Ideally, testing would be system testing as opposed to unit testing. I really don’t see how you could manage true player system testing in a 2 week development cycle. It seems that this will be cosmetic at best.
1) Character progression and game scaling: vertical or horizontal
2) Living Story and the 2 week development cycle
3) RNG, DR, and understanding the concept of reward in gaming
The problem is telling a story within the context of a 2 week development cycle. Anet tries to emulate a longer cycle by spreading the story among teams, and this simply compounds the problem as it leads, naturally, to a disjointed story.
Why emulate a longer cycle in an unhelpful manner? Why not just extend the development cycle to 2-3 months, give developers a chance to think through their work and tell a deeper story with more player involvement. It takes time to create and tell a good story.
Runes of the Scholar under the assumption that Leeroy will never be hit. But, you have the “rush into combat” correct.
I don’t believe the problem is the absence of the trinity, per se, but rather the absence of meaningful combat roles. That is, a sense that the encounter would not have been possible without my contribution. And, even DPS in trinity games is meaningful beyond the damage as they often have significant, unique, necessary CC to contribute.
The main argument you hear on the forums is that it is difficult to put together a trinity group. Having played a trinity game for years, it rarely took longer than GW2 (absent a working lfg tool) to put together a group. Sure, tanks and healers were insta-queued, but playing DPS the wait was seldom over 10 minutes. Across many years, queue times simply weren’t an issue.
I would say that lack of meaningful roles violates how humans go about achieving objectives in groups in anything from scavenger hunts, to sports, to brain surgery. Defining and executing roles is simply how we do it. That is, I believe, what shows up as a lack of a satisfactory experience around group combat in GW2. What GW2 reflects is the berserker battlefield where everyone simply goes for it and does what is right in their eyes. And, simple Berserking is the most primitive and least satisfying method of combat. It’s certainly not how sophisticated IRL battle is done. That’s the model (IRL) I believe will produce the most satisfying combat, and it is role-based to the max.
Condition damage does not need scaling changes or a ‘buff’—rather, it needs to be fixed. Until condition damage is managed and accounted for by player rather than by stacks on a mob, it will be broken in this game.
Weak, disjointed storytelling is a price of a one month (and now two week) development cycle. I realize that they are attempting to emulate a longer cycle by creating separate teams, but creating different teams for ostensibly one story is just adding to the problem. The solution is to bring LS into one team and then extend the development cycle to 2-3 months. This doesn’t assure a good final product, but it does allow one to be created.
I attribute most in-game behavior to game design rather than simply human nature. The best design takes human nature into account and provides incentives to the best behavior. (I’m thinking here of elements like non-competitive resource nodes and mob tagging—brilliant.) Game design can have unintended effects of course and I believe the champ train is one of those unintended effects. Can you imagine a designer intending to create them?
That said, I don’t think there is a causal relationship with the living story. If anything, they exist because the living story is not being told in a deep and meaningful way, i.e., the champ train exists in a living story vacuum. The living story is simply not providing an incentive strong enough to dethrone the champ train in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.
Agree with OP on everything except the solution—Teq should not be nerfed, ever, in any way. Anyone who could not predict the effects of Teq upon open world PvE, and this includes the whole of the development staff, does not have basic “gaming” reality testing skills. Teq should remain as an object lesson in what not to do in open world PvE. It should be studied, in all its details, to understand why it has failed. Then, ideally, it should never be repeated.
Leveling is really unnecessary and sets a bad precedent if your intention is to scale the game horizontally. I would much prefer a tutorial that equips you in terms of gear, gameplay, and story and then simply launches you onto your further adventures.
That said, I don’t look for it to disappear from this game any time soon, especially since they’ve chosen to scale the game vertically anyway.
Imagine we had a tool like Recount which gives an accurate accounting of damage. Then imagine you are a full condition necro maxed out for bleeds/duration. What would you think if you saw that all you were doing was “white” damage and nothing at all related to bleeds?
Even if damage meters were fine in terms of design philosophy, the game really couldn’t support them in its current state.
so rather then someone realize how little they contribute and have the opportunity to change the better answer is just to let them delude themselves into feeling good about themselves?
There is one little thing called ‘’Damage over time’’ (DoT)
So every bleeding,burning and such things will be showed there
GW2 does not account for DoT by player, it’s done via stacks on mobs. So, in any common grouping of players only one full condition player is actually doing DoT, say, in terms of bleeds.
I’m not arguing for or against damage meters. My point is that damage meters only make sense when damage is accounted for by player. GW2 is not at a point where it makes any sense to report damage by player since it doesn’t manage damage by player.
Any game with vertical progression is alt-unfriendly by definition. I first discovered this moving 6 max level characters through wrath/cata in WoW. By the time MoP rolled around, I just leveled one to max level.
With a low power curve GW2 is perhaps more alt-friendly than WoW. However, it doesn’t take an advanced degree to understand that it’s impractical to move more than one character along GW2’s power curve. And, it also doesn’t take an advanced degree to understand the impact of any power curve where power is positively related to time.
Imagine we had a tool like Recount which gives an accurate accounting of damage. Then imagine you are a full condition necro maxed out for bleeds/duration. What would you think if you saw that all you were doing was “white” damage and nothing at all related to bleeds?
Even if damage meters were fine in terms of design philosophy, the game really couldn’t support them in its current state.
The answer is not to rework the cap—in any way. Every game that has tried something similar has abandoned it (cf. WoW). The answer is simple. All damage, whether direct or over time, needs to be managed by player. Anet has played the technical limitations card. They have been reminded that other games do this as a matter of course. They have acknowledged the problem and said they are working on it. They simply need to fix an issue that has already been fixed by other games.
This actually makes for an excellent learning opportunity for the developers. Is an encounter that serves to empty the world in which it occurs a good way to produce a living, breathing, vibrant, living world?
They have proven that they can’t answer questions like this through reality-testing. I wonder if actual experience will bear fruit?
If the choice were between LS and an expansion, I would choose LS. That is, I believe that a living, breathing, evolving world is a more natural method of evolving a game. That said, contrary to GW2 marketing, we really haven’t seen an evolving world so far out the the LS. What we have seen is a world that comes and goes in fits and starts on a ridiculously short development cycle. At this point, I am not sure that Anet can evolve the world via LS. So, if the choice is between LS we have seen so far and expansion, I would choose expansion.
Perfect would be GW2 as envisioned pre-launch, with no cash shop, and a subscription. Free just costs too much money and means, essentially, that you must reward yourself for playing.
This was how I did it. With a mix of mats on-hand that I had in the bank, as I recall, it was around ~60g to craft 1-80.
I, too, wish I was playing the game described by Anet’s ideals as stated circa 6/2012.
When I watch the current living world video I have a dissociative experience akin to living in a different living world than the ‘living’ world they are describing in the video. If they ever get to producing the living, breathing, evolving living world like the video describes, I will be very happy with the state of the game.
I agree with the ascended problem. I believe the answer to that is to make it trivial to acquire (as Colin said the best gear stat-wise should be) and announce that vertical progression ends with this tier. That would solve the long term problem that began on 11/15/2012. Without an announced end, the problem continues, even with the addition of skill/ability progression which Colin announced as something to do “instead” of grinding out gear ad nauseum.
Crushing challenge in the open world is just counter to a proper understanding of the nature of the MMO. Design of the open world should take into account the actual player base you find in the open world and in an MMO that would be a wide diversity of players. Truly challenging content should be delivered in instances of tiered difficulty. There is no need to reinvent this aspect of the MMO as it simply flows from what works and what doesn’t work. Teq doesn’t work.
More than one condition build in any group of any size is redundant in the game. It is a major design flaw to not attribute damage to the player producing it. They have attempted to excuse it by blaming a bad technical architecture that can’t handle the bandwidth of tracking damage by player. Other games (cf. WoW) have no problem with this.
It’s not a new problem or one related to Teq. It does need to be fixed, but I don’t think we will see it done any time soon. It is good to keep the issue in front of Anet though.
The only thinking involved is “my condi build is useless” and “I need something purely with power main stat then defensive secondary stats … like PVT”.
Though again, the OP crying about PVT gear being useful against objects is just pathetic beyond belief.
you say cry. I say highlight flaws that must be addressed. Close enough
Funny, most people that would call a ‘flaw’ that is done purposely through design … a feature. Seems to me it’s already been thoughtfully addressed by the fact that it was introduced.
Well, I wouldn’t call it a feature unless we were talking about a feature of bad design. What we are talking about here is a failure to properly account for damage, by player, as every other mature game does. The discounting of crits with world bosses undoubtedly is done for the same reason that they manage condition damage by stacks on a mob rather than damage by player. In large scale encounters even managing direct damage (with crits) appears to be problematic in terms of its bandwidth.
What we are most likely dealing with here is simply an extension of Anet’s flaw in the design of its technical architecture. There is no functional aspect of design that would dictate that crits be removed from direct damage when fighting a world boss.
It was actually and obviously a test of the development staff, i.e., how well can they design open world PvE content. It was not a test of, or commentary on, the player base of GW2 in any way.
At this point there is no point in fixing Southsun. I believe it should be left as is and exist as an object lesson in game design for future designers. All designers, and especially new hires, should be forced to spend a week there and then write a paper on what is wrong with it. With any luck, over time, a new design vision will emerge and there will never need to be another Southsun or Teq rising. The first rule of a living, expanding world should be that it be vibrant and populated.
Probably the best option for Anet in terms of Ascended gear would be a clear statement that the experiment with vertical progression was stopping with it when fully implemented. Many people are operating from the understanding that Ascended is the end of the road in terms of power creep. It isn’t. They made it clear with the introduction of Ascended gear that what they were adding to the game was not a final tier, but rather vertical progression.
So, stopping VP with Ascended would allow them to correct course (towards skill/ability progression) and save face around the whole Ascended debacle. It could be the final tier of gear and end of power creep. However, they have never said that it would be, to date, and there is no reason to assume that vertical progression will stop. Stopping is not within the definition of vertical progression.
Before the GJ, you might want to read the forums. Teq is the opposite of success in creating a vibrant, living world in open world PvE.
It would be hard for Anet to witness Teq en vivo and not recognize that they have a problem. On the other hand, what are they going to say? The recognition of the problem with Teq would require that their entire strategy around open world PvE design come into question. I’m not sure that they are up for that as a company at this point.
Perhaps a better way of saying this is to say that the fight is not well-designed for open world PvE. That’s what you are saying when you talk about overflows and afkers. Yes, it is a dps race, but it also depends on a cerntain level of coordination—something that all challenging content should. It should be obvious that you will not find such coordination in the open world—at least reliably. You can know that through experience or simply a thought experiment if you have good reality-testing skills.
The inappropriateness of Teq has absolutely nothing to do with it being ‘hard’. It is simply bad design for open world PvE.
(edited by Raine.1394)
Any more than 1 is too many to move along the power curve. I have all the professions at 80 but only one is moving along the power curve.
Here we are at risk for @Vayne to suggest that skill/ability progression, as in GW1, was actually vertical progression. I have seen him make this argument twice even when corrected. So, preemptively, I’m reminding him that just as Mike O said, GW had no vertical progression, ever, and that skill/ability progression is a fundamental element of horizontal progression.
I sincerely hope they don’t nerf Teq in any way. It stands as a testament to what not to do in open world PvE in an MMO, and its value as a case study really depends on Anet not changing it and I hope they don’t. I am willing to sacrifice one area of the map if it means no other areas are emptied in the future.
The solution is the same as in every other game. Condition damage simply needs to be managed by player just as direct damage is. Other games have tried solutions similar to GW2’s. It doesn’t work. The fact that it doesn’t work should have been known by any experienced developer. It wasn’t.
I left WoW because I was tired of the grind. I realized that the treadmill really went nowhere. I remember a time when my main in WoW was like 10k HP. Now, he’s close to 400kHP and there is really no difference in gameplay, I just did a godawful number of laps on a treadmill, and for what?
That said, I’ve come to prefer WoW’s short/steep treadmill to GW2’s long/slow one. Everyone knows about how long it takes for them to gear up in WoW. For me, it was about two months for for PvE and PvP (honor set). Then I could just relax and enjoy the game. In GW2, there is never an end to the treadmill. Vertical progression, on a low power curve, is the cruelest task master of them all. There is never an end to it. I spent far less time grinding gear in WoW than I do in GW2.
Since 11/15 they have shown a proclivity for emphasizing and encouraging participation in what they can’t technically support. And, yes, I don’t understand it either.
Please Anet, don’t nerf or change it. Teq’s major contribution to encounter design in the MMO is in its value as a case study of a failed encounter. Please leave it as it is.
Sadly, it will die soon, or be nerfed into oblivion. It should never be nerfed, but rather live on as a testament to what you don’t do in encounter design in the MMO. It could actually be helpful to survive as a case study. And, it would be worth sacrificing an area of the map if it meant that no other areas would be emptied as this one will.
(edited by Raine.1394)
I encourage you to accept that you are powerless over Teq, that, by design, your gaming life, here, is unmanageable. Once I admitted powerlessness, I realized that I could just say no to Teq.
I actually thought it was pretty fun, well funny might be a better description. I just went down to experience the failure and I wasn’t disappointed. I hope that they don’t nerf it; I would prefer it be immortalized as the case study that it is in what you don’t do in open world PvE in an MMO. It could help countless novice game designers.
(edited by Raine.1394)
Well, I haven’t given up on it as I have never tried it. I simply understood what Anet was attempting and knew it would never work. Now, I have gone down to experience the failure and I wasn’t disappointed. It was exquisite! I don’t believe it should ever be nerfed. It should live on, forever, as as testament to what you don’t do in open world PvE. Please, Anet, don’t nerf it.
(edited by Raine.1394)
That is some great and well-rounded feedback. Hope Anet watches it. +1’ed
Anet hasn’t a clue.
No, Teq doesn’t need to be nerfed. It is simply a misconception of how you deliver challenge in a game in or near the MMO genre. It’s not that it is too hard, simply that it is mis-conceived. Crushing challenge should not describe open world PvE in or near the MMO genre. It will only serve to empty the open world. This becomes especially significant when your stated goal is to create a living world. This, like the SAB, would seem to be the opposite of what would help to create a vibrant, living world.
Yes, I prefer the moment of failure where the failure is most exquisite and the group wipe best embodies this. It is what I play games for and I’m delighted that Anet has chosen to provide this as a near-assured experience.
Nothing about Teq has brought out a divided player base simply because it started out as diverse as you can get. Welcome to the contemporary MMO. And, in a gaming genre with a wide, diverse player base, the open world should be designed for the player you find there. Challenging content should be delivered in instances of tiered difficulty. Voila, everyone gets what they want—at least in terms of challenge. It makes no sense whatsoever to design crushing challenge within the open world were you can’t even kick the afk—yes, I do think challenge should be pugable—just not delivered within open world PvE.
I’m not him obviously.
I just post his video here because I consider it important feedback.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qavTsIMGgnQ
Personally I fully believe that he should become a 40 man instanced guild mission, and leave an easier, less rewarding, version on the outside world, with a strict timer, that relies on all the event’s of the surrounding area.
Agreed, with everything but the “less rewarding” part. Reward is a joke as it is already.
Teq in it’s current form will only survive for a short time. Challenging content requires an infrastructure that open world PvE just can’t provide. Leadership and coordination to be sure, but just the simply inability to be able to kick players should be all that you need to consider. It’s fine to brainstorm something like this but it should never make it it out of an evaluation. But, as I say, it won’t last long and perhaps challenge in GW2 will become instanced as it should be soon. One can only hope.
Well, this isn’t really a new problem. The MMO and closely-related genre have faced this problem for years. You really can’t afford to make an MMO anymore that is targeted to hardcore or elite players, or to casuals for that matter, it just doesn’t make any sense financially.
The solution, at least to-date, has been to provide content that meets the desire for challenge and ability of a diverse player base. In the best examples you see the open world designed around the player you find there, with instanced content of tiered difficulty designed for the player who desires more challenge. Anet is taking a novel approach which I don’t believe will work over time. But, their approach does legitimize questions around whether there will be suitable, rewarding content for average MMO players over time. I have been pleasantly surprised with recent changes to world bosses other than Teq as they seem to have threaded lightly and made them more appropriately challenging without making them world emptying failure fests which I believe Teq will become over time. The large open world failure fest is just not good design for open world PvE in an MMO.
Build changes your playstyle
Your playstyle determines your build
They’re the same thing bud
Broadly speaking, the sentiment here is absolutely true. I would simply equate them by saying that playstyle follows build. The build determines the playstyles available.
Consider games like Diablo 2 & 3, and, well, GW1&2, where there has been a drastic reduction in build complexity. One of the thing that people miss is the variety of interesting builds and playstyles that a more complex system affords. We have seen a dramatic dumbing down of build systems over the last few years and players miss the diversity. True, sometimes there isn’t a lot of diversity in the end-game, regardless, but the absolute number of viable builds and playstyles was higher previously.
One thing of interest is Colin’s recent blog on the future where he described skill/ability progression to be a focus going forward. If this plays out anywhere near how it did in GW1, this could mean a focus that would create more interesting builds and playstyles, or what the OP is asking for. Of, course, I have no idea what to make of Anet pronouncements anymore but that’s one possible meaning.
Teq seems to be tracking according to my predictions. As with all content targeted to the mythical ‘hardcore’ player, it will have some initial interest, but then will simply discourage and demoralize the player base and empty the open world where it occurs.
I say ‘mythical’ hardcore player because, while you see some signs of life on the forums, in-game they are simply ‘gone’ from the content designed for them just as the more casual players are gone.
There are a couple design factors that Anet could note to address the problem. First, and foremost, open world PvE should be designed for the player you find there. In a properly targeted MMO this would be a broad diversity of players, largely without voice chat (coordination), and not playing from an interrupt list (metaphorically speaking). Challenging content should be targeted to those desiring and equipped for it and it should be delivered in instances of tiered difficulty. If Anet understood this one design factor we would not witness the flailing about that the new Teq is.
Beyond, functional aspects of design, humans are just not designed for failure. We don’t as a species seek it out and we don’t tolerate it as a state of being. You would never, ever design something that will have a 99% failure rate. That would be a failure of design. And, remember, I’m largely talking about this in the context of open world PvE, the context where we find Teq.
It’s just bad idea’s, that admittedly sound good to some, playing out in a predictable manner before us. It would be nice if Anet could anticipate the results of their design decisions so we don’t need to endure this over and over.