moment I hit 80 is a bit underwhelming.

Most of the hardcore players leave within a month or two after release. They are burnt out and bored because they rushed through everything. Some will make it their new home but the majority of them is long gone. Probably have burnt through 2 or 3 MMOs since then.

People who play more casually are less likely to get bored or run out of things and may enjoy buying some fluff at the gemstore. It’s not who plays the most but who pays the most that matters.

Elothar.4382:

Gehenna.3625:

460k concurrent players is quite a bit…but as far as I remember that was just after the release. I don’t think it ever got near that in 2013.

Also they paid a company to calculate for them if they were the fastest selling MMO in the west….a bit dubious by itself but it was a calculation done over the first 9 months.

Numbers can be interesting but I prefer the context of the numbers with it. Obviously Anet want to focus on their main points (they wouldn’t put up any numbers on how many players quit or how many concurrent users there are today) and I can understand that seeing they want to impress China and revitalise some interest here because the game is barely stabilising after the usual downfall after a few months that pretty much every MMO has.

GW2 has made some impressive numbers left and right, that’s for sure but even though 460k players is perhaps more than there are inhabitants in Iceland, it’s also 0.0065% of the world population or not even 1.5% of the US population. So it’s all how you want to focus it really.

For an MMO it’s a lot. Quite impressive, but that number is almost a year old. So they are numbers but without a neutral context it’s just clever advertising, nothing more.

I expect that one of the reasons we do not get number for people who quit is that, without subscriptions, it is kind of hard to know who quit. Some folks take some time off while others may indeed leave. Perhaps a decent proxy might be the number of people logged on at a given time or set of times each day or week over long periods. Again, not a perfect proxy but might help to better get sense of continuing engagement.

Well I don’t think any company gladly shares numbers like that. It’s still about context though. If you make a definition then you can use it as long as people know what the definition is.

I think that a player who hasn’t logged in for over a month isn’t active. That could be a definition.

Concurrency is a more interesting one in that sense as it tells you how many people are online at the same time. Sadly, we only have the 460k that the game had directly after the release a year ago…since then? Not a clue.

Oh crap, just when I thought I found all 3 threads about this, there is a fourth one….lol

Numbers without context are what people want them to mean.

I’ll give a couple of example.

It’s about the first year. “Fastest selling MMO” is fastest MMO selling in the west in the first NINE months since release as calculated by a company that was asked by Anet to do these numbers. Take that for what it’s worth.

460K concurrent users (at one time)…Yep when the game came out. Great spin to advertise with that a year later when I think we all know it’s nowhere near there anymore.

So GW2 has got some big numbers, but what they actually mean? Well, it means one thing: Anet is advertising their game, that’s what it means.

Even better, thread no. 3 about the same thing. Very cool.

Oh look, two threads that start with the same link to the newest advertisement.

460k concurrent players is quite a bit…but as far as I remember that was just after the release. I don’t think it ever got near that in 2013.

Also they paid a company to calculate for them if they were the fastest selling MMO in the west….a bit dubious by itself but it was a calculation done over the first 9 months.

Numbers can be interesting but I prefer the context of the numbers with it. Obviously Anet want to focus on their main points (they wouldn’t put up any numbers on how many players quit or how many concurrent users there are today) and I can understand that seeing they want to impress China and revitalise some interest here because the game is barely stabilising after the usual downfall after a few months that pretty much every MMO has.

GW2 has made some impressive numbers left and right, that’s for sure but even though 460k players is perhaps more than there are inhabitants in Iceland, it’s also 0.0065% of the world population or not even 1.5% of the US population. So it’s all how you want to focus it really.

For an MMO it’s a lot. Quite impressive, but that number is almost a year old. So they are numbers but without a neutral context it’s just clever advertising, nothing more.

Those concurrency numbers are from when the game was just out. We haven’t had any recent updates. Since Anet themselves indicated on their blog that there had been a big dip as is usual with MMOs but that the game is now stabilising and slowly growing again, I think that you can assume that these numbers are still the ones from last year.

Unleashed.6195:

*I am not quitting. Yes, my desire to play has reached near zero, even to recoup the cash investment, but there is no reason to quit when it costs me nothing to play while hoping to see some change in direction.

Well, the reason could be to do something instead that you do enjoy. I mean there’s no reason to play when you don’t enjoy would be my way of phrasing it.

To me GW2 is, as someone else put it, the sesame street of MMOs. I share that view. It’s too much happy happy joy joy. Apparently there is a demographic for that. Mind you, it’s not all bad and it’s ok to reach to that inner child and all, just not so much of it.

So yeh it’s not my style and if I may say it as a fervent GW1 player….The name may be the same but we’re not in Tyria anymore…

Ravenmorghane.9287:

So really it boils down to one query from me:
If this game is really so bad then why are you people still playing ? It makes the forums less enjoyable for players like me who genuinely like the game.

1) Some of it’s perception. People can be really upset about certain parts of the game. Doesn’t mean they hate the whole game but those parts they want to get off their chest.

2) Some people here don’t actually play anymore. They may hope that GW2 gets better while they clarify to Anet what should be changed either because there are parts of the game they like but not enough to outweigh the bad. GW2 also has the history of GW1. People can be a fan of Guild Wars 1 but hate what happened in GW2 because it’s very different.

3) Some people actually just like to post on forums. So even when they don’t play or do but agree with some points…regardless kittening on the forum is a form of entertainment to some as well. Some go as far as to troll to see what they can stir up.

4) Most people come to the forum because they are upset about something, not because they are happy. If they are happy with the game, they generally are playing.

Game forums, especially general forum, tend to be cesspools in any game. GW2 is no exception. My personal guess is that if CS was actually equipped to handle complaints, these forums wouldn’t have so much anger going on. I guess it’s a matter of cost savings as well…

Destai.9603:

The innovation seen in GW2 is the successful integration and improvement of existing ideas. Of course, the ideas of jumping puzzles, open world events, and action combat aren’t new.

Agreed.

Destai.9603:

But, they’ve added a very graceful combat system and use it as a benchmark for some many ideas in the game, such as siege weapons and environmental weapons. The game satisfies, or at least attempts to, several different playstyles. It rewards exploration, it rewards cooperation, it provides competitive areas, and it has a pretty flexible trait system.

Not agreed so much.

It’s a matter of opinion but I do not think the combat system is very graceful and I don’t consider the trait system that flexible. I often find that a trait line combines the wrong stat bonuses and don’t always jive with the weapon selection either. In essence they took away freedoms by deciding how you should play certain classes.

I often find myself cursing when leveling a character because I need a certain trait line for one thing that is essential but the rest of it I don’t want at all or a trait line that makes sense mostly has a stat boost that I don’t need etc.

Somehow, the way the skill bar, weapon choice and trait system interact makes it feel like a rather rigid and limiting experience to me.

Neilos Tyrhanos.5427:

I can see this, certainly, as an argument against creating numerous new leveling zones upon the hypothetical introduction of a new race.

If a “true” expansion were to focus on a dragon, or Joko, though, I’d presume it would be primarily lvl-80 content.

If such an addition were delivered via the LS, though, then (to continue your analogy) each bite of toast could quite likely be absolutely smothered in butter.

And don’t forget they already said that they also are planning on raising the level cap at some point.

Once that happens the leveling process will be even more tedious, specifically for new players I fear.

Oh how much easier it would’ve been if the level cap had been 40 or 50 even. Then there would’ve been less leveling zones and adding new ones for a level cap raise would still be ok.

MMOs should offer different things for different players. So if lots of people love SAB then why not make it permanent?

The other issue is the achievements of course. Completionists want to check those boxes but I think that, like it or not, this game is not really for completionists. Things that come and go but also with bi weekly updates there’s a bigger chance to run into things you may not like simply because of the frequency. If there are 2 major updates in a year or 26 small ones makes a big difference in that.

I think that because of the nature of the game. You can’t really go for 100% completion in achievements. As soon as you missed one fleeting LS item, you’re screwed.

So yeh, it may suck that it is that way, but I do think it’s “as intended”. It’s one of those things that you may or may not like, it may even be a deal breaker, but it’s also one of those things that I don’t think will be changed.

Vayne.8563:

snip

I am not going to do this anymore. We both are at fault here and the forum has suffered enough from our antics. I sent you a pm, do with it what you will but for the sake of everyone else I will commit myself to not responding to anymore of your messages ever again. We were apparently not meant to get along.

MeGaZlo.9516:

Oh.. well… First time I hear about people disappointed by large scale of game.

There are no unnecessary levels in the game which has no high end content. Levels are here for a sense of progress.
In addition, you must take into consideration such fact as… em… artistry. Freedom of choice. Freedom of movement. Experience etc like that. I think not very much people will want to buy game that boasts that it has pair of locations, but they are VERY necessary. And a little bit of levels, but they are perfectly calculated directly for these locations.

People want experience. Want epic adventures on the epic scenery. Different. A lot.
And you are trying to bring the game to some sort of meaningfull grind in few, but a very convenient locations.
Less time costs – more ingame profit, in other words. . What is it for?

It’s quite common that people complain about leveling zones being empty. I’ve heard friends complain about it in games like EQ and WoW and last year SWTOR certainly was no different.

It isn’t so much that the world is large, but the leveling area is so big that it adds to the issues of empty zones. The players are (LotR quote) like butter spread over too much bread. And Anet recognised that issue in GW1. That’s one of the reasons quoted back then for not wanting to go on with new continents. So EotN was not a new continent and they didn’t want to make the same mistake for GW2.

The sense of progress is exactly why there is no need for those levels. The reason I call them unnecessary is because it delays players unnecesarily long from doing dungeons and such and because after level 30 or so, there isn’t much progression happening. It’s the most devoid progression I’ve experienced in any game.

You can have everything unlocked, except trait points when you unlock that elite slot. Skill points you keep getting. In GW1 there were only 20 levels because of a simple reason: most of the game was considered endgame.

Now if had level 50 as max level and more max level zones and activities, I think the balance would make more sense. But that’s just me of course.

FrizzFreston.5290:

It’s quite obvious you really have nothing to add to the discussion, Gehenna, and instead troll people with a load of semantics.

Vayne never pulled any numbers out of a hat, since what he did is called a hypothetical case. Just to explain that, it’s to illustrate and simplify, not to state facts. He literally never said that the numbers were to be associated with Guild Wars 2.

It’s quite horrendous to see a whole discussion to sprout out of it too, derailing the thread and the initial point made.

Whatever, I have talked about the actual subject of homogenisation more than he has.

And although I accept that I have a part in a discussion that went the wrong way, I am also the one to recognise it and stop it when I recognise it.

Reread it again without bias because I don’t like GW2 and you will see that I may have come on too strongly, but you will also see that he will leave no opportunity unused to make it worsen. And at least I can admit I make mistakes.

Oh and just a question: Do you think that by posting this you are contributing to the conversation or again derailing it back to what I was hoping to get away from. So let me stop that short here too and I will also stop responding to you, because obviously the topic of homogenisation was not what you wanted to talk about.

Rhaps.8540:

You’re welcome It paints a pretty rosy picture for the population numbers and financial future of the game. I just googled “gw2 player numbers increasing”, checked the main results and then the news results for the Time article. Easy!

yeh my main question mark was the comment that it was rising since christmas according to that poster. Your efforts paint a much cleare picture. And as much as I am disappointed by this game I am happy that game is stabilising for the people who do love it.

Rhaps.8540:

Gehenna.3625:

Gathslan.1870:

Anet has stated that their active player numbers are rising not falling, that is all i need to hear : P

I’ve never seen that. In the last financial report they said that GW2 is stabilising. That doesn’t sound like rising. Now that could be about sales but if sales have been going down (which the report shows they have) and they have more players playing again, that would mean less income and more costs. Good for the playerbase, not so good for Anet’s pockets.

Could you tell me where you got this info, because I would actually like to read it?

The highlights:
http://guildwars.incgamers.com/blog/comments/guild-wars-2-player-base-continues-to-increase

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/23/guild-wars-2-sees-player-numbers-increase-following-post-launch-slump/

http://www.gamebreaker.tv/news/consistant-content-updates-have-increased-guild-wars-2s-player-base/
The future:

http://techland.time.com/2013/08/16/guild-wars-2-nabs-fastest-selling-western-mmo-crown-looks-east-for-more-records/

… seriously dude. Google, it aint a secret.

true but google can come with different results and I wanted to see specifically the ones you read. So thanks for that. I shall appreciate your troubles and actually read them.

Edit: Ah you weren’t the one I was talking to….but as I suspected there is no mention of an actual time frame for the decline and rise of numbers. There is no mention of christmas at all, which was in the post I was replying to.

This is how misinformation gets started. My guess was that considering the sales figures dropping in the first and second quarter, the rise of numbers should be much more recent than “since christmas”.

The financial report also said that the game was stabilising, now the links indicate they are indeed growing slowly. That seems a more accurate version considering what’s in those links.

MrRuin.9740:

Forums for months :
“we hate RNG”
“remove RNG”
“ANET, wtf are you thinking with all the RNG?”

On anniversary:
“ANET, wtf GW1 had RNG presents, why wasnt this one RNG?”
“Birthday present was fail because it wasn’t RNG”
“my god, I gave you $50 a year ago and expect a well thought out present that is tailored not only to me, but also to the hundreds of others who will also complain about not being rewarded in a fashion thats emotionally validating for spending $50 a year ago”

Its a wonder the turnaround of employees at MMO developers isnt much much higher.

Well, RNG isn’t all bad. Problem is that these terms are general but are used for specific things. People hated the RNG in the mystic toilet and the whole precursor to legendary thing. For something like collecting (mini’s in this case) it’s another thing.

Still, you are right that no matter what they’d have done, someone would be whining. It is however, tricky to understand their logic. You can agree or disagree with something but I always hope to understand someone’s reasoning. I am not doing so well on this one.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

WvW upscales you, but if I recall you don’t get the benefit of Traits and you definitely don’t get skill points to get new skills (or slots), NOR instant mastery of your weapons.

Agreed, the unlocking of skills and such is still the same in WvW. Although there are ways to avoid going through leveling zones, that is another point.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

In short, WvW before level 20 is for the hardcore

Nah, the zerg is your friend. Makes it easy for anyone. Just do ranged damage and run away a little sooner than the rest

Vayne.8563:

So you have no problem with someone’s OP deliberately misleading people, but you have a problem with my reply. lol

It’s a pet peeve. If a person in a post says “you can’t prove numbers” and then make up your own, it completely detracts from what your point would’ve been if you hadn’t fouled it up yourself.

Vayne.8563:

We don’t actually know what peak concurrency is, but I’d wager it is lower than when that stat was published.

There we agree.

Vayne.8563:

However, Anet has said that concurrency is going up since Christmas. My own observations seem to show that a lot of people do log in on patch day. How many? I don’t know.

A link would be nice. When did they say that and in what context makes a difference. You will agree that statistics can be used to mean different things and just a number without source doesn’t help.

But yes, my whole point is we don’t know, which is why I just don’t get why you can’t resist doing it yourself. Making up numbers that is. It just confuses things.

Vayne.8563:

But here’s a guy who’s trying to say he doesn’t like something about the game and he’s using numbers that mean nothing to make his point, claiming something that’s not true.

I agree and so you turn around and throw back numbers that mean nothing to make your point. Do you see that? That’s what I wish you hadn’t done because it invalidates the rest of your message.

Vayne.8563:

But you didn’t actually call him out, you called me out. Good job on that.

Yep you do bring out the worst in me with your contradictory behaviour. As I explained above, you say one thing and do another.

So let me be clear about the OP.

I agree with his point about homogenisation.
I disagree with his numbers because they are a year old and mean nothing AND his final calculation is based on nothing.

I also wish he hadn’t brought in the numbers at all, because it’s not a direct link to the topic. Leave it to you, to then blow it up again with your usual style: Start with a good point and then destroy it with contradictory elements.

Not to be rude here but I just want to clarify it as clearly as I can. I more than often actually agree with your points in say, the first one or two sentences, but you also more than often manage to then give it a twist that actually contradicts your own point.

What that does to me, is give me the feeling that your main concern is that you want to win a conversation at any cost, more than actually making a good point.

What good are his numbers? None
What good are your numbers? Also none

How am I to believe you are genuinely wanting to make a point when you don’t hesitate to do the same thing he did?

And yes, next time I will make sure I will take on both parties at the same time. Like I said, you’re one of those people that can bring out the worst in me. Not many of them luckily but there it is.

It’s confusing to know what this thread is really about though because the OP spent more on his numbers than his actual title topic.

MikaHR.1978:

EvE has >500k players and 30-40k conccurency

WoW had like 300-400k concurrency.

So what you are saying is that GW2 is completely different than any other MMO and that in GW2 ALL players that play the game are in only 2 states:

1. Either ALL are logged in

2. Either ALL are logged out

at any given time you look.

So YES he can prove his point and you just play….because you defend OP which clearly didnt comprehend what he read just wanted to write….something for whatever reason.

No, you are wrong. Firs of all I do not defend the OP. He destroyed his actual point by bringing these numbers in to begin with.

What I do have a problem with is people who say that you can’t prove any numbers and then make some up themselves.

I said that the OP could be right about 500k players by ACCIDENT. I also said these figures he quotes are from LAST YEAR and not CURRENT. So these 400k are not actually true for today. They were the peak times last year after launch. Why do you people want to ignore the fact and use these numbers when in fact they are a year old?

So please tell me why you think I am trying to defend him? Because you believe Mr Vayne here or because you didn’t read what I actually said?

I only agree with the homogenisation part. I stated myself that I actually looked at his source and found this data outdated, regardless of his silly calculation.

But no, it’s ok to make up other numbers then is it? Based on what. We have NO actual data. The OP doesn’t, Mr Vayne doesn’t, you don’t and I don’t either.

That’s my point. Just because I disagree with Vayne’s approach, as he in one post says you can’t prove anything and then directly makes up numbers he can’t prove, doesn’t mean I agree with the OP.

Although my guess would be closer to his number than Vayne’s, that’s just a matter of feeling not actual data.

So when I disagree with Vayne, it doesn’t mean automatically that I agree with the OP. I hope that difference is clear.

Funny thing is. If Vayne hadn’t started throwing around his own made-up numbers, I would’ve agreed with him.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Gehenna.3625:

Hehe, I do agree people would’ve moaned, no matter what. I just don’t get why they did the scroll unless they have their metrics showing lots of characters with very low levels sitting there. Maybe I’m wrong, I could very well be, but at the moment it just seems like the most logical reason for them to do something like this.

. . . I have six character slots, and three of them are under level 25 because I use them primarily for storage. Also, I did not like playing either the elementalist or engineer. I have not been able to get the hang of my thief so she is sitting there doing nothing also.

Yeah I can believe there’s metrics of people having a lot of alts at low level. Simply for storage reasons.

Oh sure there are more reasons than one for people not leveling up their toons. But I would think that a storage character can be level 2 just as much as level 80. So I guess I don’t think that they would do this for the sake of storage characters.

Vayne.8563:

I can answer people and not care. I don’t know why you think that’s an issue. Maybe it’s because I’ve had to deal with teenagers in my life. You learn to answer people, even if what they’re saying doesn’t mean anything. It’s better than ignoring people.

Now this really is condescending and intentional. You still care enough to reply, though I am sure it’s not me or my views that you care about, but your seemingly compulsive need to “win” discussions.

Vayne.8563:

Actually, at this point I have no clue what you’re talking about.

This is a probably a good thing for everybody, without wanting to be condescending. I say that because at this point I doubt anything good will come from this exchange anyway. So, I will make a proposal and an expectation. Do with it what you will.

My proposal is that we stop replying to each other in this thread as I don’t think our exchange will bring anything positive to this thread.

My expectation is that you can’t resist and will respond, certainly to this post. So I will accept that and as it seems important to you I will gladly let you have the last word.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I’ve never seen it either, mostly because most other MMOs want you to grind your way through those first twenty levels. But I do have to point out I’ve seen other MMOs where the first twenty levels were nowhere near as interesting as the end-game after a while.

Well that certainly wasn’t Anet’s intention from what I gathered…you know the whole idea that you’re doing endgame from the start and all. There are games that have very generic or should I say uninspired leveling processes. I guess I just never expected Anet to indirectly admit to that (as I see it).

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Personally, I think no matter what they stuck in the Birthday Gift people were going to raise holy heck over it. Might as well just make it something as pointless as that scroll

Hehe, I do agree people would’ve moaned, no matter what. I just don’t get why they did the scroll unless they have their metrics showing lots of characters with very low levels sitting there. Maybe I’m wrong, I could very well be, but at the moment it just seems like the most logical reason for them to do something like this.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Gehenna.3625:

But ok, you say you are serious. Skipping the first 20 levels, arguably the most interesting of the leveling process, is a good thing in your mind. You are indeed free to have that opinion and I shan’t contend that.

Well, you find it interesting, and others do also. I find it blows by a little quickly when I know what I’m doing and in all cases I usually end up under-equipped without aid from my main (specifically, crafting up some armor/weapons/jewelry) and under-skilled (not having had time to “lern 2 play” the class as if I had been slower leveling).

I recently started a thief and she’s almost level 17 now just running Queensdale hearts, events, and doing map completion there . . . DR, and Wayfarer’s when a daily wanted Shiverpeak kills (and Queensdale was a little too . . . zergy . . . for my tastes that day). I still don’t have a clue how to play her well.

Yeah ok, but I’ve played various MMOs and still do and I always had multiple characters…wel lots of characters. But the lower levels are always the ones where more changes, they are more dynamic as you build up skills etc. You have things to look forward to that are only one or two levels away. It’s always at the later levels that I would want to speed things up, not at the lower levels.

Sure GW2 has a flat xp curve so higher levels don’t take longer, but instead they made more of them. I understand people who say that they’d rather have a +20L scroll instead of a L20 scroll.

In the games I’ve played I certainly never saw any of them do something as draconic as poof you’re level 20, specifically when the game’s been out for just a year.

It could be that it’s just that I am shocked at Anet and at Vayne’s commentary because I have never seen anything like this, but it just seems so out there.

Vayne.8563:

I don’t care if you think or don’t think I’m condescending. The fact that you’ve called me out on it, while acting the same way yourself, makes you a hypocritical. That’s all.

That’s why you brought it up of course, because you don’t care….uh huh. I will believe you don’t care if you stop commenting on it.

Vayne.8563:

Whether you agree with me or not, doesn’t make me wrong. I’m not just going by intuition here, as I’ve said before, Anet has talked about how the first zones were meant to be tutorials, and teach people the game.

It’s not so much about wrong or right here. It’s about me being completely shocked that someone would contend such a thing. Knowing how you are I will believe that you meant it but I still find it hard to believe.

Vayne.8563:

A lot of people playing Guild Wars 2 have never played an MMO at all before. Anet wanted to make sure they didn’t get skills and traits and options thrown at them too fast. They said this. Why would I make it up?

Uhmm, that’s not the part I have a problem with believing.

Astral Projections.7320:

The thread is about people leaching invasion events and why they would do so. I can’t see any possible way to leach a map completion.

It’s possible to do an invasion event and not get credit toward the achieve.

Well the thread isn’t just about that, als more general comments had been made about leeching in general. Also I haven’t done the invasion stuff at all. Add to that the fact that you didn’t reply to any comment in particular and there was my misunderstanding.

Cleared up now.

Vayne.8563:

And you’ve called me condescending? LMAO! Maybe you should look inward. You’ve been condescending before, but this post is pretty much the worst I’ve seen.

I don’t care what you’ve seen or you consider a normal procedure. There’s no point in making someone who’s already played and beaten the game to walk around without unlocked skill slots and the ability to swap weapons.

The reason they give you stuff like a weapon swap at level 7 isn’t because they want to give you new skills. It’s because they want newbies to learn. It’s why elementalist attunements dont’ all unlock at level 2. And yes, Anet has said this directly at some of the conferences. They let people learn things by letting them slowly get skills.

In fact, if you’re level 1 and you’re trying to unlock a new weapon that you’ve never used, it takes several hits to unlock it. If you’re level twenty and you try to unlock a new skill, even the fifth skill, it unlocks in one hit.

So yes, I’m quite serious.

You have been condescending. Whether I am here or not doesn’t change that. You have a tendency to think that if someone else does something bad, you are not responsible for the same behaviour. Whatever on that, but to be clear I am truly astonished here.

I guess you were being serious as you just indicated here but truly, this is about as far out there as any tin foil hat story I’ve heard on any game forum. It’s about as far as a twist as I can imagine here.

But ok, you say you are serious. Skipping the first 20 levels, arguably the most interesting of the leveling process, is a good thing in your mind. You are indeed free to have that opinion and I shan’t contend that.

But I am actually completely flabbergasted by your argumentation here, because of the sheer, well, it’s just way out there for me. Does that make my reply here consdescending? If so, not intentionally.

Astral Projections.7320:

Gehenna.3625:

Astral Projections.7320:

I bet at least some of these people are those who did all the maps but didn’t get all the achieves. Now they don’t know which one(s) are missing and are having to do them all over again just for the achieve.

I would leach too if it were me redoing 13 maps because the game doesn’t credit you and there isn’t an ez way to tell unless you’ve been taking notes the whole time.

Map locations are fixed on the map. You can look up the maps on the might interwebs to find out which ones you missed. I don’t see what this has to do with joining a zerg and doing virtually nothing but still get rewards because the game rewards you for minimal activity. I may not like it but I think it’s “working as intended”.

If you did all 13 maps but was only credited for 11 or 12, how do you know which ones you didn’t get credit for? How does the list of maps help you in this case? In this case, you have to do every map all over again until you finally get credited. I’ve heard of one person having to do one map 3 times before getting credit for it.

Several of my guild mates have done all 13 but didn’t get credit for one or two of them. I had to do Frostgorge twice.

If you know of some map that shows the ones people did but didn’t get credit for, you should put it in an answer.

I get the feeling we’re not talking about the same thing here. I thought you meant map completion as in completing all zones in the world…pretty sure there’s more than 13 so you must be talking about something else.

Astral Projections.7320:

I bet at least some of these people are those who did all the maps but didn’t get all the achieves. Now they don’t know which one(s) are missing and are having to do them all over again just for the achieve.

I would leach too if it were me redoing 13 maps because the game doesn’t credit you and there isn’t an ez way to tell unless you’ve been taking notes the whole time.

Map locations are fixed on the map. You can look up the maps on the might interwebs to find out which ones you missed. I don’t see what this has to do with joining a zerg and doing virtually nothing but still get rewards because the game rewards you for minimal activity. I may not like it but I think it’s “working as intended”.

MikaHR.1978:

Facts? rofl, one more random forum poster that thinks he is most important and his opinion count as fact.

I dont think you realize how broken your “arguments” are. Thats the problem.

Is that a fact?

maleko.5206:

Nice assumption, I disagree. People said it couldn’t work when it came out and it did far better than Anet expected themselves. I think they could’ve done it again.

I think it would have worked to some extent, you’re right. but I don’t think, given the massive amount of content people require off their MMO’s these days that it would have been as much of a success. GW1 did not have the amount of PvE content that ANet are trying to achieve with GW2 and in order to constantly bring new ideas to the forefront you will need a constant stream of cash. I personally think the main issue isn’t with the F2P with gemstore vs pay-for-expansion, it’s more that at the time of GW2 release it was a fairly unheard of system in main-stream releases, something that was the sole feature of cheaper freebie MMO’s out there which were in essence F2Win. Since it’s release though, plenty of others have gone F2P (Rift for one big example) and have succeeded in offering massive content without the feeling of restriction of GW2 for some.

These games seem to have caught the eye on F2P a bit better and WoW remains a colossus even with its dwindling numbers on the subs-based market. GW2 just struggles to find it’s niche with the player base now other than those of us who enjoy the more casual nature of its F2p system as it is.

Every new MMO or MMO style game needs more content nowadays. I am not saying that an exact copy of GW1 would work now, but the biggest difference is a persistent world which is mostly empty in GW2 and many other MMOs.

Sure, improvements would have to be made and things added like 3D maps and crafting and maybe even make max level zones persistent but keep leveling instanced. Any game can fail or be successful but to simply say that a game like GW1 couldn’t work in the current climate is too big an assumption for me.

Also as I said, GW2 had it’s biggest sales just before a lot of other MMOs started with f2p options. That competitive edge is now gone. GW2 has done well but I think it is a struggle as you say.

Still, to stay on topic a bit….adding a sub to GW2 would not be wise at all. I prefer sub games for various reasons but I don’t think it would work for GW2 as it is. What they really need to do is make a better quality cash shop. Better items mostly.

Morrigan.2809:

so anything from OP on exactly what he meant by trait lines having no effect?

That’s definitely the more interesting part of his post.

I have argued in the past that you could divide your points equally in all trait lines and that you can still beat 99% of this game without any problems. I hear high level fractals are the exception, but for the rest I’ve always felt it didn’t really matter where I stuck my trait points because it makes too small of a practical difference.

Vayne.8563:

Guild Wars 1? Really? LMAO!

Guild Wars 1 shows you that in a NON MMO (which is much cheaper to run than an MMO), with a staff of 50 people, in a game made 8 years ago, you can get by without strong depency on a cash shop. That’s ALL Guild Wars 1 shows you. Period.

I agree that it was probably cheaper to run. I disagree that the cash shop was very limited. Also don’t forget the expansions that were sold separately. I remember mercenaries, cosmetic changes etc. I think the cash shop was actually a pretty good one. Better than the current one in my view as it had more interesting items for me.

Vayne.8563:

If Guild Wars 1 were a true MMO, if they needed servers that had a couple of hundred people all moving and fighting at the same time, a staff of over 300, bigger headquarters, and more overhead in general, coming out today instead of 8 years ago….

Well, I don’t know. There will always be discussions about this but what is the difference between GW1 and a true MMO? Let’s see what was missing from the normal MMO formula….oh yeah a persistent world. Well, let me tell you something, they would’ve been better of not doing that because this beloved persistent world is mostly empty and a waste of space.

Vayne.8563:

Guild Wars 1 would never have been sustainable in today’s environment.

Nice assumption, I disagree. People said it couldn’t work when it came out and it did far better than Anet expected themselves. I think they could’ve done it again.

Vayne.8563:

It did great when it had like only MMOs to compete with, all of which had subscriptions. In today’s environment… not so much.

There’s no way you can compare this game and that game, unless you throw away all the facts surrounding issue.

One of the main reasons people picked this game up is because it doesn’t have a sub. That was the same for GW1. I agree that both games are totally different but I do not share your opinion that a game like GW1 couldn’t have worked nowadays.

People do have more options now because more and more games offer f2p options but remember that wasn’t the case when GW2 was released and that’s when the vast majority of sales were created.

Olba.5376:

I believe that the reason Vayne “came up with random numbers” is to illustrate his point. You know, it’s kinda like one of those math examples in your textbook, except that he didn’t put in a “Example #132810923890188888” label on it.

It’s all pointless anyways since the premise for both sides is wrong. This is all based on a 2012 article that mentioned the peak was over 400k concurrent users.

I don’t think I am going out on a limb by saying those peak days are over and will be a fair amount less by now. That’s why it’s pointless for either side to come up with examples and accuse the other of inventing numbers when they do it themselves.

The reality is simply that we don’t have CURRENT numbers on concurrency here, so the OP might be right about his guesstimate albeit it accidentally…but he could be wrong just as Mr Vayne.

So instead of throwing numbers back and forth based on something that’s not real, my point was to stop doing that entirely.

We don’t know the numbers and I think it makes more sense to discuss the title of the topic. Mr Vayne could’ve stopped at saying that the numbers are old and the Op’s conclusion incorrect if based on those numbers. That’s all I am saying here.

Knote.2904:

I would love that, make dungeons as profitable as zerg farming.

Well, that’s part of the issue isn’t it. Zerg farming is what’s rewarded most. It would be fair to tell people to stick to their prefered playstyle but it is a bit odd if they are not rewarded equally.

Olba.5376:

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

I’m saying it’s a guestimate. I’m not saying good and I’m not saying bad.

But I know one thing for a fact. If 300,000 people are concurrently logged on, there are a lot more than 300,000 people playing.

What would you say the odds are of all the players playing all logging in at the same time.

No one on vacation, no one taking a break, no one working, no one in different time zones.

In fact, if 300,000 people were playing in the US at prime time, that means few people in Europe or Asia is playing at quite the same time. When do they log on.

Concurrency was probably measured at peak US time. I’m pretty sure there are more than 200,000 players in the rest of the world.

You can keep picking on everything I say. It just makes you look desperate.

Again more guesstimates from your side. I don’t care what the numbers are but you certainly responded to him without neutrality. If you had been neutral, you wouldn’t have needed to bring in your own counter guesstimates like you do again now.

I clearly stated nobody can know. You wouldn’t have had a reply from me if you hadn’t started making your own, even wilder, guesstimates.

It seems it’s you who is desperate to disprove his numbers, even though you can’t prove anything either.

The thing that Vayne is trying to get across is simple. Concurrent players will never amount to the whole playerbase. Which was what the OP was clearly implying in his post.

Which would’ve been a totally fair comment if he hadn’t started coming up with his own wild numbers which he can’t prove either.

If he’s so concerned about people makig up their own numbers, my thinking is he shouldn’t do it himself. Practice what you preach as they say.

Vayne.8563:

I’m saying it’s a guestimate. I’m not saying good and I’m not saying bad.

But I know one thing for a fact. If 300,000 people are concurrently logged on, there are a lot more than 300,000 people playing.

What would you say the odds are of all the players playing all logging in at the same time.

No one on vacation, no one taking a break, no one working, no one in different time zones.

In fact, if 300,000 people were playing in the US at prime time, that means few people in Europe or Asia is playing at quite the same time. When do they log on.

Concurrency was probably measured at peak US time. I’m pretty sure there are more than 200,000 players in the rest of the world.

You can keep picking on everything I say. It just makes you look desperate.

Again more guesstimates from your side. I don’t care what the numbers are but you certainly responded to him without neutrality. If you had been neutral, you wouldn’t have needed to bring in your own counter guesstimates like you do again now.

I clearly stated nobody can know. You wouldn’t have had a reply from me if you hadn’t started making your own, even wilder, guesstimates.

It seems it’s you who is desperate to disprove his numbers, even though you can’t prove anything either.

Olba.5376:

The thing is, it’s a reasonable assumption.

In Vayne’s example, he takes the figure 300,000 concurrent players to over 1,000,000 actual players. Basically, that just amounts to assuming that all of the 1,000,000 players play roughly 8 hours a day.

500,000 players and 500,000 concurrent players would literally mean that everyone who plays the game players it 24 hours a day. Which obviously would never happen.

It sounds more reasonable to me as well because there is at least some data behind it, but it is still an assumption of course.

Vayne obviously just conjured his numbers out of thin air, which devaluates the point he was trying to make completely.

I don’t exactly know how to interpret concurrency numbers nor how recent they are, so for me it doesn’t prove anything to me, but it does sound reasonable, if indeed the numbers are normally interpreted like that and current.

Gathslan.1870:

Anet has stated that their active player numbers are rising not falling, that is all i need to hear : P

I’ve never seen that. In the last financial report they said that GW2 is stabilising. That doesn’t sound like rising. Now that could be about sales but if sales have been going down (which the report shows they have) and they have more players playing again, that would mean less income and more costs. Good for the playerbase, not so good for Anet’s pockets.

Could you tell me where you got this info, because I would actually like to read it?

Vayne.8563:

Even if your concurrency figures are accurate (and I question those), you have no idea how many people play the game.

A game that has a conccurency of 300,000 probably has over a million players,

So you say he can’t possibly know and you follow that with your own guesstimate which you can’t know by the same reasoning. Well done.

Vayne.8563:

Saying that less that 500k people play this game is unprovable.

You are right. He cannot prove it, but you can’t prove he’s wrong either.

Vayne.8563:

In fact, you have no idea how many people are playing.

Neither do you (nor me for that matter). Let alone what the definition of playing is.

This game is absolutely leech friendly. Are there lots of leeches? I do not know. Is it likely there are? Absolutely.

projectcedric.6951:

Gehenna.3625:

projectcedric.6951:

Btw, it’s called “social gameplay”.

=))

Well you rarely team up for zerg stuff and certainly don’t talk to other players and often people are left behind unressed because there’s no time to ress you. If you want to call that social…

I think it does what it does in WvW. Attacking a castle and all. Yeh, that’s usually done with an army zo a zerg makes sense there to me. The big dragons….well, not very heroic but considering how things are it makes sense there at well….but for the rest it’s just silly and not very social in my view. But I do get with some people like it.

Of course! The fact that you don’t necessarily have to talk with anybody in the zerg -because there isn’t anything to talk about- makes it even more comfortable to simply join zergs.

You can rest assured that there won’t be any conversation leading to anybody poking about your real life whatsoever, nor will there be any sharing of banal, mundane things like how the weather is like on your side of the world, or how men can never understand women, etc.

Furthermore, the fact that almost everyone’s build is the same, and there are no distinct individual roles make it unnecessary to bother other people about what they shall be doing as part of the zerg, so you can concentrate on spamming your 123457890 on that champ.

What’s not to like?

I sense a certain measure of sarcasm here….

One adjustment I would propose….you only have to spam 11111111, the rest doesn’t matter really. Oh wait no, you don’t have to spam at all….auto attack ftw!

lordkrall.7241:

And yet back in GW1 people whined about some lucky few got 100p minis whilst other got 50g ones.

People have complained about RNG since release, and now when ArenaNet decides to not have RNG people complain about the lack of RNG.
Which way is it?

Still the GW1 way was more fun as they were collectible. But that topic aside, how do you feel about the L20 scroll?

Even if it is useful for you…isn’t it odd to give out scrolls to skip 20 levels?