I can see why this divided the community
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
Raiding Killed the open world raid
Raiding has more or less destroyed the entire reason for ‘anyone’ to do zone wide map contribution anymore, and with there already being so many world maps across old Tyria and now HoT that require commander raids with WvW sized groups it just makes it impossible to coordinate any group content effectivly.
Raiding is not a healthy thing for Gw2’s massive world content and just frankly needs to go all together, I suggest nerfing the new raid into a new 5 man dungeon and leaving it at that.
No matter what a loud spoken minority of the playerbase says that “enjoys” raiding, the majority do not and its killing the game, creating a very toxic and elitist community and removing that “friendliness” Gw2 boasted about during HoT’s announcement.
Simply put: Remove raiding all together, and never bring it back.
This rationale (what there is of it) is flawed. People who raid are most likely the people who were doing daily dungeon tours before HoT. Raids take less time than that, because of the weekly caps. If anything, raids > dungeons freed up some time during which those players might choose to do other things.
There are simpler explanations for the phenomenon you’ve outlined:
- A large percentage of the active accounts didn’t even buy HoT
- Of those that did, some of them were not the target audience
- Of the rest, some have played the content so much they’ve gotten tired of and/or gotten what they want from it
- Some players do not find a lengthy map meta a good fit for them
- Other issues have caused people to stop playing the HoT metas, like loss of participation, map closure during event completion, and DC’s
- Some of the map meta events are just not fun for some people
As far as “toxic and elitist” go, I’m seeing both less in game and less on forums since HoT hit. I think I’d like some evidence that the community is worse now, as I’ve seen plenty of complaints about both prior to HoT.
I agree with the point that we really did not need four more Silverwastes, though. That right there has split the player-base which was interested in that kind of content in the first place. That factor is most likely the biggest contributor to the issue you’re referring to.
Aren’t there Hero Challenges in DS that can only be accessed in the short window after the meta has been completed? Technically, you can “solo” them, but are relying on others to complete the meta chain and your timing needs to be good.
Also, there certainly are HC’s in other maps that an average player is less likely to be able to complete without other players — whether they enter a group with them or not.
100% of all purchases of GW2 occured at a time after Anet described the game as including their version of raids. Unless you can argue that 2012 (and later) comes before 2011, you are mistaken.
Whatever they chose to call dungeons internally, nobody outside if ANet understood dungeons to be “raid content.” They were all five-man dungeons, and everyone knows that is a dungeon, not a raid.
This article is from 2011, well before launch.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-09-27-guild-wars-2-preview?page=3
Colin Johanson: Everyone, including casual gamers, by level 80 should have the best statistical loot in the game. We want everyone on an equal power base. The rare stuff becomes the really awesome looking armours. It’s all about collecting the unique looking stuff and collecting all the other rare collectable items in the game: armour pieces, potentially different potions – a lot of that is still up in the air and we’ll finalise a lot of those reward systems as we get closer to release. And those come off of things like the bosses at the end of dungeons – the raids.
Ashen is correct.
Monsters don’t have speed reduction in combat. Most of them also don’t have access to speed increases either.
You respond to my question with a Question?
Well, when you have an answer, I’ll be glad to listen to it.
Nice to see you only read the first sentence. Perhaps read the rest.
The rest of your post did nothing to address the actual question either. So, not to be rude, but when you can answer the question, I’ll listen.
So, it’s that way.
I ask a question, you answer it. It’s the way every discussion goes.
The only time this becomes a problem, is if you can’t actually answer the question.
Oh, wait, I can post numbers. At one point, there was the by now well-known post about WoW raids (back before LFR) being utilized by ~5% of the population. At least that’s the number I see raid haters post a lot. WOW’s high-water mark was 12M. 12M x .05 = 600,000 players. Subs are $15 per. $9M a month. Subtract half of that for reasons, like not all players paid the full sub (I’m being generous). $4.5M ultra-conservative estimate. That definitely helped sustain the game (remember, “helped” means “contributed to,” not, “was the mainstay of.”)
So, you got any numbers whatsoever to back up your assertion?
Numbers? Oh ok, I have over 6 million copies of this game sold, before it had raids in it, and the fact that WoW Lost 4 Million Subscribers during the time when GW2 launched.
That means, people, by the millions would gladly leave a game with Raids, to play a game without them.
Do you have anything even remotely close to that?
People keep forgetting that GW2 explorable dungeons were supposed to be this game’s equivalent to raids. They weren’t called raids. So what. You have zero proof that any given percentage of that 6M came here because there was nothing called raids. Who is to say how many of that number were players who like raids and were willing to get a B2P game as something new or as a second game on the chance that ANet came through with their vision for dungeons? A lot more people believed Anet then than do now, for one thing.
Sorry, your numbers are large, but not demonstrative of the point. They also have nothing to do with whether the raid demographic can help to sustain this MMO. That’s what I’ve been debating (and I thought you were, also)
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to dispute that there is a very large casual demographic. It’s likely the biggest sub-group, especially in this game. However, casual does not necessarily correlate with hating raids. It just means one chooses not to, or is casual about doing them.
You respond to my question with a Question?
Well, when you have an answer, I’ll be glad to listen to it.
Nice to see you only read the first sentence. Perhaps read the rest.
The rest of your post did nothing to address the actual question either. So, not to be rude, but when you can answer the question, I’ll listen.
So, it’s that way. OK. Prove that raids have not helped sustain other MMO’s. You can’t without numbers, any more than I can.
Oh, wait, I can post numbers. At one point, there was the by now well-known post about WoW raids (back before LFR) being utilized by ~5% of the population. At least that’s the number I see raid haters post a lot. WOW’s high-water mark was 12M. 12M x .05 = 600,000 players. Subs are $15 per. $9M a month. Subtract half of that for reasons, like not all players paid the full sub (I’m being generous). $4.5M ultra-conservative estimate. That definitely helped sustain the game (remember, “helped” means “contributed to,” not, “was the mainstay of.”)
So, you got any numbers whatsoever to back up your assertion?
The fact is that any amount of money brought in by raids in any MMO helps to sustain that game unless the existence of raids costs them more money than it brings in. Some in this thread claim that raids cost GW2 a lot of players. I don’t see it. If the game is bleeding players, there are a lot of other causes that are more likely. Anecdotes do not equal proof.
You respond to my question with a Question?
Well, when you have an answer, I’ll be glad to listen to it.
Nice to see you only read the first sentence. Perhaps read the rest.
I am not suggesting that GW2 raiders can sustain the game. Rather, they can help sustain the game.
I hear people say this all the time. But I have not seen anyone generate a convincing point as to why they believe this, or what they base this upon.
Hard, instanced content players were always courted by ANet, going back before launch. Over time, that demographic shrank because they got very little new (one path revamp, one substitute path, a large infusion with FotM over 3 years ago, very little added to FotM since). Explorable dungeons have been abandoned, and raids were substituted. How would putting in new content for a demographic not increase that demographic? The MMO business is a numbers game, whether it reels in cash via a sub, or via a store that x% of the total player-base buys from. Bigger numbers is likely to yield bigger dollars.
Historically, even games that have built a reputation around raiding and providing harder content, can’t sustain themselves in this direction because invariably at some point the content will become too demanding and thus burn out the players.
Veteran Players will change, their life will change, they will need to redirect focus, they will need to realize they can’t invest time into MMO’s like they used, which was a massive attraction of GW2 to many players who had played games like WoW for years, and simply could not maintain that investment. As such, we can see, even from a Juggernaut like WoW, that Raids, and increasingly difficulty content are simply not sustainable in and of their own right.
Perhaps that’s why GW2 raids are tuned to be doable in exotics. While there may be an Ascended barrier to entry into PuG raids, that’s a player thing. There’s no big lead-in before you can raid in GW2, other than having to buy HoT.
So I am wondering. How, exactly, will raids help sustain this game, when they have not done so for any other MMO in history?
If raids aren’t helping to sustain multiple MMO’s, why do those games have them? “Helping a game survive” does not have to mean being the majority contributor, there just has to be a notable percentage of money brought in due to that content.
We have no idea how many who raid also buy gems. ANet may not even track that. They certainly can track a (possible) increase in player logins and a (possible) increase in gem sales. Something else we don’t know is how many of the (likely) 300-400K accounts that bought HoT did so and have raided (but we know ANet said the number was above their expectations). We also don’t know how many for whom raids were the primary selling point of HoT. We have to depend on ANet, and right now they say they’re happy with the participation with raids. If it wasn’t working for them as a business, I doubt they’ll continue to put resources into it.
I’ve seen a few posts where players said they were leaving. Some cite lack of new PvE content since HoT. Some hate HoT. A few have said it was because of raids. At that point, it becomes a numbers game, Were more players retained or lost due to raids? We’ll likely never know. We do know, though, that some posters tend to over-inflate the numbers who agree with them. So, I take the posts about people leaving in droves because of raids with a grain of salt. Thus, the equation:
(Number who utilize raids) – (number who left because of raids) = [some largish positive number]
- On Alienating a demographic: how about the people who like hard instanced content? Aren’t they a demographic?
Problem is, GW2 was never about hard instanced content. There are plenty of other games offering that and there was no reason to cater that demographic. (Of course, falling sales might have been the reason).
“I don’t find pvp fun and anet said this game would be fun so clearly it doesn’t belong in this game.”
^ your argument against raids
PvP was always there, raids have only been added recently. Your argument is invalid.
Explorable dungeons were meant to be the GW2 equivalent to raids. That was the stated intent. They were spoken of as such as early as 2011. Dungeons didn’t quite work out as was intended, but there was intent pre-launch for hard, instanced content to be in the game. GW2 does not have to be about only one type of thing, for all that some people think that everything put into the game should be what they prefer.
… stuff …
- With raids, ANet put in something that might appeal to some new customers, and which also filled a void created by the abandonment of dungeons.
Raid as a feature to attract new customers, like, something rare and not seen before?
ANet has been after new accounts as far back as the first time they put core on sale. So, no, more like “something that might be attractive to those who like raids in other games and didn’t buy GW2 specifically because GW2 did not have them.”
- I disagree that “anyone” whose played GW2 for a long time bought it specifically to play a game without raids. I know people who bought it back then hoping that dungeons would be all ANet hyped them to — this game’s raids.
Huh? It was one of their strongest selling points, game without toxic raiding community and their typical attitudes. Have fun, not second job.
Because you found that to be a strong selling point does not mean it was for everyone. It ain’t necessarily so. ANet never said they were trying to make the game unattractive to raiders. In fact, they thought of explorable dungeons as the GW2 equivalent to raids. It didn’t work out that way, but the intent was stated.
- On Alienating a demographic: how about the people who like hard instanced content? Aren’t they a demographic?
Ahem. Wildstar. Remember that word every time when you seeing someone bringing up an argument about raiders as something worthwhile to sustain a game. Only game that managed to pull it off and survive long enough was WoW, and WoW did it only because they was smart enough to trash whole “raiding for elite” concept and made them available for everyone in wide range of difficulties.
As I remember, most of the hate of Wildstar boiled down to two things:
- People who bought the game while preferring solo PvE play despite the pre-launch hype.
- Wildstar had way too much, and draconian, pre-raid prep required. GW2 avoided a lot of that.
Fwiw, I am not suggesting that GW2 raiders can sustain the game. Rather, they can help sustain the game.
Other comments embedded in your post, in italics.
… stuff …
… more stuff …
My first online game was Guild Wars. So I know all about expectations. As a result of my past experience. I expected easy-to-achieve max stats with no increases, ever. So did a bunch of other people. In GW2 they put in Ascended, which is a compromise between gear treadmills and what GW offered. I was kittened off. So were a bunch of others. I still don’t craft, because I find it to be a massive pain in the kitten.
Why did they do this? Perhaps because they believed that appealing to more groups of player expectations would lead them to greater sustainability and/or profit. ANet is a business. I didn’t like it, that’s life.
- With raids, ANet put in something that might appeal to some new customers, and which also filled a void created by the abandonment of dungeons.
- I disagree that “anyone” whose played GW2 for a long time bought it specifically to play a game without raids. I know people who bought it back then hoping that dungeons would be all ANet hyped them to — this game’s raids.
- On Alienating a demographic: how about the people who like hard instanced content? Aren’t they a demographic?
- On HoT in general: I’ve said more than once here that Anet miscalculated with HoT by expecting everyone to buy it (to continue with story) but using a map plan featuring harder enemies, a large number of group events and the timed metas — none of which appeal to a different demographic that did in fact get alienated. The people who die in core open world a lot. Yes, I see them all the time. That’s not on raids, though, that’s on HoT design, and we’ll indeed see what they’ll do about it, if anything.
- I also believe that L. Armor as a tier should be available in multiple modes, with each having unique skins. Anyone who believes that skins ought not to be exclusive should read this.
“Everyone, including casual gamers, by level 80 should have the best statistical loot in the game. We want everyone on an equal power base. The rare stuff becomes the really awesome looking armours. It’s all about collecting the unique looking stuff and collecting all the other rare collectable items in the game: armour pieces, potentially different potions – a lot of that is still up in the air and we’ll finalise a lot of those reward systems as we get closer to release. And those come off of things like the bosses at the end of dungeons – the raids.”
So, that was always the plan.
1. 4 maps. Aside from Drytop, how many plattformer maps had been released until HoT? If you are a vanilla GW2 fan, HoT is as much problem as solution to the content drought.
How is that the fault of instanced content being added?
2. A meta circle. So what? Kessex Hills contains a meta circle too, except that there is no special reward for doing it. Every PvE map has it, it just restarts more often most of the time.
3. Ok? Boss encounters. What would a PvE map be without bosses? How does that upgrade HoT compared to other maps and raids in that regard?Because HoT was (still is, really) new content. That thing people want and blame raids for not getting it faster.
4. Where has the time gone by when JP were optional?
Yeah, I get it. ANet started increasing the amount of “If you want X you must do Y.” with the most recent iteration of dailies. I’m not fond of it, either.
5. What other events?
Run around the HoT zones, you’ll find them.
6. Festivals, I am pretty sure that Anet had to work overtime to bring the same stale festival over and over again.
It was something different to do. Some people seemed to appreciate them. Sorry you didn’t.
7+8. Ok, this is undispitably helpful.
9. Mastery system was so grerat that Anet had to backpeddle as quick as possible with it.What backpedaling was that?
For me, it looks like Anet puts in the absolute minimum for casuals right now and the absolute maximum for raiders. Not that they were overly creative with their festival stuff anyway and ls2 was a brutal desaster, but it was not on that scale yet. If that tactic proves successfull for them and they continue to exclusively churn out stuff like raids, my favorite game that I considered a refugee from raidcentric MMOs is no more.
Well, it seems they are talking about changing HoT somehow to reduce perceived grind and make the maps allow for a more casual experience. Bet that’s taking a lot more resources than raids do.
HoT was a flop for you. I get it. That does not mean it added less to the game than raids did. If you dislike almost everything that’s been added since LS S1, don’t blame that on raids.
People who prefer harder instanced content have waited a lot longer for not as much.
Excuse me, but to say you wait for raids would be a misnomer, as you were never promised them, in fact the decision to put them in was a very recent one, so you could not in any way have be waiting for them. You would have slacked your thirst for harder instance content on fractals and higher tier dungeons, Arah, HotW, Atherpath, TA, not to mention the increased difficulty of Shatter, Teq, and the added Triple Trouble World Boss, Etc. So, you have not been waiting at all for hard content.
So… When was the last time Anet added a new fractal? A new dungeon path? Open world PvE should get new stuff regularly but instanced should get nothing new, ever? Isn’t that what those complaining about the content drought want — something new? If you expect those players to play 1.5 to 3.5 year old content and be happy, then why can’t you play a lot more 7 month to 3.5 year old content and be happy?
Open world just got a new region in the XPac. You waited a whole nine months for it. The last new dungeon path was added nearly three years ago and the rewards in dungeons were reduced. Fractals has seen a new path more recently that that, but the gap is wider than it is for open PvE.
And yes, I know that raids were not promised until last year. That does not change the fact that the game was sold originally with the idea that explorable dungeons would be the game’s raid equivalent. People who bought the game primarily for that type of content had every expectation they would see new stuff, too.
For the record, I did not say that I waited. I said they did. I don’t raid. I don’t even dungeon anymore.
I recognize that people play a lot and burn through content quickly. I recognize that people want something new. However, if you want the game to prosper, it needs to attract and hold multiple demographics. That means ANet has to put things in for those different tastes. Raids did nothing for GW2 other than give a lot of people a reason to continue to play. That’s good for the longevity of the game.
Raids did not lead to the current perceived content “drought.” You want a scapegoat? Ask why ANet has likely spent thousands of dev hours reinventing systems over and over. Ask how many dev hours it took/will take to make adjustments to make HoT more casual-friendly. Ask why they went from Living World, which had regular updates, to XPacs. Ask why their code and/or systems are such that it would take, literally, years to craft L. journeys for 12 more weapons. Ask why new story episodes require such a long lead time.
What if HoT maps weren't as difficult?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
Hero points should be just that – Hero Points, not Zerg points.
Hero points should be just that – Hero Points, not go there and auto attack 10 times in a row points like in Core Tyria. ;-)
Hero Challenges in HoT gives 10 times more reward than the ones in Core Tyria, so they need to be more difficult. Maybe some need a bit of tuning but the most are OK.
Hero challenges in HoT give 10x the points as the ones in core because ANet wanted players to have to play through a lot of HoT to unlock them. That does not mean they had to be group events. Making them group events is untenable as a long term thing.
And its not about believing or not. As I said, its all about pure facts. We getting raid content and we not getting other content. We getting information about Anet happy with locking exclusive types of items behind raids and NO word about adding anything else for anyone else.
It’s literally “Eat raid or gtfo. What, you don’t like raids or like something else? Too bad, because you not getting anything else. Oh, and we plan to add more raid content, hope you like raids.”
Your post is not facts, it’s hyperbole and impatience. You want facts? OK, here they are.
In the last 7 months:
Raids
- 6 bosses; some trash
- Some rewards, but the big one isn’t here yet
Other PvE
- 4 maps (OK, maybe 3.5 if running around DS is not your thing)
- Each contains a meta cycle, so 4 of those
- Each map contains several boss encounters, VB alone has 5
- Exploration objectives and Easter eggs
- Other events
- Multiple armor and weapon sets
- Legendary journeys for Precursors V. 1.0
- Two festivals
- Shatterer revamp
- Gliding in core Tyria
- Mastery system, which is mostly open PvE stuff
WvW
- 1 new map, triplicated (which was at least a partial disaster)
Going forward:
Raids
- 1 new wing, so 3 more bosses
- Maybe L. Armor will appear, maybe not
Other PvE
- April update (whatever it is)
- LS S3 (whenever it hits)
- July update, whatever it is
- HoT revamp, whatever it is, whenever it hits
People who prefer “other” PvE had to wait about 9 months for HoT. People who prefer harder instanced content have waited a lot longer for not as much.
Those are the facts. Your perspective amounts to, “We haven’t had any PvE content since HoT and raids got 2/3’s of what HoT was supposed to deliver.” You want to be angry that ANet is no longer churning out updates every few weeks? Blame them. You want to blame other players? Blame the ones who burned LS in effigy every time it was offered. For all I know, you were one of them.
This thread actually wasn’t about Raids. Weird. It was genuinely about the fact that Elementalists are amazing, Warriors heal better than Healing Power Engineers, and Rangers are “meh” with traps compared to their Dragon Hunter overlords.
That sounds more like a balance discussion than a plea to change the game to a different paradigm.
Sorry to hear that your RP community is fading away. Thanks for taking the time to provide the feedback. I’ll add a thought or three.
On content. I know that ANet said they spent a lot of time designing systems with HoT to allow them to make content faster going forward. However, they’ve spent an awful lot of developer resources inventing and reinventing systems and features over the years since launch. Hopefully there will be less of that and more actual stuff to do going forward. I don’t think the game could survive endless reinvention at the cost of content. Maybe regular bursts of new content would bring some people back. Maybe not.
On grind. I also find the acquisition of most rewards in HoT to be tedious and not worth bothering with. For me, make content fun and I’ll repeat it. I’ve leveled 11 characters (plus a few partials and one 80 I deleted) and I still enjoy a lot of core.
On the raid. I’m not sure accessibility was one of the design goals. I don’t think aiming a small piece of content at the hardcore is a bad thing, but not being in the target audience would be less of an issue with a greater amount/variety of other things to do.
On dungeons. I can sort of see why they want to bury dungeons. They didn’t work out the way Anet talked them up before launch. Also, the constant complaints about elitism, griefing, “exploits” and exploits, kicking before the last boss, etc. were a festering sore that has just about disappeared from the forums (some of it appears in threads about raids, but nowhere near as much). I think Anet wishes they could just patch them out, but that would involve changes to story and the tokens are needed for gear (for new players who might want it) and for making L. Weapons. That said, a lot of people liked dungeons and dungeon running gave people a reason to continue playing. The nerf means fewer people run them and that makes them less accessible.
Good luck and have fun, whatever you do.
what could help is to ADD a slower way to travel, so those of us who enjoy traveling around could be happy too.
more options are always good, less options is mostly always bad.
add flying ships and regular ships that travel between strategic points, maybe a few asura portals here and there and fixed! those of us who don’t want to be constantly clicking waypoints get to enjoy traveling.I agree. Fast travel should stay as-is but it would be spiffing if there were some more leisurely scenic route options. We already have the airship models. Pop a drinks bar on one of those and have it do a round-trip somewhere. You’d get on at a dock but you can get off anywhere by jumping ship and gliding down. Maybe have a guide that occasionally (not too often) spouts some comedic banter like, “If you look to your left, you’ll see the majestic shiverpeaks and ..yes, we’re just passing over the famous Claw of Jormag. Doesn’t he look small from up here? Isn’t he adorable?”
Or a train. One that does a big circuit around kessex or something. When it passes through bandit territory they shoot at you and try to board the train. There’s an event – stop the bandits from boarding the train. Maybe it could pass by that town east of Cerebroth canyon and the guide could make some joke about that floating castle being a “school for wizards”.
Of course these rides wouldn’t be free. You can’t expect the Tyria government to subsidise everything fully. Maybe there could be a Tyrian GO card for trains, dirigibles and other public transport.
Sounds like a lot of developer work for something most people are likely to use once just to see it, then go back to teleporting. Everyone I knew in WoW used flight time to go to the bathroom and/or get something from the kitchen.
If you want a slower way to travel, what’s wrong with shank’s mare?
I agree that way too many GW2 armors and outfits are way too ornate and involved. A lot of whats on offer looks baroque and impractical. Also, way too few medium armor chests that are not coats; and way too few pants for light armor female use.
Anyone who is asking for more new maps is probably asking for a greater amount of, and perhaps variety of, content. They don’t want one of the HoT-sized maps cut into 9 small maps, they want some number of HoT-sized maps greater than 3.5.
Empty maps are not a problem so long as the content in the maps supports playing alone or in a small group. It’s only a problem when doing the stuff that the map exists for requires a large number of players. Also, with mega-server, I never see a really empty map. The problem is that the vision for GW2 involves lots of large events with 50 or more players combining to do whatever. Dividing the player-base into too many parts — which could happen with more maps — doesn’t matter as much with a different vision for how content is delivered.
What if HoT maps weren't as difficult?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
Overall mob difficulty in the open world is not, by-and-large, a thing in MMO’s in general. Progressive difficulty in max level zones in the open world in MMO’s is also not a thing — except for level increases and stat progression. However, you get levels and gear as you progress. Thus, while a L90 mob is very much stronger than a L80 one, it’s meant to be fought by a level 90 character, and the experience is basically the same as a L80 fighting a L80.
Since open world (absent group things) in MMO’s is by-and-large a solo thing, mob challenge is (or ought to be) balanced around an individual player’s capabilities. However, GW2 does not always have you fight singletons. In core, for instance, if you fight most mobs one-on-one, there is little chance to lose. However, the game does not throw mobs at you exclusively in singletons. A mob hard enough numerically to offer challenge to a solo player is likely going to be too hard if faced in groups as large as I see routinely in core.
Developers could do what they did in Wildstar originally. There were stronger mobs (always placed as solos) and weaker mobs (always in groups of however many). GW2 does not do this. The Risen Noble (for example) is the same whether it is solo or in a pack of eight of them.
So, what we see in HoT is that some individual mobs hit harder than most core mobs. However, HoT is also designed primarily around groups of players running around. So, many individual mobs have better numbers, and you’re more likely going to run into groups.
I think it’s possible to make HoT easier for solo play without nerfing mob stats. This could be done by changing mob density (for placed mobs) and by adjusting group event scaling so that the minimal number of players the low end is designed for is lower. The events should still scale up as they do now, and the low end should not be solo — unless that solo player is in the top 5-10% in player skill.
What Anet has announced was not a nerf to mobs.
AMA on Reddit/Dulfy Summary PageWith HoT we leaned more heavily on the organized content unfortunately at the cost of more casual experience. This is something that we plan on making adjustments to and are taking into account as we develop maps in the future.
Since I believe that HoT maps can be made more accessible without changing mob stats, I’d be disappointed if ANet nerfed them. I would be in favor of the changes I suggested above, or something similar.
@ Gorani
Good analysis, +1.
(edited by IndigoSundown.5419)
I didn’t say that they weren’t actually players, I was making the point that they were not representative of the target audience of my proposal. They can speak for themselves, they cannot speak for the larger audience because they are outliers, people who are fine with the raids the way they are.
Implying people who are fine with the raids the way they are are outliers.
If you have proof that they are outliers, SHOW US YOUR GRAPHS.
I’d like to see those graphs, too. I’d also like to see the him demonstrate that the audience for easy-mode raids in GW2 is not an outlier. I’m sure that — assuming raiders are above average on the hardcore-casual continuum — there are more non-raiders than raiders. What I’d like to see, though, is proof that there is enough interest among casuals in easy raids to warrant the effort.
Given all the talk on various forums about raids over the years, I have little doubt that ANet believed raids were aimed at a minority of players. I also have little doubt that, given the statement that the percentage of players who’ve raided here is larger than that reported elsewhere, ANet believes that raids in GW2 were a good idea. If they do, that implies that demographic was big “enough.” Whether there is enough of a market for easy mode raids also, that I do not think anyone in this thread has demonstrated.
I had absolutely no difficulty completing any of the HoT content. Of course, you need a map to complete the one meta (dragon stand), but still.
Creatures in game expansions should be more challenging than the core game. Based upon the fact that you’re supposed to complete the core game before diving right into HoT. If you’re trying to complete HoT without at least a max level with exotic gear, you’re going to struggle. This content was intended for players who know how to play, how do dodge, when to properly use skills, and how events work.
Should, maybe. The problem is that mobs in any game expansion I’ve played have as a rule been no harder than those in the base game (assuming you were on level or so and didn’t still have core game gear). Hard mobs were pretty much restricted to dungeons and raids, with a few exceptions if the game offered open world group quests.
If others also had that experience in other games, they might expect the same here.
So, the problem is…
- The difficulty in HoT was aimed to address the complaints about the game being too easy. Thus, it was only aimed at the part of the player-base that thought that. There’s a part of the player-base that finds core challenging enough. If the number of downed I see every time I play in core is any indication, that part is not small.
- ANet tied access to future story and desirable features to HoT because they wanted to sell it to as many players as possible.
So, yeah, ANet advertised HoT mobs as more challenging. What that means for anyone who was fine with the existing challenge levels is that HoT — already under fire for being light on content — has very little (to no) content aimed at them. But they still had to buy it if they wanted LS3, the Rev and the Elite specs.
This is, I believe, why WoW and the games that emulate it put the hard content in instances, and WoW even has easy and hard mode instances. I’m not sure what Anet will do with the next XPac, but I don’t think it will turn out better for them if they alienate either group.
I generally prefer games that encourage players to think rather than holding their hands and making everything so clear that everyone can get it.
However, since ANet was concerned about the LCD up to just before the launch of HoT, I suppose a CC tutorial would not hurt. With the content model the president prefers (large-scale PvE events), I can see the possible frustration with saying the same crap in chat every time one is at an event and people seem clueless.
All that said, in the unlikely event that ANet were to implement such a tutorial, Healix’ idea about a Gauntlet-style instance sounds good. My fear is that they’d do something like the dodge tutorial. If you look at that from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the game, it teaches one to use dodge to avoid ground AoE only.
mmm, maybe I am crazy but industry standard for an mmo expansion is about $40.
Out of curiosity, what MMO’s set that standard? WoW XPacs are $50, and if any MMO can be said to set standards, that would be it. FF14’s was $40, iirc.
While we’re at it, how do you factor sub fees into XPac price? I could buy WoD for $50, but (also iirc), it only offered one month of sub as part of the price. Once one is in their second month, access now cost $65, barring any kind of discount for multiple months. I’m not sure if the FF14 pack even offers a free month. If not, a month playing that XPac actually costs $55. Let’s not forget the “optional” subs that come with games like ToR.
If we look at B2P MMO’s like ESO and TSW, they sell DLC rather than XPacs. If you want to talk standards, compare what $50 gets you there versus what HoT offered. It’s the only reasonable comparison.
WoW xpacs were all $40…. except maybe the latest one idk I havent played in a couple of years.
WoD was $50. Wrath was $40. Not sure about Cat and MoP. My guess is they upped the XPac price to $50 when regular games went from $50 to $60 some time ago. It’s possible that your “standards” are somewhat dated.
I’ve seen a few players I thought might be F2P. I’ve seen one say one line in Say. That’s been the extent of their “intrusiveness.” If my experience is any kind of barometer, then you need not be concerned about that aspect of your play experience.
They lied to my Norn warrior about being the mighty Slayer.
The story is, my Norn went and killed a giant ice wurm on her first day. Which was true enough. But when you check the details, the story is different.
Issormir is a giant Ice Wurm which was captured by Knut Whitebear and Eir Stegalkin from Lostvyrm Cave.
Knut Whitebear: By my own hand, I have brought the mighty wurm, Issomir. He waits above, in the plateau, for one such as you to challenge him
Those 2 went to the cave where that wurm was, captured it and got it all the way up those stairs into that tiny enclosure. Then they left it there, probably without food or water until the “Great Hunt” when they pointed it out to my warrior and told her to go kill it. Basically, she killed an animal fetched for her by someone else and staked out in a pen. For that she got the title of Slayer of Issormir.
- You were level 1. What do you expect?
- Norn have a tradition of bragging and exaggerating — it’s all part of the rite of passage. Norn are supposed to lie about their great deeds. This was your starter lie.
They LIED to her. She was TRAUMATIZED when she found out she had killed some poor animal that had been captured, put in a pen with no food or water for no telling how long, and staked out for her to kill.
To make it worse, it wasn’t even an aggressive, dangerous wurm.
Issormir is a giant Ice Wurm which was captured by Knut Whitebear and Eir Stegalkin from Lostvyrm Cave. It is used as the main hunt for The Great Hunt in 1325 AE. It appears only after becoming enraged at the deaths of its hatchlings. After its death, Issormir’s Body remains, frozen, as norn nearby figure out how to clean up the corpse.
You see that part, he only appears after you kill his hatchlings. This was just some poor wurm dad doing babysitting duty in his cave, not bothering no one. Just chillin and thinking deep wurm thoughts. He’s there to protect and defend his babies. So, he was just sitting there and he and his babies get kidnapped, hauled up the stairs and dumped in a pen. Then murdered.
This was an awful event in my warrior’s life where she was lied to and undue peer pressure was exerted to kill some poor, innocent wurm dad and his babies. They gave her that title then I bet they went off to drink beer and laugh their butts off at her.
Issormir was female. If she was male, and trapped in a tiny area, where did the hatchlings come from?
Greatest lie? That’s a tough one. I’m not sure … but I’m pretty sure it had to have been spoken by an Asura. I’m also pretty sure it had something to do with some experiment being perfectly safe.
mmm, maybe I am crazy but industry standard for an mmo expansion is about $40.
Out of curiosity, what MMO’s set that standard? WoW XPacs are $50, and if any MMO can be said to set standards, that would be it. FF14’s was $40, iirc.
While we’re at it, how do you factor sub fees into XPac price? I could buy WoD for $50, but (also iirc), it only offered one month of sub as part of the price. Once one is in their second month, access now cost $65, barring any kind of discount for multiple months. I’m not sure if the FF14 pack even offers a free month. If not, a month playing that XPac actually costs $55. Let’s not forget the “optional” subs that come with games like ToR.
If we look at B2P MMO’s like ESO and TSW, they sell DLC rather than XPacs. If you want to talk standards, compare what $50 gets you there versus what HoT offered. It’s the only reasonable comparison.
So, another expansion is on the way. That’s going to happen. Heart of Thorns was divsive at best. The largest criticism being content-light for the price point, and now, the assumption that Anet won’t deliver advertised content.
If they couldn’t deliver us a “content-light” xpac there’s no way they’ll be able to implement the plethora of suggestions the forums generate. I have no faith that the next xpac will even equal HoT let alone be a fully-realised product.
Well, this topic isn’t about generating ideas, it’s about communicating price expectations from an established baseline.
Elric Of Melnibone.4781
Wanderinlost.7964
Blude.6812
IndigoSundown.5419
Illconceived Was Na.9781I respect that you have opinions to voice, but without a monetary value, they are completely irrelevant to the thread.
You want monetary value? Since the example presented in the OP looks remarkably like HoT, and since I do not consider HoT to be a good value at any price, I would pay $0 for a similar XPac.
Will HoT purchase unlock the free game?
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419
For an account that does not have access to core GW2, the HoT key will unlock core as well.
I can’t say. It would very much depend on things like what is in those zones. Zones heavily aimed at map meta events, not interested. It would also depend on the nature of specializations, and other stuff.
This is gw2 right? at what point does it lose the dignity with the lore bc we have 349w34 batmans running around.
I mean we already have wings -_-
In addition to wings, we have Charr backpacks, Quaggan backpacks, weapons that shoot unicorns (which have never appeared in the lore), rainbows, etc. GW2 abandoned dignity at about the time that twerking became a thing.
So has the English language, apparently. It was sobering to learn that “twerking” was in the Firefox lexicon (i.e., no spell check underline.) …
That said, I’d not be interested in superhero themed outfits.
This is something that I do find a bit interesting. When I look at other game economies, wherein loot is differentiated by power and aesthetics, then I can see why there is always a demand for higher and stronger items. You have a tier-system:
Item A is weakest but cheapest and affordable
Item B is more expensive and stronger
Item C is really expensive but not the strongest. It just looks nice
Item D is the strongest but it looks horribleAnd so on. In this system, items of inferior quality still have a demand, for the budgeted player and the newer player. Item B isn’t the “best” in any sense, but you’ll still want it because the increase in power helps you to get more powerful things faster. This creates a chain of demand.
But, in an all-aesthetic system, there is no Item A, B, or D. There is only item C. This… really cuts the demand down, actually. There is no longer an “affordable” option or a “more powerful” option. Those are things everyone wants. But aesthetics? Well, that’s up to personal taste, so the demand for an item changes from “any player who could equip it” to “only the player who wants the specific aesthetics of that item”.
So to have a super valuable item, you need two things.
#1: An item that has an aesthetic that everybody wants
#2: An item that has a drop rate so horrendously low that it is in high demand for the few players who want that aesthetic.Hence, why it is that after 3 years of continuous play, most players haven’t had a precursor drop. Though Anet has found some ways around this in the game. Mostly achievements, but at least there is a demand for an item outside of “how it looks” and “how rare it looks”.
This is why most drops in this game are “meant” to be salvaged. The materials are either directly (used to craft) or indirectly (gain gold to buy needed/wanted stuff) used to gain the very rare stuff. Outside of a few serendipity drops like a Teq Hoard, the most desired rewards are by and large incremental. The advantage of that type of system is that — while the target may be a long way off — you know roughly what it will take. The disadvantage is that there are almost no “Awesome!” reactions to drops.
Supply and demand plays a role in those other MMO’s, also. The really “expensive” stuff is also either low drop rates, gated behind content (like most Epics in that other game), soulbound on acquire, or some combination of those. What makes them seem more rewarding is, yes, somewhat better drop rates, but also the lack of items gained by incremental rewards as the method to get anything of real value.
Complaints about precursor drop RNG have been around almost since launch. When ANet decided to “fix” that problem, what did they do? They created an incremental system. This suggests they think that the choice lies between incremental or RNG. If there’s a third option, I’ve no idea what it would be.
And yes, it goes back to previous MMOs, but previous MMOs had different business models, where you did want to “lock people in” to a gear treadmill that never ended, to keep people playing enough to keep their subscriptions active. GW2 does not need that model, they have a model based on players enjoying their game, and playing it as much or as little as they want, “progressing” as much or as little as they want, and hopefully buying things in the gem store because they are HAPPY and want to extend that experience, rather than paying a monthly sub because they MUST if they want to keep on the treadmill.
The old ways MMO practices that you lionize are like someone in WWII trumpeting the virtues of the noble battlefield horse.
While ANet has never issued a concept statement rescinding the pre-launch “Is it fun?” concept blog, if you look at their actions, they’ve apparently discovered that GW2 is no more immune to the need to keep players engaged than any other MMO. We’ve seen numerous complaints about “grind” in relation to acquiring a great many of the game’s rewards. We’ve also seen numerous incidents of content-specific rewards. In armor alone, we saw Dungeons Skins right at launch, Glorious in PvP, and Carapace/Luminescent in SW. Apparently, ANet believes that creating incentives to play all kinds of content if you want all the rewards they throw into the game is a good way to extend the life of the game.
So, are raids and the exclusive rewards tied to them good for the game or not? Well, that’s going to come down to numbers, as in how many do they attract and keep versus how many will stop playing because of them. It’s a pity none of us have those numbers.
Disambiguation:
- “Legendary weapons are cancelled.”
- “ANet is legally at fault/engaged in false advertising.”
Actually, the production of new Legendary Weapons has been suspended indefinitely. Legally, this is a postponement, not a cancellation. There was no promised delivery date, so there is no false advertising unless/until ANet declares them cancelled.
Opinion:
- The indefinite postponement of L. Weapons 2.0 25% of the way through the delivery process is not a legal issue, but it is a good faith issue. Despite what I typed in the Disambiguation portion of this post, people are perceiving that they’ve been left holding the bag. Player perceptions are a factor in player decisions to continue supporting the company.
- Mr. O’Brien stated that he was aware people would be upset. Taking the action anyway suggests that he believes drastic action is needed. What we don’t know is why. I believe, though, that the Q1 2016 NCSoft financials report might be instructive. Of course, it might not.
- Moving 6 developers off this project onto other projects is not going to have a huge impact on those other projects. It’s more likely that the process of producing L. Weapons has been deemed to be taking way more time/effort than it ought.
- If so, it’s likely the “legendary journeys” methodology that is at fault. Under this hypothesis, L. weapon production might resume at a later date once they’ve: gotten back into more regular content updates (if that happens); and after they’ve had a chance to come up with a new methodology to replace the journeys that can be accomplished without taking so long.
I never understood why MMORPG developers felt they were required to lock ‘rewards’ behind different content. Forcing someone to have to play content they do not enjoy to get a specific reward is insulting, to the players and to the designers of that content. People should want to take part in the content you designed because it is fun and they enjoy taking part in that content, not because you tied a highly desired item to completing that content umpteen thousand times. Even if one does not enjoy that content, they are required to take part in it a ridiculous amount if they want the shiny. What does that say about the content then, where what seems to be the main reason people are even playing it is because it is required if they want the shiny, not because it is fun. That’s … pretty sad, and disappointing.
I think games should be fun and an enjoyable way to spend one’s time. Locking aesthetics behind hours upon hours of grinding content that some may not enjoy is not something I agree with, or support. Then again, perhaps I am the only one that feels this way, and that’s cool – it’s just my opinion.
Why do developers do this? Two reasons:
Players demand rewards. They’re used to getting stuff by completing content. Originally, the idea of “killing things and taking their stuff” derives from the real world, all the way back to prehistory. In fantasy games, it started with the original Dungeons and Dragons game. From that root, getting better stuff by killing monsters grew into MMO’s. ANet just took revised the “better numbers” aspect from that equation.
Rewards keep people playing content long after the “new content smell” is gone. If content longevity depended on the “fun” aspect of the content, very little content would be repeated for very long. Once a player has experienced the content enough times (which will vary for different people), that content no longer stimulates the production of chemicals that are produced when humans experience something challenging or novel. That chemical reaction is closely aligned with the experience of “fun.” So, fun (for a lot of people, anyway, there’s always exceptions) only keeps content alive so long.
The problem with that is two-fold. Many MMO players play a lot. This means they burn through that “new” feeling sooner. Even those who play less tend to burn through that feeling faster than developers can generate new content. Now, add in that the monetizing for MMO’s is based on player longevity. This is so whether that’s via a sub, or via a shop. If they don’t play, they aren’t gonna pay.
Racial skills being weak are, I believe, an artifact of ANet being burned in the original game by the Ursan skill. Unfortunately, ANet’s idea of “balance” seems to be “nerf it into the ground,” rather than the "minor tweaks’ they’ve talked about. Racial skills in GW2 are not just slightly weaker, they are inferior to the point that anyone remotely interested in efficiency just forgets they exist. There’s a rather large range between “not better than” and “stinks.” Unfortunately, racial skills fall close to, if not near the bottom of, the latter category.
I did not enjoy the bonus mission pack in GW. Frankly, it was one of only a very few things in the original game I did not enjoy. Why? The same reason I have no interest in “Adventures” in HoT. If I am playing GW2, I want to use my usual skill bar, not some other skill bar specific to that content, never to be used anywhere else.
So, no, I would not purchase a bonus mission pack for GW2 like the one from GW.
We should remove loot all together, because it’ll eventually lose value.
That would be silly. Of course, I didn’t say that, so I don’t know what you’re on about.
It’s a pretty lame criticism, because other more loot RPGs manage to achieve a higher balance between making the character feel rewarded from loot drops with the inevitability of characters grinding out the system.
Yes, a lot of other games have different loot schemes, and some find those more rewarding. Personally, I don’t find any MMO loot schemes — including this one — to be rewarding, but that’s me.
The thing is, ANet is not going to completely revise their loot scheme at this point. They’d have to remake so many parts of the game, they might be better off making a new MMO instead. So, we’re stuck with the one they’re using, although they may make minor modifications from time to time.
This game gives very many drops to very many players. The items that have value have that value because they’re rare. If they dropped more often, they’d drop more often in general. With greater supply, and decreased demand (more people are getting them, so no need to buy), the prices would drop. That is neither lame, nor a criticism. It is the way supply and demand works.
If valuable loot were to drop more frequently for you, it would in all likelihood have to drop more frequently in general. Such drops would then stop being quite so valuable.
Legendaries are for people that want to pursue their goals while playing relatively normally.
Actually Legendary Armour is for people who raid, they can play normally or abnormally and relative to anything you want but they must raid.
Hope that clears up your misconception.
Legendary Armour is a reward for raiding, you stating anything else is just incorrect, you stating anet had intentions other than it being reward for raiding is also incorrect.
You want it, raid.
Can you not see that the problem is that L. Armor was talked about long before there were raids, that this meant players developed expectations and that ANet changed course?
Look at you trying to be sneaky, “L.Armour was talked about long before there were raids,” yes talked about by players, not Anet.
The first time they mentioned L Armour coming into game was when they revealed Raids with Legendary Armour as the reward.
Anet have never changed course on this because they never set a course (at least no public course that you or I could comment on) before they announced Raids + L Armour Reward.
Want the Armour go do the Raid (seriously guys they’ve nerf’d it loads…)
Not what I remember.
At this point all I can find is the 2013 blog where they first talked about precursors. They also mentioned “new types of legendary gear.” Since weapons were already out, “types” (plural) could only be back pieces and armor. L. Trinkets? It would have been stupid to make Legendary versions of trinkets, since L. items are meant to be prestige skins, and trinkets don’t affect appearance.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/looking-ahead-guild-wars-2-in-2013/
Pretty thin? Maybe, but MMO fans will make something out of nothing, why not something out of not much? People have developed expectations based on less.
For me? Someone would have to pay me a bunch of money to raid, here or in any other game. Now, I’m fine with L. Armor as a raid reward. However, I can see how people who don’t want to raid can have an expectation that they have some other means to chase the game’s biggest carrot.
All right, thanks for the info. I think this settles one thing regarding ANet’s direction…
For the foreseeable future, even if there’s an easier mode for raid, player will NOT be able to get Legendary armor from that mode. (note: this is ANet’s current consideration/plan/design, not mine)
A short summary of how I get to that conclusion:
Basically anet see “clear the raid” as the requirement for getting legendary armor, NOT “grind the raid”. If Anet saw “grind the raid” as the requirement, if they make easier mode, they can simply make it so the requirement is either “grind the normal raid” OR “grind the easier raid longer”. But since the requirement is “clearing”, even if there’s an easier mode, the requirement can only be “clear the normal raid”, since there’s no equivalent of that requirement on easy mode.
What prevents them choosing “clear hard raid” or “Grind easy raid,” exactly? Easy mode is theoretical at best, but the way they assign rewards need not be the same.
I…can’t believe anyone is actually trying to argue about whether or not ANet actually announced a full set of 16 weapons and used that announcement as a selling point for HoT. Talk about arguing in bad faith.
This is cut and dry. They said, in essence, “Here is what we will be delivering in this expansion”, they took money for said expansion, and then they declined to deliver what they said they were going to.
Given ANet’s insistence over the years that they never discuss content until they are 100% certain it is deliverable, it was entirely reasonable for people to expect the delivery of the entire new set of legendary weapons.
Arguing anything to the contrary is an argument supporting unethical behavior, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.
To be fair, min, they’ve “postponed indefinitely.” That means that they have not failed to deliver, they’ve just increased the intervals between releases by an indeterminate number. I’m pretty sure that means they aren’t legally at risk. I’m also pretty sure that they have a lawyer on staff or on call who vetted this process, or that the clause in the ToU/UA which states that game conditions may change covers their butts.
What they have also done is disappointed yet another segment of their player-base. Just like they’ve disappointed lots of other segments of said player-base. What remains to be seen is how many remain in their corner.
Legendaries are for people that want to pursue their goals while playing relatively normally.
Actually Legendary Armour is for people who raid, they can play normally or abnormally and relative to anything you want but they must raid.
Hope that clears up your misconception.
Legendary Armour is a reward for raiding, you stating anything else is just incorrect, you stating anet had intentions other than it being reward for raiding is also incorrect.
You want it, raid.
Can you not see that the problem is that L. Armor was talked about long before there were raids, that this meant players developed expectations and that ANet changed course? Sure, that’s how it is now. I wouldn’t be so sure it will stay that way if I were you. Over the course of the game, a lot of people have been certain that ANet would stay the course with whatever iteration of whatever they were talking about at the time, and ANet has changed course. Raids, for instance.
I guess good thing there’s no gear treadmill in Guild wars 2?
Pursuit of L. Items (and other skins) was designed to replace it.
And I think you’re overstating legendaries as the end game goal. It’s certainly not for me. And given that anet halted development on new legendaries, my guess is that it’s not for a large part of the player base, either.
Really? I see tons of L. weapons all the time. What other, ongoing, endgame goals are there?
And I’m not sure I understand your argument about tying legendary armor to a new game mode. Both are new. This argument would make more sense if you were talking about legendary weapons, since there was already an established method to acquire those.
L. Armor was touted by ANet long ago. If ANet mentions it, someone is going to want it. This was long before raids were even considered. It’s part of human nature to develop expectations. No one at that time expected L. Armor to require raids, because ANet’s position then was that there would be no raids.
In the end, this may boil down to a value judgment. I personally don’t view legendaries as casual, given the amount of time they take to acquire. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to tie them to elite content.
Responses in italics.
You’re referring to casual as a time-based term. While it can be, it does not have to be. There are casuals by inclination (i.e., not interested in elite content) who play way more than some elite players.
The bottom line is that there is a perceived dearth of reward in GW2, just as there is a perceived dearth of content. ANet has realized they cannot keep up with demand while also providing content for diverse interests, so they started using carrots to entice people into content they don’t normally play. Some people don’t like that.
Me? I don’t care for L. items either. The weapons are mostly too much kitsch. However, I do see both sides of the argument.
There are plenty of other vanity items in the game to shoot for, why single out legendaries?
Good question. The likely answer:
- L. items have been, from launch, the main endgame goal.
- ANet has been slow to add other endgame goals that have similar acquisition times. One reason for this is that anytime they try, there are tons of forum posts complaining about grind, takes too long, etc. The other reason is that ANet takes a long time to produce anything — or so it seems.
- A lot of the other goals the game offers (Achievement hunting, for example) are generally not mutually exclusive with L. pursuit — until lately.
Three is especially likely to be a main factor.
These points are well-taken. I’m still not sure they justify this hubbub over legendary armor. But we are moving closer into value judgement territory.
Regarding 1 – Legendaries are a endgame goal, certainly. In that they are generally goals for players who’ve completed the vast majority of content. I’m not sure that it’s the end game goal. Speaking for myself, while I do have 4 legendary weapons, I’ve stopped acquiring more. Mainly because I don’t like the other skins (old legendaries), or don’t want to grind the HOT maps to get them (new legendary staff).
Raids are also an endgame goal. I’m not sure I see the problem in tying two end game goals together.
Regarding 2 – This seems like a lose lose for anet. Make new legendaries account bound? Complaints that you need to do X to get the legendary. Make them sellable? Complaints that legendaries lose their prestige value, because TP flippers or credit card heroes can achieve them. (For the record, I’m ok with sellable legendaries, because they’ll give gold to people who like raids but don’t really value legendaries, and/or it’ll support anet through gem to gold conversions.)
I’ll also note that the current complaints seem similar to #2, as people complaining that they can’t get legendaries because they don’t have the time/skill.
And to say that HOT has no other meaningful end game goals seems a bit like hyperbole to me. There’s the specialization collections, the HOT map collections, the new legendaries, the precursor collections, etc. Legendary armor is not the only end game goal.
Regarding 3 – I think the main reason they were non exclusive is because gold was a high percentage of the legendary cost. So you could just buy the precursor, buy the t6 materials. But now, legendaries are account bound, so that’s a no-go (at least for the precursor). I don’t think an alternate method of acquisition would solve this problem, since someone would always be unhappy to do X to get the legendary.
The problem with other endgame goals that Anet has thrown in from time to time is that the massive complaints about grind keep them from making these collections the equivalent of building a L. item. Thus, the staying power of the goals is less. That’s why I say that L. items are the endgame goal. Sure, there are other goals, but they seem more like secondary stuff rather than the real deal. Like Achievements in WoW, which took a back seat to the raid/gear treadmill.
The problem that some people are having with tying L. Armor to raids is that they’ve been waiting for that goal for nearly 3 years (since it was first hinted at), and now find it’s tied to a game mode that didn’t even exist when they started wanting it.
Because it’s not work? I have enough of this in RL already, don’t need to repeat it in a kitten game.
See there is different opinions on the subject. Some people like that a game push them to put effort. They find that rewarding. They have good feeling when it happen. The effort they put in earning those item, grant value to those item. It’s like that in life and it’s like that in video game too. So we ask that from our games.
Other people don’t like that and it’s their opinion and they can ask that from their games too. Both side ask mutually exclusive stuff and the company need to take a decision in which side they prefer to go.
There is no right or wrong answer there. Just different players having different taste.
ANet has obviously come to this conclusion also. Thus, we have content for those who want hard, and content for those who want easier. The problem comes in when someone wants all of the game’s content for themselves, and who think that they need access to rewards aimed at a different group.
2 years ago was the last time. Times passed. Years passed. Multiple requests are made that Sab get released and it’s always one day, some day but not today.
When is it released? It’s released after they admit they are so shorthand that they have to pull Devs off a heavily advertised feature of the first expansion. It’s interesting that they are so short handed that they had to pull people off the crafting but not so short handed that they had the manpower to update and debug a feature that is guaranteed to make many forget about that announcement and reduce their anger, and release it 5 days after the announcement, after a 2 years abscence.
I don’t think the L. team was disbanded and re-purposed because ANet was short-handed. I think the re-purposing is a cost-effectiveness move. I think it was taking way too much time and effort to add the collections. This is possibly because the old code is a mess, that those who wrote it are no longer there, that it is poorly annotated, etc. The telling point is the statement that the L. team could “take years” to complete that project. There often comes a time when a businessman has to say, “This is costing more than it’s worth. We need a new plan.”
If SAB is live now, what are the odds that it was ready — or almost ready — before Mr. Johanson left and before the decision to postpone L. weapons (indefinitely) was made?
What if the plan is to rethink the process of getting L. items once the process of adding content/XPac’s regularly is more under control? What if they would like to replace the Precursor collections with a more manageable process while also avoiding RNG drops — which have been reviled for years? Based on the communications policy, which Mr. O’Brien has reiterated recently, they aren’t going to say anything about that until they know what they’ll do.
Why do I think this is possible? L. items represent too much of the game’s endgame goals to be abandoned permanently.
Am I going to bet? No, this is ANet. However, since this is ANet, it’s virtually guaranteed that there’s something going on that we don’t know about.
There are plenty of other vanity items in the game to shoot for, why single out legendaries?
Good question. The likely answer:
- L. items have been, from launch, the main endgame goal.
- ANet has been slow to add other endgame goals that have similar acquisition times. One reason for this is that anytime they try, there are tons of forum posts complaining about grind, takes too long, etc. The other reason is that ANet takes a long time to produce anything — or so it seems.
- A lot of the other goals the game offers (Achievement hunting, for example) are generally not mutually exclusive with L. pursuit — until lately.
Three is especially likely to be a main factor.