I’m not sure what the correlation of “people having fun” to “people that buy gems” is. People buying gems is more likely due to feeling that they have a need for something; gold or gemstore item whether they are having fun or not. Having fun doesn’t necessarily result in a need for gold or gemstore items.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
What is the purpose of people buying gems? To get gold or buy stuff in the gemstore. Perhaps your asking the purpose of people wanting stuff in the gemstore? it appeals to them? Could be lots of reasons there.
People either exchange those gems for gold or stuff in the gemstore.
Selling gems to players.
To make money for it’s owner.
I’m not sure if that’s true or not but … what relevance does that have?
Let me get this straight so I have your story correct: Anet posts an infographic about a year ago, supposedly to claim GW2 is in a better state than the US economy and somehow, that’s an indication they are second guessing their fundamental approach to free markets and playing how you want principles of the game. Therefore, people having different amounts of gold is a problem … OK
(edited by Obtena.7952)
You’re reading into this FAR too much. They posted an infographic. They weren’t trying to suggest there was anything wrong with their conceptual model for the game by doing so.
So much wrong in this analysis.
Well Anet brought it up in the beginning of the game, so I’m not really sure what you’re saying that says about them.
I’m not sure what you are referring to but the way they have implemented the game is the reality here and it’s indicative enough to know they aren’t going to take a socialist approach to throwing loot at people because of fairness, equality or any other feel-good reason to do so. Game is structured around fundamental principles like free markets and doing what you want. Suggesting that someone having more gold than someone else creates a problem shows people don’t understand these fundamental principles.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
LAWL … gold disparity is a problem. That’s a new one.
There’s nothing new about it. It is one of the reasons Anet posted the information graph in the beginning of the game boasting the equality of the game vs the disparity of rl. Things have changed since then towards mimicking rl.
You’re right, it’s not new, it’s stupid. I’m just impressed someone has the audacity to actually bring it up. I do have to admit, it is interesting to see how far some of these socialist ideals go when discussing theoreticals in a MMO. I’m waiting for the thread that goes like this:
“Anet, please make it so whatever I want is free because it’s the only way to guarantee ‘equality’ for every player. Also, make it so I can just click to get my achievements done; it’s not politically correct to make me feel bad because someone has higher achievement score than I do. Also, give me an I WIN button for PVP so I can prevent losing; it’s not fair.”
(edited by Obtena.7952)
LAWL … gold disparity is a problem. That’s a new one.
I am not for a p2w model in any way. I am for playing the way I want to and you playing the way you want to. If I like having little boosts or whatnot that enhances my gaming experience for me, why is this wrong?
It’s not .. that’s why adding a sub to this game makes no sense. It’s not necessary to do what you are asking for.
The problem with p2p model is that it’s very easy to feel like you HAVE to play to get your value from the sub.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
The problem is that players are (mostly) not economists, ….
The real problem is that the armchair economists following the game, and worryingly John Smith seems to fall into this category as well, …
<<me loves the irony of this post>>
What should it hinge on then?
Like with the Mawdrey thing only moreso, all the requirements should involve going out and doing things in the world yourself.
That’s still accumulation of wealth. It’s not different than what you have to do to get a legendary … doing content, getting stuff. Everything in this game boils down to earning what you need to get something. You’re splitting the hairs again.
all methods that can achieve the same ends, are not interchangeable.
Every method to obtain wealth in this game is interchangeable; almost everything can be sold for gold. On the other hand, a craftable precursor method similar to Madwrey wouldn’t be. It locks you into a process you have to follow to the end result. I’m not even sure what your statement has to do with what we are talking about.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
That’s still accumulation of wealth. It’s not different than what you have to do to get a legendary … doing content, getting stuff. Everything in this game boils down to earning what you need to get something. You’re splitting the hairs again.
I’m really not. You can try to classify “running out and completing a mini-dungeon” or whatever as “accumulating wealth,” but it’s a non-generic form of it, one that actually engages you in the game world, rather than something you can do camped out in LA.
Doing content gets you ‘stuff’. Stuff you need to make, forge or buy a legendary or it’s parts. You’re indicating you want a more interactive method to get a legendary. I’m illustrating whatever method you are thinking about amounts to the same basic approach of getting stuff that we already have.
What does that have to do with the fact that there are methods to accumulate wealth you don’t consider engaging? I ‘m saying your splitting hairs because you aren’t recognizing that what you are suggesting as alternative, engaging methods to obtain a precursor is fundamentally the same as what we already have. We current do have MANY ways to get stuff … any way you prefer … to achieve whatever goal for obtaining gear you are after, including precursors.
What I get the feeling is that you want a SPECIFIC method to obtain a precursor. I’m in fact, all for that approach but I’m also aware it’s not something that fixes any problem related to legendary ownership. Our currect approach is actually the best one because it’s flexible; anything I sell for gold can go towards purchase. A "madwrey’ approach will be like … Madwrey, except alot harder with a much higher equivalent ‘value’ in time/materials to ensure any legendary crafted with it maintains it’s status.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
What should it hinge on then?
Like with the Mawdrey thing only moreso, all the requirements should involve going out and doing things in the world yourself.
That’s still accumulation of wealth. It’s not different than what you have to do to get a legendary … doing content, getting stuff. Everything in this game boils down to earning what you need to get something. You’re splitting the hairs again.
There have been extensive amounts of things that have been improved for the better even when the “status quo” worked.
There is nothing to suggest more legendaries for people would be better for the game.
A fair point, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. In this case player happiness is what leads to players spending money.
It’s not irrelevant because you have not demonstrated that happy players spend money on this game even though you claim they are. In fact, an argument could be made that happy players spend no money on this game, depending on what makes them happy or if they even need to since gold can be used to buy gemstore stuff. The fact there is no sub here is significant factor here. Many players are simply happy they can play and NOT spend money.
Without this demonstration of “happy customer = spending customer”, the claim that more people need their legendaries to be happy to keep them spending and making game successful is baseless. It’s also silly considering that even with the current legendary process, people are still spending; enough to give this game some level of success. This evidence doesn’t support your claim; it refutes it. Just don’t go there.
I’m fine with them being difficult to obtain, so long as the hinge of that difficulty is not in how much gold you have.
What should it hinge on then? You can split hairs if you like, the equivalency of ‘value’ to get something, whether it’s purchased, crafted or forged will always be maintained regardless of how you get it because the actual difficulty in getting it is completely determined by doing stuff to purchase, craft or forge one. The ability to get anything in this game is simply a matter of doing content resulting in stuff. How that stuff is transformed to get what you want is going to lead to equivalent ‘value’ being used for different methods to get the same item. In the end, it’s going to ‘cost’ the same equivalent gold to get a precursor, if not more. You don’t recognize that you could have hundreds of ways to get a precursor, but they would all be linked together in cost. It’s ALWAYS going to be about how much value you need to get one and in this game, the lowest common denominator is gold.
Could it work different? Maybe, but then again, why should it? This isn’t a social experiment, it’s a business. The status quo does more than just work … it’s part of a successful business formula. Whatever people are thinking to ‘fix’ this is always going to be more work, more risky and more destabilizing than current approach. None of those points have been addressed and none of what has been said to counter those points considers the business aspect of the game. IMO, those factors outweigh any perceived need for more people to be happy because of having a legendary.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Whilst yes, the thread shows misunderstandings regarding inflation and yes, precursor prices are what caused the thread’s creation, what I really think the thread boils down to is obtaining rewards and how so much of that is tied to money grind. Many people are sick of endlessly grinding money for nearly everything. (And I find it sad that you only took inflation/precursors away from that thread.)
Then those people should open their eyes and realize they can do things they like doing and STILL earn money doing it. If they have nothing they like doing, they shouldn’t be playing regardless if they do or don’t want money.
Right but who wouldn’t want to fun content and get rewards also.
I dont’ want to spend all my time doing boring mining, if there are way to do fun content and also get equal rewards I’ll be doing so.
Obviously it is much more difficult to design it in GW2, with limited gear tier. Other games can just spam more and more gear tier.
That depends on what your definition of rewards is. As we have already established, GW2 isn’t the game that tries to appeal to everyone. It appeals to the marketshare it has already captured; so clearly they are doing something correctly. Screwing with that endangers the marketshare it has.
So back to the same point: Is ANet willing to change their formula to appease players that want harder content at the risk of losing the ones that have made this game successful? Even if they diverted some resources to add harder content to that formula to appeal to a wider audience, I would be concerned they wouldn’t be able to have long term support for it. It’s a band aid solution.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
The realization should be, the majority of players are the ones buying gems. They, the majority, is what keep Anet in business and the game running. Just like in the real world, it is the majority that keeps things running. They matter and should be rewarded for their patronage and service.
You have no evidence or even a plausible hypothesis that shows the players buying gems are the ones that need appeasement with cheap/easy precursors. Of course, those of us that oppose changes to the current system have none that indicate the opposite either. Therefore, arguments that precursor availability can’t be made with player retention/happiness as the basis. They are nonsense.
Furthermore, even if we all agree that veterans should be rewarded, it’s a matter of opinion WHAT that reward should be. It’s not even certain what being a veteran is in this game. It’s certainly not based on when you purchased the game.
What is NOT debatable is that this game runs because people buy gems. We have no distribution linking frequency of players and number of gems purchased and we have no indication of the number of those players that do and don’t own legendaries. Therefore, again, any arguments that state more players should get legendaries because those players tend to be the ones that buy gems is nonsense.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
That’s implied by the fact I recognize it’s a spectrum. Even if there are player that care about both, it’s easy to argue they tend to care more about one than the other. Those discussions are just semantics. Point is that OP is talking about the challenge part of the spectrum more than the reward part of the spectrum.
I think this post does have a point.
Forget about gear trademill. And let’s focus on rewards, which is gold per hour in this game.
Many people could run the harder dungeons in this game, but very few people is willing to do it, because you get less gold per hour (unless you are in a super premade group).
I’m willing to run say aetherblade dungeon a few times “for fun”. But if I would have to grind gold, I obviously wont’ choose that dungeon, because you get much less gold per hour.
Those points are valid for players that don’t care about what content they do and are just after the rewards. The more applicable point is two fold:
1. If you care about endgame content and want challenge, you’re in for the adventure and less apt to QQ about rewards because simply completing is rewarding in itself.
2. If you are doing content because it’s the most rewarding, you will flip to whatever content gives the most reward at the time and less apt to QQ about content.
Those two positions are at the ends of a spectrum. Apparently, the OP is concerned that for type 1 people, the difficulty isn’t great enough. The concern isn’t about rewards as much as it is about actual challenging content.
I think it is more like GW2 give up on competing with other games, and just focus what it is good at. Because quite honestly, all this people that complain about endgame should just go play another game, for example World of Warcraft.
If I can actually play World of Warcraft (I cant’ because of IP block), I would be playing that game instead of complaining here.
I completely agree. Anet has taken whatever marketshare of players it can with their approach to the game … and apparently, it’s some level of successful. it really doesn’t make sense for them to screw with that formula at this point. That’s why I don’t think we will see more difficult encounters.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Well, It’s a bit rhetorical.
Lots of these threads don’t really get why this game is successful. It’s not because GW2 serves many different kinds of players. It serves primarily one, but very large group.
Honestly, I would love to see a hard mode on something; dungeons primarily but based on the work it would take and the ROI it would generate, I’m thinking more realistically it’s not going to happen. Frankly the bone thrown to people after harder content is high level fractals. That should be the angle people use to push for more difficult content.
All it means is that they didn’t design dungeons correctly to begin with.
If the content was fun and engaging, people would be doing it.
Yeah, no one is doing dungeons ><
the casual people is still doing dungeons.
most of the people are farming/grinding.
So people ARE doing dungeons? They are and they aren’t? I love the flippy floppy arguments people use to make their points.
All it means is that they didn’t design dungeons correctly to begin with.
If the content was fun and engaging, people would be doing it.
Yeah, no one is doing dungeons >< and the ones that are do it because they hate it and are completely disengaged.
Those benefits only reinforce why a Legendary should remain something very difficult to obtain, even if they are minor compared to Ascended weapons.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Why not? This is a game, the goal is to make as many players happy as possible.
I think your problem is that you put the cart before the horse. The GOAL of the game is to make money for Anet and it’s shareholders. This is a business. That’s not necessarily done by making as many players as happy as possible in a game with no sub. I honestly don’t think that happiness motivates players to spend money on gems. Making them feel they need something does.
The other thing that sinks that “make more players happy = gimme legendary” is the fact that the game already experiences some level of success. There is no way for you establish the need to do what you are suggesting, other than the general sense that it will make everything better to make it more successful. That’s a baseless claim.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I love this thread. Thanks. Same “I want it = make cheaper precursors” argument over and over.
That’s like building a sportscar, but it is aimed to sell to grandma’s and grandpa’s that don’t drive harder than 100km/h.
No, that’s like building an economy car for city commuting, and some people protesting that this car doesn’t allow them to drive at 200km/h. It doesn’t , because it isn’t a sports car.
No.
The standarized expectations for an economy city car is NOT to drive 200km/h.But the standarized expactations for an MMO is that is actually has something rewarding/challenging etc. to do once you hit max level.
Those expectations are only made stronger if your version 1 of the game(Guild wars 1) actually had them.
I think it’s worth noting that standardized play in MMO’s seems like a really weak reason to adopt a new game so not likely to be a goal of devs trying to make a game to take marketshare. It’s also worth noting that appealing to LCD of players makes money and appealing to smaller niche of players makes less money than that.
What I would LIKE to see is a game mode a player can select between; the standard LCD game level and another level of something harder. Still, I doubt this will happen in GW2 because they hit some sort of winning formula with the game. Appealing to the type of player you are talking about for end game strays from that winning formula.
TLDR: The business model and it’s success directs the game to ‘average’ challenge.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Why not? They’ve improved the appearance of legendary weapons in the past so why will they not improve the appearance of ascended armour (currently the best armour in the game)?
That’s a leap in logic. Legendary weapons were incomplete … clearly missing effects that people expected and Anet intended.
Ascended armors are not incomplete. I see no reason to rally for improving how they look… the game is all about skinning to get the look you want. What you don’t like, others might enjoy. Personal preference doesn’t dictate where a need for improvement is.
I am not claiming that the adjustment to drop rates for cloth will be handled this way, merely that assuming that the supply of cloth will go up when drop rates are decreased for the majority of classes might be off.
That’s fair … it’s not my assumption. My assumption is that if armor drops are linked to the distribution of light armor classes as opposed to armor types, it will go up because it’s a higher fraction (3/8 as opposed to 1/3).
As I’ve already stated, I doubt the volume impact to the economy will be significant because 1) the difference between 3/8 and 1/3 is small and 2) there are many other sources of cloth other than salvaging armor. It’s simply a QoL change for light armor users who struggle the most to craft their armors.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
We got gear progression, vertical and horizontal. People simply don’t understand that even if they get what they want, it won’t be in the way they expect it. Feels like GW2 has a high percentage of people that have never played an MMO before. They tend to feel that developers should just ebb and flow to the desires of every suggestion being made and implemented it perfect in every which way to prevent the QQ. Hard lessons here.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Tons of the suggestions given are crap frankly and again, it’s obtuse to think Anet doesn’t implement suggestions or things that players want.
How GW1 works isn’t relevant … different business model than GW2.
I didn’t say they were but arguing what is a more important priority is pretty pointless. Anet improved TP; it’s a QoL change for EVERYONE. Saying it isn’t or it’s catering only to TP barons is just stupid.
If you want to argue there are more important things that should be fixed, you go right ahead … clearly Anet makes the decisions and rightly so … they develop this game and they answer to shareholders; players do not.
In addition, this is a FEATURE patch is vs. a CONTENT patch. You might take note to understand this difference because based on your comment, you don’t.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Right. So it wasn’t broken. Its been made prettier for people who live in the trading post. fair enough. Call a spade a spade.
That’s obtuse … everyone benefits from the TP being easier to use.
It wasn’t improved because it was broken. It was improved because it could work better.
I dont think new players are mentally handicapped, though.
No, but if you haven’t noticed, this game appeals to the lowest common denominator of the MMO Gaming community.
You may say that the difference small, which is i doubt because of the way they hyped it and wasted resources on it, it is still clear that anet gave light armor classes higher chances on getting light armors. So for those who wants efficient farming, they dont really have a choice but to switch to light armor classes
That’s because you confuse the size of the change (small) with the impact it will have on the people who it matters to the most; light armor users (big). From a volume consideration, it’s not big at all … it ONLY affects armor drops and cloth is derived for more sources than this. From a impact to players, it gives a much needed boost to the class that suffers the most from Ascended armor crafting requirements. It’s hyped because QoL is going to improve with a minimal impact to economy. That’s a win.
You can still farm efficiently with non-light armor classes. The difference in farming efficiency between professions is much more significant factor than the drop differential between light and non-light classes will be …. yet generally, people currently aren’t discarding their favourite professions if they are bad farmers. IOt’s clear that behaviours for farming aren’t influenced by a significant bais … why would it for a insignificant one?
I don’t think people’s behaviour to class choice for farming will change if armor drops are linked to the class being played because it doesn’t happen NOW for more significant differences in farming choices.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
My thoughts: These guys develop games. They aren’t actors or mouth pieces for Anet. In fact, I think the tactic works on a player level; I don’t want to see someone I can’t relate to as a player give me some scripted crappola about great changes will be … I want to see the biggest gamer nerds doing that. That for me is credibility. These guys like what they do, and care about it.
Obtena.7952
I think that description is appropriate. Being patient for a change to obtain a precursor in a different manner is indicative of an unwillingness to put the effort in to do what everyone else has done to obtain one. Because of the position people have put themselves in, they think it should be different for them. Isn’t that what entitlement is? Expecting something because of position?You have to admit that what “everyone else has done” is under some scrutiny here. I mean when precursors were 100g, the amount of farming for that compared with the 1000g+ currently can’t really be considered the same or similar
To some extent they are same or similar but no you are right … it’s not completely equivalent. That’s a consequence of being ‘first off the bus’ so to speak. We probably don’t recognize it but the first people to get their precursor probably got them relatively cheap compared to what we pay now for many reasons; gold earning potential, etc… That’s expected since more people start realizing what legendaries are all about and demand increases.
Even if there is some disproportionate ‘value’ between a precursor obtained a few months into game and yesterday, the point is that people are still getting them and making legendaries with the same process.
People should stop complaining and speak with their feet. No seriously … if you don’t like the business model, just move on because it’s the only method that truly sends a message to Anet and the industry that the model isn’t what players want.
You want to argue semantics but the reality is that the game content is simply a delivery vehicle for the gemstore. Therefore, as the OP thoughlessly QQ’s about it, fails to realize it’s the only reason the game exists. That’s why his suggestions for bigger and less frequent expansions simply don’t work to do that.
The game content is a delivery vehicle for the Gem Store?
Time for a reality check.
If that seems like a crazy statement to you, you don’t get what’s going on here. Think about it … this is a BUSINESS. It’s not philanthropy that we get the opportunity to play this game. The game and it’s content is the lure to get you to buy gems. Now ask yourself if this business makes profit selling gems to players in GW2 … It must because Anet or its parent company answers to investors that expect ROI.
Okay, yes all of that makes sense mostly . . .
And yet, the phrasing “simply” in regards to the game is like saying Mass Effect was simply an attempt to get people to preorder the next game.
That’s entirely the point of a franchise as well. Get people into the first, supply a second riding on the success of the first. That’s also a strategy and in fact, it’s a strategy this game used as well.
I wouldn’t feel bad about it … remember, you have fun playing this game. Why it exists shouldn’t affect that.
I dont know if i can make that more simplier.
It would be quite the feat to over simply the situation more than you have.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
How much you earn farming is not relevant. What is relevant is how much extra cloth is introduced into the game due to this change.
Light armors have a small advantage for increased cloth salvage from armors. Any increase in income is a short term advantage until the market equalizes because of increased volume of cloth. Prices will adjust as volume increases. Increased volumes don’t tend to make mats hold their values.
Honest question here, upon what do you base your assumption that the volume of cloth will increase overall if the majority of classes in the game are having their drop tables weighted against cloth ?
Disclaimer: I do not think that the situation is as kittenome claim and hope that the drop rate adjustments across classes will find some degree of balance over time (though I really do not see it as being likely that getting more leather will do me much good over time).
My assumption is that currently, armor of every type has equal chance to drop; so if you get a armor drop, that’s a 1/3 chance to get cloth armor.
At WORST, if Anet changes so that EVERY armor drop corresponds to a players armor class, then cloth armor ‘chance’ to drop will increase from 1/3 to 3/8, because there are 3 of 8 classes of light armor type.
Now, of course that assumes everyone farms at equal rates and that there are equal numbers of farmers across all professions. That’s not true but I can’t incorporate that into my assumption, so the best assumption is equality on those factors.
Now, add into that the fact that some fraction of cloth ALSO drops from bags and salvaging rags and it’s quite easy to see (for some people) that the impact of this change is VERY small.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
And I Think you are way out of line calling it entitlement. I could call you entitled … but i don’t. see below why.
You don’t because it would be nonsense. I earned my legendary by doing what is needed without QQing about it.
Just my 2ct. I’m out.
See you in 5 more months …
How much you earn farming is not relevant. What is relevant is how much extra cloth is introduced into the game due to this change.
Light armors have a small advantage for increased cloth salvage from armors. Any increase in income is a short term advantage until the market equalizes because of increased volume of cloth. Prices will adjust as volume increases. Increased volumes don’t tend to make mats hold their values.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Each armor classes has a good farming profession.
Light armor = necro
Heavy = guardian
Medium = ranger and engineerIf you farm in CS to salvage mats for profit, these classes almost have the same gold rate per hour.
Implement the new patch and majority of the light armors (which is one of the items with high worth) will shift towards necro.
That’s a very weak assessment.
1. The shift in profit farming with a necro vs. anything else is unknown. You simply don’t know what the bias will be. We DO know bias is only on armor. We also know that armor drops aren’t the majority of loot drops.
2. There is a cost associated with leveling and outfitting a character for farming to take advantage of this bias if you don’t already have one. In fact, the ROI to level a character to take advantage of cloth bias is prohibitive. The justification to do so is not financially sound considering drops in the game.
3. Who cares if it does shift? I don’t even see why that’s bad. If people think they are going to get rich using a necro to farm the hell out of their cloth bias, let them. I think the idea that people will only use certain classes to farm this advantage to the levels being described by you are nonsense considering people aren’t doing the same thing at the same levels NOW for currently known farming advantages.
The REAL impact here is the lower tiers because those tend to be only gotten from leveling, especially T4 and even then, it’s only on the armor bias. Everyone will continue to get cloth from bags and salvaged rags. This small advantage is not worth even thinking about.
(edited by Obtena.7952)