Guild Wars 2

Lewis Burnell.2493:

A lot of the Lich skills are amazing – people just don’t use then. The AOE knockback/chill is brilliant

Brilliant for what?

Galk the Bloody.4629:

Bob would have been a good name

My Flesh Golem is already called Bob.

Doon.2364:

Hunter sounds WoW-ish. This is Guildwars, so the name should be DragonRanger.

Yeah, but it is still a guardian, and guardians are powerful.

So I think it should be Power Ranger instead.

I don’t think this is a high concept at all. It’s pretty simple, and not very clever or original as a name. It also sounds silly, when every player in Tyria is hunting dragons.

I’m sure they are fine with their characters being used in fan fiction. After all, isn’t that the point of fan fiction?

Thanks Jon for the explanation, but I still think it is a terrible name.

deSade.9437:

You say they test content. Good. Explain to me how could they possibly NOT SEE that there was a freaking CHECKPOINT NOT WORKING in the thaum fractal? You telling me they never, not once, died and had to ress back? Is that to be called testing? How could they NOT NOTICE that a freaking WAYPOINT in ac was OUT OF THE MAP? That was visibile from the get go, from the beginning of the dungeon. You just had to look.
Ahhh, you know what? Whatever. Bugs aren’t the biggest problem. HoT sinking like a pirate ship after a cannon fight is.

It probably was working just fine. Then the test team discovered a bug, so that bug got fixed, which broke the checkpoint by accident, and then they didn’t test it again.

This happens quite often with bug fixing. A fix can always break something else. Of course it is good practice to also test thoroughly after implementing a fix, but tight deadlines often do not allow for it.

I think it’s more a problem of unreasonably tight deadlines, that make it impossible to give content the amount of testing it deserves.

Sankofa Jimiyu.1567:

Harrier

Then I also want a new VTOL trait.

How about the name: BetterRanger

I’d be in favor of removing fall damage traits, and just replacing them with useful traits.

Shiki.7148:

I’m still baffled how one can kitten up a simple “npc please attack X” script.

Considering the fact that the entire in-combat detection in GW2 is not reliable, I’m not surprised that minions don’t have a reliable engage or disengage.

The Centurion.
The Vanguard.
The Legionnaire.

Roe.3679:

Guardians have great roles, so they gave it something funky and new. We have bad roles, so necro specialization could be awesome.

Or more likely, it could be terrible. Yeah, I’m pretty much a pessimist nowadays.

Roe.3679:

I was hoping they would go over a specialization from a really strong class to see how it is. Dragon hunter doesn’t impress me but it seems interesting, which is a good sign for us. It means weak classes should get good specializations and strong classes may not.

My worry comes from the fact that since release Anet has always seemed very interested with the guardian as a class, and not the least bit interested in the necromancer (which is why they always skip over the necro quickly in podcasts). So if this is what they give one of their favorites, what horrible fate awaits the most neglected class in the game?

Dante.1763:

I personally love everything about it, besides the name…it doesnt fit really, Warden would be better!

Warden is a good name too.

But we already had wardens in GW1 (as enemies), and they would probably want to avoid any such connections.

Dragonhunter is a pretty poor name. Maybe Centurion? Or Sentry? Legionnaire? Something guardian-like?

If this is what the guardian is getting, we are probably getting something much MUCH worse. So I’m not laughing.

Roseblood.6793:

I know some of my recommendations aren’t THE solution, but some of them would promote the use of something other than zerker gear. I would love to see the other gears used as much in the game as the rest.

“A” suggestion, is always better than “no” suggestion. I’m simply discussing your ideas because I want to expand on them. Which I think is better for discussion than all the nay sayers.

One of the things I really wonder about is how zerkers are any different from people who pack heavy defense. I know they have a statistical difference. But from a mechanical point of view, what is the advantage of having more defense against damage while dealing little of it yourself, when you could also be taking no damage while dealing a lot of damage? Mechanically, it doesn’t seem like there is a trade off here. One is objectively better than the other.

NikeEU.7690:

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy whereby one criticize san idea by attacking the person presenting it in order to discredit the idea. My correction of your (probably) willful misinformation doesn’t fit that description.

There is no wilful misinformation on my part.

You are attacking me as a person, not addressing the argument. In fact, you go out of your way to derail the discussion into personal attacks, based on false presumptions about me.

The Shield of Courage is a fitting skill for the guardian. The idea of shielding allies, and requiring some clever positioning. Only, this class seems to want to turn the guardian into a backline support class, which seems contradicting.

Signet of Vampirism

dlonie.6547:

There are a lot of skill lines available (any class can use any weapon, plus there are three class-specific skill lines and several guild related ones),

Would you say that there is more depth to the skill trees than in GW2? (I have never played ESO myself)

Yeah, it was kind of a dodge. Thats how these interviews usually go.

NikeEU.7690:

“zerker” isn’t a build, it’s a gear prefix denoting a specific stat combination. All of the so-called zerker builds you see on metabattle can and are run with any prefix you want to run them with. For a game designer I’m surprised this aspect of the game’s design eluded you.

Are you done with your ad hominems yet? Because I still have a pedicure today.

It was during his Heart of Thorns interview, where he squeezed in a question about whether we can expect any improvements to the necromancer minion AI.

At 21:20.

Angry Joe asked specifically if we can expect any improvements to minion ai, because without that any new WvW modes may not work out.

Colin says that they are working on improving general ai for HoT. So that includes pvp, allies in strongholds in WvW, and especially PVE ai. I’ll reserve judgement till I actually see it. During these interviews they tend to answer “yes” or “maybe”, to just about any critical question.

dlonie.6547:

It seems the game industry in general tends to chew their people up and spit them out when they’re finished with them, which is quite unfortunate :-(

Yup, welcome to the game industry.

There’s also reviews that describe how Anet would often just divide teams into smaller teams, with no clear indication what everyone’s position is, and who reports to whom. So suddenly seniors have to report to lower level employees for a particular project. Also, a lot of shuffling around of teams, and people being pulled off projects, to work on something different. This is a phenomenon that I’ve experienced myself in a game company once, it is very recognizable, and it doesn’t work.

Has anyone seen my stapler?

deSade.9437:

Well, it’s a highly competitive industry. Competitive=brings out the mean, the petty, sometimes the downright cruel parts of men.
Nothing scares me more than a competitive, goal-oriented, overachieving person. OR firm. Or industry. Whatever, you got me.

It’s mostly just general producer/ceo/manager office politics and experimentation. It can be very frustrating for employees, who just want a stable environment where they are paid the industry standard (so they can pay their rent) and work on the same thing consistently, with the same leads and same colleagues.

There’s also a review that describes that they got a brand new PS4 for Christmas, while they were struggling to pay their rent with the wages they got. So they had to sell the PS4 to pay the rent. That is a clear sign of a CEO out of touch with its employees.

Vargamonth.2047:

As an open world content with scaling events, it would be nothing but, as you pointed, another Dry Top, which is now again all about organization and doesn’t provide any challenge gameplay wise.
An instanced Dry Top for, lets say, 8 players; that’s something I would love to see :P

I don’t disagree with anything you just said. I think that frankly both could work. 8 players is a bit small for a party though. For an elite area I’d love to see groups of 12 people. This is also manageable for most guild groups.

dlonie.6547:

The devs are probably as frustrated as we are about the policies and direction ArenaNet has taken in the last couple years (and if glassdoor is to be trusted, they definitely are).

Probably. Although keep in mind that Glassdoor has reviews of ex employees, who don’t usually leave positive reviews in general. Then again, they do all seem to agree on the same criticism.

terminatorkobold.6031:

Imagine if it was really explorable and if the dungeon path were due to way you really choose in the maze rather than to a railroaded scenario you pick at the beginning. Bosses would be at their place because they dwell there, you could kill them, stealth around them (without loot of course) orlure them to another faction (yay troll fighting Kohler).
You could have skippable mobs, unskippable ones, JP for shortcuts etc.
Players could choose to do all bosses, just some of them, only the last boss in whichever order they want. They could come back to some boss or whatever they want untill they choose to leave. As rewards you could have boss chests, random chests mob drops…

It would be so much fun as long as you can agree with your group on the run you want to do. My dream dungeon. To bad they changed their mind at the end as i think that is what they envisionned in the early days of developement.

I agree completely. This would be so much fun. You could have short runs where you kill only one boss, or long runs where you try to kill all bosses.

Additionally, I would give each boss one unique drop, and increase the chances of rare loot for each boss that the players kill. So they could save the boss with their intended reward for last. The more bosses they kill in the dungeon, the better the loot gets.

There’s some other stuff that could be done of course. There’s the encounter design, but also the obstacles in the dungeon itself. There’s not enough switches, gates, puzzles, traps, and interesting rooms to keep it interesting. Some randomized keys and locked doors would add a lot in this respect, plus randomized bonus chests that encourage exploration.

You could still skip to a particular boss if you want, but the alternative would at least be encouraged.

TheRandomGuy.7246:

Evapor.6849:

Id like someone to draw me the infamous table, it must be a big table or would it be like a really small stool? When colin talks about the table my mind is boggled, what the kitten is actually on the table. Perhaps goku could draw us a picture.

https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/185736/1373683132446.gif

Glorious!

But the downed state itself is horrible. It has zero survivability. So they want to make our downed state even more rubbish? I think Anet has a totally different view of the necro than the players that play the class.

Roseblood.6793:

I have a few suggestions for dungeons that would promote more diverse builds than the current zerker meta.
1. A boss that is immune to direct damage but take twice the condi damage. (perhaps in combination with a boss that is immune to condis).

It would probably be better to suggest bosses that have phases where they could become immune to either, for a limited time. One of the strengths of conditions, is their long duration, so they can keep ticking, even if the boss is out of range, or invulnerable. Bosses could also demand that players time their burst damage, to take advantage of the moment when they are vulnerable again.

This way there’s a moment when you want condition damage, and a moment when you want DPS, and both have a role in the same battle. Lastly, you’d want to find a role for support and control.

Roseblood.6793:

l2. Some rooms applying so many conditions and strips so many boons that a designated support class is needed to keep the party alive. (This’d kill necros though…)

Rooms that affect game mechanics are interesting. Not sure if I would want to go the required support class route though. I prefer options.

Roseblood.6793:

I3. A boss that has an AoE hard hitting move (unavoidable) that would down any player without Vitality or Toughness in 1 move.

That seems a bit binary. I think it would be better to scale up the effectiveness of vitality and toughness. Currently there is not much of a difference between someone fighting a boss in zerker gear, and someone fighting a boss in toughness gear, apart from the raw numbers they put out. They are just about as squishy. So that seems to be a problem that deserves being addressed. The goal should not be to completely eliminate squishy high damage builds, but to open up the options.

Roseblood.6793:

I4. A boss that has hard hitting moves for immobile players? (much like some vine attacks in SW, but more potent)

Why do you think this would be a good idea?

Roseblood.6793:

I5. A boss that drains Endurance, forcing players to take a hit from time to time.

This seems to pidgeonhole players once again into speccing toughness, while also hitting classes with the least amount of endurance the hardest.

Roseblood.6793:

I6. A boss that takes damage from healing, a zombie of some kind.

Could be fun, but kind of gimmicky.

Roseblood.6793:

IThere is so much potential that could end the Zerker meta, so many ways dungeons could become more fun and rewarding, but instead we’re mostly given champions with a bit more HP.

The goal should not be to end zerker builds, but to open up the meta to other builds.

Another thing we need is a downed state that isn’t completely rubbish. When other classes are allowed to stealth, revive, or even move while downed. Then our downed state seems absurdly bad.

Heck, this problem has gotten so out of hand, that even Angry Joe brought it up in an interview. Ouch, that has got to be embarrassing.

I’m totally on Bhawbs side with this. They don’t need to redo our entire class. They just need to start fixing all the imbalances that we’ve listed many times before. And minion AI is but one tiny aspect of our class. Sorting out Deathshroud, and providing us with invulnerability like all other classes, seems far more important to me.

Well some dungeons do seem like they were originally intended to be large explorable mazes. Takes AC for example. If the paths weren’t there, and all the arbitrary blockades were removed, you’d just have one very large dungeon. But its like they made a last minute decision to split all dungeons into paths.

I’m totally in favor of a fractal like system for all dungeons. That would instantly provide a more accessible difficulty curve, while also providing that much sought after challenge at higher levels.

pdavis.8031:

Although I am still confused as to how this whole thing came about, and what it has to do with players stacking or not…

I don’t know. I’m not the one who brought it up.

But bringing this back on topic. I believe that game designers are responsible for how players play their content. They are after all responsible for designing the game play. And I think any decent game designer would take responsibility for any emergent game play, such as all the stacking and speed running.

Thaddeus.4891:

Not really the same thing.
Game designer is usually not a job, but a position. People go to school and start in animation, graphic design, game art & design, programing, etc.

Incorrect. There are courses for game design specifically, and you can get a degree in game design. It is most definitely a job.

Thaddeus.4891:

As a game designer you need to use your imagination to create interesting design. School can give you tools and experience will help you to learn from past mistake. But overall, anyone can come up with good game design idea.

No. That is an insulting over simplification of what game design is. There is a lot more to it than that.

Thaddeus.4891:

Everybody want to be a game designer. But usually, game designer are programmer, animator, artist, graphic designer, etc that receive a game design role at their job.

Completely false in every way possible. There are many people who study specifically to become a game designer. In the process they have to learn about all other facets of game development, but that doesn’t mean that a graphic designer is automatically suited to be a game designer. Just like someone who makes a nice drawing of Lara Croft isn’t automatically an artist.

LeVi tHe sHaRK.7128:

I don’t accept that dungeons are less ‘interesting’ than world bosses. I’m also struggling to accept that fractals are more popular or played more frequently than dungeons, but I have no evidence to support my intuition on that.

We have to be careful not to confuse popularity, or replayability, with quality.

But to return to the OP’s original point. I think the game needs easier AND harder dungeon content. And it’s not merely a case of popularity (what do the most players ask for). Because the hardest elite areas will always be played by a comparative small sample of players. That should not be an argument against its inclusion.

spoj.9672:

Claiming you are a designer to try and justify your ideas as superior just makes you look like an idiot. Good ideas stand on their own.

Grumble, not something I did at all. Read back. I merely explained why a particular point of view lies close to my heart.

maha.7902:

this thread is literally just mad queen frothing at the mouth and a bunch of handlers trying to put her down.

move on everyone, let her froth in peace.

It takes a little more to have me frothing at the mouth. An Adam Sandler movie might do the trick.

spoj.9672:

Even an employed game designer isnt necessarily better at designing content than your average invested intelligent player.

Even a professional surgeon isn’t necessarily better at performing surgery than your average invested intelligent patient.

You know if that were true, no game company would care about degrees in game design, or work experience in the game industry.

I agree that the current scaling mechanics are probably not enough to provide challenging content (at least not of the level that some of us want to see)… so maybe that is what needs to be improved? Improve the scaling itself.

Maybe, instead of thinking how dungeons could possibly work with multiple players right now, the designers should ask themselves what is needed to make that work, and add that? Because I don’t think it is impossible at all.

Also, take the Underworld in GW1 for example. You have multiple quests, which all need to be completed to gain access to the final boss. In GW2 the mobs that spawn during those quests, could scale based on the number of players, and they could be made repeatable, just as normal dynamic events are. Much like with Drytop, all players work together towards overall map progress, until the final boss unlocks.. If they fail, they lose all progress and are booted from the zone. If they succeed, their quest progress still resets, but they get to loot the end chest.

To make this challenging, you could spawn different instances for the final boss battle, and only allow players inside if all quests in the zone have been completed.

Or like with the marionette battle, divide the players into smaller groups, all fighting the same boss at the same time.

This would create an open world dungeon, rather than a linear one. Quests can be completed in any order, and retried with intervals. And it can still be challenging.

EcoRI.9273:

I honestly don’t see how you, Mad Queen, are addressing the problem. All I read is you stating a problem, you wanting a solution to your desired goal and you talking about how you are a game designer.

I’m not talking about that at all. I merely explained my interest in one particular question. I really don’t see why you make such a big deal out of it. We all have jobs (well most of us anyway).

EcoRI.9273:

and not only that your one worded solutions only caters to how you want the game to be played which is clear all mobs.

This shows that you haven’t paid much attention to what I wrote at all. You probably just quickly skipped over all that text.

EcoRI.9273:

So your one worded answer just happened to alienate a good percentage of the players that play dungeons. As a game designer you have to accept that some people ACTUALLY love to skip and find it fun and some love to clear everything.

You paid ZERO attention to anything I said.

Vargamonth.2047:

Having a private playground might look somewhat out of place in GW2, but it’s a MUST for challenging content to exist.

That seems like a bizarre statement to me, regarding a game that advertizes itself with dynamically scaling events, and which already features large scale challenging content.

deSade.9437:

I can’t figure out one single good way to make challenging open world work. Not one. The marionette was so heavily hated on by all the kittenlords whining because unable to 5man a single champion;

And also loved by many. I was in there every day, leading one of the lanes on Aurora Glade.

deSade.9437:

single-player simil-instances à la Liadri caused an uproar of PHIWs because they couldn’t get the mini by defeating one single boss with a low hp pool;

The problem with Liadri was a lot more complicated than that. People complained about how some classes were clearly at a severe disadvantage, and how having a solo battle right above massive zergs, was not good for performance. There were also severe camera issues, due to the way players were boxed in inside a dome.

I don’t agree that the dungeons are too hard. I think they lack a proper difficulty curve. Anet decided to introduce each dungeon at a specific level. This implies that you start easy, and gradually get more complicated dungeons. While Arah is clearly among the most difficult, AC is far from the easiest dungeon.

I don’t think the meta is the reason for lower dungeon popularity, but I think it is a side effect of bad dungeon design. When there’s very little reason to replay a dungeon, it all comes down to repetition for the end rewards.

If the experience in itself was more entertaining, and felt more rewarding, people would probably be less inclined to skip everything. Dungeons were very popular in GW1, despite the game initially having only 2 elite areas. Speed clearing didn’t even become a thing until much much later. I think this had very little to do with the difficulty. The elite areas were just fun to do, and very rewarding. FoW and UW dropped very valuable crafting materials, and allowed players to craft an elite armor set. Perhaps this is why they added Domain of Anguish much later, which was the hardest elite area in the game.

A lot of work clearly went into UW, FoW and DOA. I cannot say the same about the dungeons in GW2. They feel sloppy, unfinished and rushed. They feel like the result of meeting tight deadlines. Compare this to something like Fractals, and you notice that Fractals is clearly far more polished.

Vargamonth.2047:

I can’t figure how they could make truly challenging content without using instances or another form of player isolation.

That is probably what the designers thought as well.

This is an interesting problem. In GW1 we had 8-man parties, and then when you entered a dungeon, you also had 8-man parties (except for The Deep and Urgoz, which were 12 man). It was pretty consistent.

In GW2 everything is open world, yet when it comes to dungeons, all of a sudden it is back to the old formula. That is inconsistent.

I can’t help but wonder what a dungeon could look like if it wasn’t inconsistent with the general PVE design philosophy….?

Thaddeus.4891:

True. We don’t see it now, but the burrows in AC are a big dps gate for new players.

I agree.

Thaddeus.4891:

- Remove the bonus chest at the end and give some reward from killing mobs. Especially optional mobs.
- Don’t make skippable mobs annoying. Those chain CC on trash mobs is an horrible idea and just push ppl to skip them rather than fight them.
- Make interesting fight. Optional mobs are usually just a bunch of mobs put in your path. Nothing special or interesting about them.

Every fight should be worth the reward.

You can even put some crazy idea. Killing mobs increase a bar and the higher the bar is, the higher the reward at the end is.

I think all of these are good ideas to improve the dungeons.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

I suspect if AC wasn’t as rewarding as completing harder, higher level dungeons – most of us would leave it to those who are learning. Another couple of arah-level dungeons would be awesome.. ( something I suspect many are sick of repeating)

I’d love to see a Domain of Anguish in GW2. Something that really forces strategy on the players. And I agree that the reward should have some relation to the difficulty of a dungeon.

NikeEU.7690:

This is an extremely uncreative position. If you think its impossible to design content that is challenging and able to be be eventually speed-run you are only demonstrating the limits of your own cognition, and not talking in universals.

Lets not forget that these issues with dungeons aren’t new. GW1 had them too.

You will always have people that want to skip dungeons, and those that don’t. And that causes conflicts. I don’t think its impossible to design content that satisfies both groups. But I do think it is ill-advised, because you are opening quite a can of wurms when you try to do both at the same time. The two conflict with one another.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

its not about teaching “dungeon mechanics”

see this part of the quote:
" so new players have somewhere to actually learn what their skills do and how to play in a group setting. "

I don’t think dungeons teach this either. Fractals does perhaps, because it has a more gradual difficulty curve.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

OR we could just leave the easier dungeons that are “face-roll-capable” so new players have somewhere to actually learn what their skills do and how to play in a group setting.
While asking for more level 80 dungeon content, with suitable interesting mechanics and rewards?

Oh wait.. we already did that, but we’re still waiting. :-)

The thing is, I don’t feel that the current dungeons succeed at that either. If you consider that AC is for all intends and purposes the first dungeon that players are faced with (also level-wise), it really does a poor job at teaching the core mechanics of playing a dungeon.

Design wise, the molten facility does a much better job at slowly introducing mechanics and having a learning curve. At least, the version of it before they cut it up for Fractals. Now they have kind of ruined that flow in Molten Facility, which is a shame.

Thaddeus.4891:

Why can’t both coexist? In most game I played, I try to 100% complete it. But why can’t a speed runner be able to well speed run it? I have fun watching speed run too.

Because the two game play styles conflict. So either you split the two game modes, or you disallow one of the two. If you still allow both, then you are ultimate responsible as a game designer for the problems that arise from allowing it.

Thaddeus.4891:

Why do people need everybody to complete the content like they prefer?

That is only a one-sided approach to the real issue: Players not having fun together and being kicked for wanting to play a dungeon.

Thaddeus.4891:

And tbh I don’t mind if they change dungeon to limit a bit of skipping.

That is what gating mechanics are for.

Thaddeus.4891:

I preferred the older dungeon reward system where mobs were dropping silvers and at the end we only got the 26 silver chest with no 1 gold bonus chest. You wanted to kill mobs to get the most reward, but you could speed run through it if you wanted. They changed it because ppl were farming the mobs, but they could give a diminishing reward on the money these mob give, it’s just way easier to remove it all and give 1 bonus chest at the end.

It’s a sloppy solution. They should have encouraged fighting mobs, and exploring the dungeon. They could have had a reward that scales the more mobs you fight, so players don’t farm the first boss over and over. Or they could have had branching paths, with randomized chests and bosses (which also encourages exploration and fighting enemies).

Thaddeus.4891:

The problem, is that most people that complain about skipping propose negative reinforcement.

Then lets hear positive reinforcements.

Thaddeus.4891:

They want a infinite leash

The long leashes in GW1 worked pretty well.

Thaddeus.4891:

or put additional door that won’t open before you kill everything or stuff like that.

I’m okay with this gating mechanic, even if it feels rather artificial.

Thaddeus.4891:

But when fight give you nothing and are not fun, it’s not a good idea to force people to do those fight.

So that is why you should improve the rewards and the combat, so they are more fun.

Satenia.9025:

There is no need for me to do either. People can all have fun by forming corresponding groups and happily co-exist. How this is being done has been explained by me and others. I have no desire to further participate in a discussion where you want to limit everyone to one single approach to content (which happens to be what you favor yourself).

Unwillingness to see things from the point of view of different players. Not a good attribute for any game designer.

I never said I wanted to limit anyone to a single approach. I just said that the designers failed to succeed at their intended game play, and skipping is now running wild. What my preferred way of doing dungeons is, is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is what the game designers intended.

Satenia.9025:

The kind of behaviour the OP described in his fairy-tale or you did in yours is something I have been successfully avoiding for years.

So you are calling someone elses experience a fairytale, even when it is confirmed by yet another player? How about rather than denial, you try to address the issue with something other than “then don’t join those groups”?

Satenia.9025:

As far as I can tell from posts such as yours, you are trying too hard to be the victim.

I’m not the victim. I don’t even have a ranger character. But I see it happen to other players in my group. And I would also like for other people than myself to have fun. Perhaps you could try this mindset for the purpose of this discussion?

Artemis Thuras.8795:

How does one play a game “wrong”?
are you saying a video game designer should shepard a player into doing one exact thing?

Or multiple exact things. Game designers all do this all the time. The trick is to make sure that you do not notice that we are steering your choices.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

so.. no creativity allowed from players?

Only the illusion of creativity, unless you are playing Minecraft. There is (or should be) very little that the players come up with, that the game designer hasn’t already thought of.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

IF you are a game designer, your games sound crap.

All video games are designed with this mindset. Sorry for shattering your dream.

Iris Ng.9845:

That’s the Game Master job to regulate the game. Game Designers should only focus on bug fix and new content. No use to dive into virtual parenting.

Designing new content == designing how the content is played