Guild Wars 2

I’ve seen many of these threads pop up in the past, and this one isn’t special even with commentary from a designer. A trap many of them fall into is that the issues discussed in them are improperly framed and discussed at surface level. But that’s the nature of of the almighty “buzzword” mentality that you warn us about- arguing things through a cursory look at the issues. If progression is the issue, then the purpose and mechanics of progression needs to be acknowledged, not simply how one feels about it. This extends past issues of pacing you bring up as well.

Put simply, the progressions system is pedantic and uninteresting, but it depends on how you frame it. If we’re talking about progression in relation to content, the most prevalent issue with progression occurs throughout the game and not just with ascended gear. The issue is that the vertical progression does not break the monotony of gameplay. This is apparent after obtaining max level for all trait points and skills but for some professions even level 30 or 60 is pushing it. After the optimal skill rotation and stats combination are figured out progression afterwards doesn’t open up meaningful or engaging gameplay options or challenges (and it rarely even mattes what you use in this game for better or worse). The stat progression simply increases the numbers scaling. It’s an issue with build variety as well; almost everything is a variation of the same type of gameplay as in the early levels which are already arguable rather monotonous to begin with. The numbers move slightly different is all. I’d say that the combat, skill design, a enemy design are the core of this issue. I’m sure a designer could further elaborate on it, if he or she knows what he’s talking about.

What has ascended gear added to the content? Bigger numbers to the very same type of gameplay. Absolutely unnecessary, and ironically enough it’s even argued that way from the sides either supporting or indifferent about their implementation.

If we’re framing the issue in terms of acquisition as you are, then the method of delivery is simply uninteresting. It’s predictable and it forces players to form schedules simply to acquire it in a reasonable amount of time. If we’re to draw comparisons between this game and the loot-centric Diablo series (inb4 different game and genre so even similar things are irrelevant!), the loot system is not unlike Diablo 3, where, due to the phasing as stat balance, only the highest tier of loot in the highest game mode is relevant. This has the added effect of phasing out certain maps, making them irrelevant NPC/Auction House fodder. Compare to, say, Diablo 2 where loot is relevant due to the item upgrading system or even GW1 where all loot after the tutorial levels are fully functional. Even lowest tier drops in either of those games can be useful, but there’s still a random rarity system to spice up the drops.

If we’re talking about the gear itself, then, as stated before, the gear has added little more than stats.

Desthin Sinkropht.4123:

This is an extremely valuable perspective, one I haven’t heard anywhere else yet. If ANet were to make Ascended item vouchers part of the monthly reward, would that be acceptable?

What makes this perspective so valuable? Is it simply because you feel its valuable among all the other perspectives? I’d really like to hear your train of thought.

What is casual vertical progression anyway

“Would that be acceptable.”

I believe the designer should know enough about their game to know what’s acceptable, and not have to cherrypick among a whirlpool of ideas. As one poster before state, quite elegantly I might add, the design should be for the sake of the game’s DNA. I’m not confident that this thread is even breaking the cellular level and you’re asking others what would be acceptable?

Forgive my rather accusatory tone, but has brought you to deign post in the forum of lowly gamers? Are here simply to quell the noise of rowdy dissidents? If so, then there’s little point to thread as it’s regurgitating the rhetoric of many before you, most of whom I wouldn’t even say are designers. Are you here to open discussion? If so then I highly suggest that you reassess both your methods and your disposition.

@OP
-What you’re describing about gear progression is the need to cater to a mythical demographic that every other MMO attempts and often fails catering to. I don’t see how the needs of a hypothetical playerbase can be more important than the one the game was initially marketed to.

-Furthermore, one of the more common arguments about Guild Wars 2 was that there was no endgame, not necessarily that there was no gear progression (although *some did argue for that). Gear progression is only type of endgame, an unimaginative and harmful one at that.

-If time the progression is so minimal, why is it necessary to gate it in order let others keep pace? Won’t the gating harm players who can only play sporadically? Here’s a theory: players, or rather their needs, aren’t necessarily the concern. The concern is to keep the playerbase as high as possible in the vein of attaining impressive metrics. Now before you say players are the content and that an MMO needs to have a large playerbase, how can players be the content when the level of interaction between players boils down to a very shallow zerging meta? Is only the idea that there are others playing enough to justify it?

-ANet really does need to step it up with how they handle their forums, specifically with the fact that they complain about the vocal minority without actually doing anything to help these players contribute to a useful capacity. They could learn a thing or two from LoL developers. Silence and lack of transparency can (and did) lead to contempt. Isn’t it true that we’re all gamers in the end? At least show that level of respect to your fellow gamers.

projectcedric.6951:

Desthin Sinkropht.4123:

TL;DR: Gamers as a community have condensed legitimate game design concepts into buzzwords that trigger kneejerk reactions.

Of course this is fundamentally true, but game design concepts in their pure form have got nothing to do with gamers’ experience at all.

The average gamer generally doesn’t understand a game design concept as much as a game designer does, the same way that normal people don’t understand what an architect was trying to do with a building that they now live in for every day of their lives.

There is a gap between game design concept and user experience, and this gap is bridged by execution. In the end, it doesn’t matter if the designer has the most ideal of game design concepts, if the players do not feel accordingly or feel differently from what the game designer intended to do (hence, complaints), that means that there was a failure somewhere in the execution.

If only other game designers (like you) can see what a game is truly trying to do, that still means the game is poorly executed as a design. (As an experience though, it might not be necessarily so, because experience is personal.)

I believe the term for this is myopia. You can see it in certain design elements and ANet’s attitude towards those elements. DEs and the Living Story are two obvious examples. Also if the “entire game is the endgame,” why is there an insistence on treadmill-like progression that favors only certain content. Well, because intent amounts to nothing if there’s no execution to back it up.

Mesket.5728:

Lets play some tinfoil hat: Metrics made public…. Is ANet looking for investment? are they running out of cash? is that the particular hype they have lately for the gem store? sellings dropped that much a year from release? (insert X Files music)

It’s the game’s one year anniversary, so the spotlight’s on ANet and GW2 again. They release metrics, but with very deceptive spin to take full advantage of the publicity. The metrics they have released are still far too vague to provide a clear picture of whether or not the game is, financially, succeeding or failing.

If ANet were to be truly honest about their data, they’d be providing more specific metrics like log-ins per week, average activity per area, gem purchases per week, kitten forth.

It’s both funny and sad when you think about it. Game developers fancy their practice as both a science and an art, but when push comes to shove they either don’t know how to properly apply the scientific method to their practice(which is arguably difficult for something as complex as videogames, and if they have I haven’t seen them do it) or they selectively use metrics to push personal biases rather than to objectively measure reality. The most disgusting offenses occurs in cases like this one, where deceptive metrics are used for the sake of profit.

This pretty much confirms my suspicions. ANet is more focused on metrics, numbers spinning and PR than delivering a good, innovative game. It’s funny, I enjoyed the idea of a “revolutionary MMO” more than the actual playing, and I was willing to commit many hours hoping that the game would improve down the line.

Mike’s spin on metrics is the final nail in the coffin for me. I’m the kind of person who wants to enjoy games for the variety of things they can do, not because a certain unscrupulous individual tells me that their game is popular. If this is the kind of person that’s running the show, I’m not confident that the game ANet’s running will go anywhere.

Will this game be successful as it is? There have been arguments about the game’s apparent success. I won’t disagree that the game is successful, but the success of this games is just as bad because it shows that a game can succeed due to the marketing of false promises and ideas rather than the actual game that materialized from them. The aggressive numbers spinning will certainly help.

Well, whatever works for them. I’m just one guy who’s a part of the apparent “vocal minority” that this company loves to trivialize, so it probably wouldn’t matter if I’m not a part of this MMO anymore. Enjoy your “fastest selling” facebook MMO, guys. It’ll just be a bitter memory for me.

I dislike the TC’s usage of the terms “casual” and “kid” and what’s appealing to them. It’s rather demeaning. For instance, my little brother plays Pokemon, a game that in where the problem solving mechanics and progression are far more demanding, but he won’t touch Guild Wars 2.

Great post TC.

My theory is that ANet is playing it safe by following using metrics to measure methods that have the best retention. But metrics can only measure compliance, not quality, so it follows that the problem in ANet following metrics is that that they’re not necessarily designing with the best intentions for their playerbase. This is all just hypothetical, but it does explain why chores like dailies and click 500 times achievements exist.

To be perfectly fair, game design is pretty tricky and I doubt there’s much guidance elsewhere especially when your game is a hodgepodge of mechanics that don’t necessarily compliment eachother. And if projects by Mark Jacobs is any indication, it’s that projects led experienced designers can fail spectacularly.

I always assumed that ANet used Microsoft SAM to voice that scrub.

Don’t all active game companies look to hire new talent? From what I can tell there’s a good deal of turnover for employees depending on the needs of the company. From what I’ve gathered GW2 did something similar by moving more resources towards its live team (or some other team, too lazy to check) in winter, though now they seem to be focusing on content so I’m not really sure.

I think a good question to as is whether or not the people laid off in Funcom and EA be relevant enough to keep if the games worked on succeeded? What did they even do?

Vayne.8563:

TwoBit.5903:

So as long as one popular criteria isn’t met, then D3 can’t be an MMORPG? I see! Well then, I posit that GW2 can’t be an MMORPG because it lacks the trinity. Every since EQ1 and WoW the trinity has been a def feature of MMORPGS. The design of MMORPGs simply leads to the trinity. It is a highly specialized type of play to supplement gameplay in the open world. GW2 also lacks raids. Raids are why only a small part of the overall gamer population play MMOs, because Akittengg around people while using one or two abilities is highly specific type of play.

Actually it’s not “a popular” criteria, it’s been the criteria all along. Lobby games aren’t MMOs because you’re not actually PLAYING with the masses. Trading with the masses is something else entirely.

The point of a persistent world is that hundreds or thousands of people are all playing at the same time. Even Anet has said Guild Wars 1 wasn’t an MMO, in spite of the fact that you could have 100 people standing around in a city…but they couldn’t PLAY together. They couldn’t use skills, quest, or do anything other than chat or trade. Sell some stuff.

Anet’s devs said Guild Wars 1 was a CoRPG (a cooperative RPG). They said Guild Wars 2 would be a true MMO.

The industry standard wasn’t designed by people on this forum. It was designed by people who make the games in the first place. If you spend any amount of time researching this, you’ll find that coop games aren’t generally considered MMOs, because you can’t PLAY WITH the masses as the same time…even if you can trade with them. And even that’s not true.

You can only trade with one person at a time.

The terms are evolving with the genre.

Innovation often involves scrutiny of the zeitgeist and everything that contributes to it. We’ll never get anywhere if we allow a select group of elites to decide how and what everything should be.

Karizee.8076:

TwoBit.5903:

D3’s auction house keeps going on even when you’re not there It’s persistent.

Can’t we just say that D3 revolutionized the MMO genre by removing player zergs?

Blizzard is going to have to re-write a heckuva lot of history to try to call D3 a MMO now. Wikis, reviews, press releases, 1000s of game sites. This is funny

Not so hard. Blizzard can simply go back and provide “clarifications.” ANet does the same with GW2.

Jski.6180:

TwoBit.5903:

So as long as one popular criteria isn’t met, then D3 can’t be an MMORPG? I see! Well then, I posit that GW2 can’t be an MMORPG because it lacks the trinity. Every since EQ1 and WoW the trinity has been a def feature of MMORPGS. The design of MMORPGs simply leads to the trinity. It is a highly specialized type of play to supplement gameplay in the open world. GW2 also lacks raids. Raids are why only a small part of the overall gamer population play MMOs, because Akittengg around people while using one or two abilities is highly specific type of play.

Then you cant call most mmorpgs that DO have the trinity system an mmorpg. See how measly it can get? There is a vast different between have some different ways of playing a game such playing an fps in an mmo environment such as PS2 Its not an rpg but it still mmo and has an open world that keeps going even when your not there. The fact thakittens not an rpg dose not effect if its a true mmo. Now when you have games that have NO open world that keeps going when you cut off the game but are still online is not an mmo because of this and this alone.

D3’s auction house keeps going on even when you’re not there It’s persistent.

Can’t we just say that D3 revolutionized the MMO genre by removing player zergs?

Furthermore, it just struck me that GW2’s maps aren’t really persistent. They’re just large enough to hold a set amount of people. Ignoring the lack of trinity and raids, shouldn’t GW2 be called a KLORPG, or kind of large online RPG?

So as long as one popular criteria isn’t met, then D3 can’t be an MMORPG? I see! Well then, I posit that GW2 can’t be an MMORPG because it lacks the trinity. Every since EQ1 and WoW the trinity has been a def feature of MMORPGS. The design of MMORPGs simply leads to the trinity. It is a highly specialized type of play to supplement gameplay in the open world. GW2 also lacks raids. Raids are why only a small part of the overall gamer population play MMOs, because Akittengg around people while using one or two abilities is highly specific type of play.

What jski is true. There’s a lot more to legendaries than the RNG. There’s a lot of grinding after you win at the mystic forge. Also, players apparently play GW2 to experience the harshness of real life.

Jski.6180:

GSSBlunaspike.4153:

Your point of view on mmo means every game that is online is an mmo and if they have any type of rpg element to them then they are an mmorpg. D3 is not an mmorpg nor was D2 nor was GW1 nor is MH1-4?

Then apparently mmo doesn’t stand for massive multiplayer online. I welcome your definition then.

Also the E-sports is kind of a big things in GW2 you just do not like it luckly things existed out side of your point of view and the world dose not go away when you close your eyes.

GW2 can’t break triple digit viewership. Yes I admit it, I think the current conquest only is incredibly boring. That aside all of the GW2 viewership combined doesn’t equal what dyrus gets in a few days. There is NO comparison at all, and even implying there is one is just silly.

I will admit I’m wrong when a gw2 stream managed to get even 1% of the viewers that the lcs gets.

Mmorpgs tend to be open world gaming with other ppl not small closed world events. This is the stander mmorpgs have been using from EQ1.

That a very bad argument about the same of “If no one watches me do something its not worth doing” it takes some time before things move to the same level of LoL or DotA2 (mind you these are about the same game type and GW2 falls more on the pure pvp side and not a pve type fight that you see in these 2 games).

A persistent open world mmorpg is only one type of mmorpg. As for interactivity, players can interact with millions in both games through their respective trading posts. If we take away instances from GW2, where the player count is limited, there wouldn’t be too much to the game, at least nothing that has longevity.

Esports are built viewership and artistry of play. To counter your point. I’m sure there are a millions out there that play beer pong, but I doubt many would take to watching it.

It would defeat the purpose of making you grind more :/

TIL thick skinned means responding to favorable posts “like be nice, guys” and not challenging negative, but constructive, ones.

Fun fact for the WvW community and Developers:
More than 50% of the NA bracket hardcore multi-game organizations/guilds are no longer active in the WvW scene.
Opinion:
They have been replaced by less serious players

Is anyone interested in compiling a list of the “big” names that moved on? Do we want to talk about membership/activity level of the ones that remain? Lets see some data.

Well, WvW doesn’t have the depth to be taken seriously, so the demographic matches with the design. And as long as metrics prove that players are still playing I doubt any meaningful changes will take place. If changes do occur it won’t exactly affect the level of engagement or depth. Case in point, progression update that ANet made such a big deal about a few months back did little but add slow power creep to a stale game mode. There was also culling but that was looooong overdue.

It’s not so bad though as there are plenty of promising games on the horizon. I’ve readied my bags ages ago.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I don’t understand the premise of “false challenge”. The way I see it, Liadri’s mechanics are the same in each fight. The patterns are there, so are the 1-hit bombs, AOE, etc. Bugs and camera angle aside, there’s room for improvement. But the overall feel that not everyone can complete this is welcomed by some.

Anet is trying to please all types of players. Those who like easy stuff. Those who thrive on being punished over and over. Those who PvP. One group may not like the content of what the other group likes, but that doesn’t mean it should be changed.

Blocks don’t work for whatever reason, range obstruction that’s not entirely logical or intuitive, poor telegraphing of skills (they’re instant), gameplay based on rote memorization, the mechanics favor only certain builds and classes (very costly for some), dodging Liadra’s autoattack amounts to tricking the game’s auto-tracking system which is a technique that borders on exploit…

Smooth Penguin.5294:

TwoBit.5903:

Vindictus is a masterpiece when it comes to this. GW2 not so much because the telegraphing and consistency is awful.

@OP: Take care to work on you definitions and clarifications, even if you don’t like the outcome. Bad ones drag everyone down.

Also related:

The whole point of this was that it was a “challenge”. With people asking for nerfs and such, that defeats the purpose of “challenging content”. That’s really all I wanted to try and clarify. I tend to go off on tangents, so perhaps my main message was lost?

Nah, your post was built on false premises. The purpose of challenge lies not in the evidence that players fail. as you seem to suggest. The game provides sort of a false challenge as described in the video, because it’s built on inconsistent design and poor conveyance and players are punished for this. That’s the point of my posting the video. Not to be pessimistic, but the problem of false challenge in this game is egregious to the point where I don’t think ANet would be able to address them without re-envisioning the combat. Laying the onus on a hypothetical group of players asking for nerfs will not help ANet realize this problem and, hopefully, address it.

Kalathra.3128:

I agree that’s why people seem to find it offensive, but I don’t agree that they should, necessarily, or at least that they should give it some more thought. There are exaggerations of body image throughout the entire game, and in many others, because it’s styled to be that way. I agree that body image is a big deal, I struggle with it myself, but at the same time, I’m not going to look at a CGI robot and compare myself to them. A CGI human? Maybe. Even with body image, we tend to look towards people that already almost look like us.

I also agree there are other ways to convey femininity, but this is definitely the most powerful way to do it. Both symbolically and aesthetically, any other feminine traits would have been completely missed or dismissed, and aesthetics is the best way to get your point across in visual mediums. Even more powerful and positive, to me, is that this is the first instance that I’m aware of, of a robot with a female form being placed in a position of power, and protection. Normally, fem bots have always been used as in media as sexualised objects for entertainment purposes. Which is far more detrimental, both symbolically, and metaphorically. This is a hugely positive, powerful representation, even if it is just robots with boobs. (I know you didn’t say anything against that, I went on a tangent after quoting you.)

Also, 100% agree about Nostalgia Chick. If anyone does decide to go and watch the FemFreq videos, please go and watch any of the many counter-‘arguments’, and discussions surrounding her videos and inform yourself of more than just her viewpoint. Her videos are quite bad for misinformation, or at least misrepresenting information, and cherry picking. I think they’re a good thing to watch to hear what she has to say, I agree with some of her points, but please don’t listen to her videos alone and claim them absolute. Get other views and opinions, too, and form your own opinion from the pool of them.

I’m not trying to imply wrong or right, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that whatever the intention was the implementation it was most definitely ham-fisted. This game’s undoubtedly made for entertainment and mass appeal (as evident by the style and the level of writing), so it might not even be the best medium to make whatever statement these watchknights intended to make.

I still stand by my previous statements. I find the design of the robots to be downright gaudy, and, not to mention, the exaggeration is more than reminiscent of the immature representation of the human body that runs rampant in this industry.

The imagery of these robots may be effective, but in this case it’s only being done through a sort of shock value. Reading through this thread makes the consequences of this all the more obvious. All things considered, I don’t think it was the right approach.

I was lazy and didn’t post this earlier but the alternative I mentioned is to or convey symbolism through narrative and action. In a medium where interactions between the player’s agency and the imaginary world are central to the experience, symbolism is best made through that interaction.

This is totally unrelated to the whole feminism and videogames deal, but I believe that the best example of symbolism in viderogames to date is Majora’s Mask. The entire experience of that game is not unlike purgatory as Link is physically unable to resolve every problem before the inevitable reset of the gameplay cycle. Faith, as it was emphasized by several key NPCs, was the only way for Link to save a land that was doomed of wickedness and cruelty born from distrust. Several gameplay mechanics even made use of the concept of faith, but I won’t spoil which though because they do it pretty darn well. This is just scratching the surface of all the symbolism.

I don’t think people find femininity offensive, but rather the emphasis of physical qualities. The only thing feminine about the watchknights are their overtly female qualities like their breasts and hips, and these qualities are rather exaggerated. I believe this to be the source of the outrage. But that’s to expected because we live in an age where body image (of both genders) is used to create pressures and biases in order to mass market products and habits, and the moral implications of this practice, which is worthy of disdain, can be easily extrapolated.

That said, there are always other ways to convey femininity without resorting to giving things boobs and hips, but at the same time I’m not going to fault ANet for what they did because the alternative I mentioned is quite hard and they’ve kind of put themselves in a corner in terms of quality control with their tight two week release schedule.

Also Nostalgia Chick offers a more balanced view of females modern media (movies in this case), with deeper insight. To be perfectly fair though, the bar for this isn’t set very high. What’s more is that she doesn’t even need a kickstarter to do her work (and to procrastinate at doing it)! Just sayin’.

I don’t really buy into the feminism and gameplay arguments, but I don’t find these watchnights to be the least bit tasteful. Additionally, they showcase the lack the of realism in the game’s narrative design. And by realism I’m not referring to the fact that the game isn’t like real life but to how the storytelling isn’t nuanced with respect to its own logic (and I’m beginning to doubt if it even has any).

A good example how the game fails at this occurs within the same patch. The Aetherblades surprise attack amounted to group recklessly sacrificing personnel to. And the death toll? Divinity’s reach: 0 Aetherblades: about 50. They did this during dragon bash too, except they were able to kill one councilman at the cost of a hundred or so men. Unless these guys have hundreds of thousands of stupid/suicidal soldiers at their disposal, their methods aren’t too efficient. And this is just one example. Don’t get me started on the others.

Vindictus is a masterpiece when it comes to this. GW2 not so much because the telegraphing and consistency are awful.

@OP: Take care to work on your definitions and clarifications, even if you don’t like the outcome. Bad ones drag everyone down.

Also related:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFzFsHc75U

Andele.1306:

TwoBit.5903:

Auesis.7301:

bosgaurus.7408:

Thanks to people like you, encouraging this thing, many hunderds of normal folks have to suffer from frustration and time waste.

I’m sorry you can’t faceroll it like you’re not even playing the game, but some people like challenge. It’s good thing we have an entirely separate achievement section and arenas separated from the main meaty content…

Oh wait, you all still complain.

Keep at it, Anet.

Challenge = using your wits/reaction to solve a problem.

Difficulty = making the actual process of solving the problem difficult.

Think how fun Mario would be if instead of fun and interesting jumping levels, the goal is right in front of you but you the process of moving and jumping itself is difficult and you can’t really tell exactly where you need to jump. You also aren’t exactly sure if what you think is happening is really happening or if it’s something else altogether. And if you move just slightly wrong, you die. That’s what the boss is, difficulty disguised as challenge.

You did actually describe the older mario games http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard

The ones that are poorly designed :P

stof.9341:

The problem isn’t zerk gear, the problem is that :

- all content success is determined by the speed at which you can deplete an HP bar
- all gear is capable of doing all content
- some gear is 10 times more survivable while another gear set kills 10 times faster

There’s no way to make a balanced PvE game out of all those rules together. But if ANet removed all but zerk gear in PvE, they could start doing some real balancing.

Basically. The Zerker or GTFO mentality that’s been going around is simple hyperbole from both sides of the argument. The issue it meant to highlight was that the game favored hyperoffense through zerker stats, but it doesn’t ensure that that everyone is competent enough use zerkers gear or even tanky gear in some cases.

Auesis.7301:

bosgaurus.7408:

Thanks to people like you, encouraging this thing, many hunderds of normal folks have to suffer from frustration and time waste.

I’m sorry you can’t faceroll it like you’re not even playing the game, but some people like challenge. It’s good thing we have an entirely separate achievement section and arenas separated from the main meaty content…

Oh wait, you all still complain.

Keep at it, Anet.

Challenge = using your wits/reaction to solve a problem.

Difficulty = making the actual process of solving the problem difficult.

Think how fun Mario would be if instead of fun and interesting jumping levels, the goal is right in front of you but you the process of moving and jumping itself is difficult and you can’t really tell exactly where you need to jump. You also aren’t exactly sure if what you think is happening is really happening or if it’s something else altogether. And if you move just slightly wrong, you die. That’s what the boss is, difficulty disguised as challenge.

Erasculio.2914:

TwoBit.5903:

Skill use is less tactical because of instant casting, instant canceling, balance through cooldowns and most importantly of all the lack of resource management.

I disagree. I think balance around cooldowns allows for interesting skills in which the goal is not to use a skill as often as you have energy, or as soon as the cooldown allows it, but rather when the moment is right. Missing the right opportunity is a waste of resources.

For example, take a look at the ranger shortbow skills:

• Skill 1 is actually the main source of damage there. Everything else is situational utility.

• Skill 2 shoots arrows that poison foes. The damage of the poison itself is relatively small, so just spamming it is bad. But poison has the unique property of reducing all heals a character receive… So proper utilization of skill 2 is right before an enemy is going to heal itself. Using it before or after that is wasting this skill’s most important resource.

• Skill 3 is a dodge that doesn’t require endurance, and it also gives swifness. Using it as an attack is a waste – it does less damage than the auto attack. Which means, the goal of this skill is using it when the time is right – when you want to save endurance but you need a dodge. Using it at any other moment is a waste of resources.

• Skill 4 is a cripple, with the pet inflicting bleeding. DPS-wise, considering the cooldown, this skill does less damage than the auto-attack. But the goal of this skill isn’t to do damage, it’s to provide utility by crippling the enemy. If used in a context in which cripple is worthless, it would prevent the player from using the skill in a moment, few seconds later, in which crippling an enemy would actually be useful.

• Skill 5 is an interrupt. Again, it does less damage than auto-attack, so just spamming it blindly actually does less DPS than just auto-attacking. But the main advantage of the skill is interruptin an enemy’s important ability; if used in the wrong time, the skill could be unavailable when it would actually be interesting to interrupt the foe.

In other words, all those skills have no energy cost, but all of them only show their full potential when they are used at the right moment. The resource management there is not using the skills in the wrong time, so they are available when the time is right to use them.

The design is meant to spread out skill use rather than to design them with a inherent risk reward or tradeoff. This is only effective in games like MOBAs where timing of objective pushes is crucial. Gameplay in those game is based on prediction, with combat being decided very quickly. Often times you don’t get a second chance to use skills. This is the case with DotA’s Lina Inverse. You get caught in her combo early game, you’re dead. She miss predicts her assault or misses her stun, she dies. That’s how it often plays out anyway. Also what Indigosundown said.

A consequence of this, as I have explained earlier is a front loaded style of play. This is evident in both PvE and PvP. In PvE it causes players to cycle their skills with dps in mind, which ultimately means spamming 1-5 for most professions. Add to the fact that in many weapon sets the order of skill use doesn’t really matter (ranger axe, warrior axe, rather shortbow), and it devolves not only to DPS spam but dps spam that’s that’s not strategic. There are a few exceptions to this. The rotations for Elementalist do matter…but only to build up might for even more DPS.

In PvP gameplay becomes a DPS race due to point capture type gameplay. It’s a race for dps and sustain. The lack of risk reward also causes issues for certain professions, like the thief (invis>backstab>kite>invis) whose counter is to spam AoE. Where do you spam it? Who knows, just try and get lucky. Furthermore the system of checks and balances is deterimened solely by skill effect, while skills themselves don’t interact with each other to produce a meaningful level of counterplay due to blatantly imbalanced individual skill effects nor do they scale that well with the player’s level of execution. For example, you can technically counter a Necromancer with condition removals but some Necro skills are balanced (or rather unbalanced) such that conditions can be buffered through constant reapplication. The very same skill that Necros use to apply conditions is auto-aimed and spammable. There’s nothing to counter the very execution of the skill. I believe this was the issue Dhuumfire as it made scepter 1’s condition application so frequent and highly damaging. It could have caused similar problems with AoE well-spam as well spam provides instant area control with little counterplay. I don’t really follow the scene anymore, so I’m not sure.

The game delivers difficulty through cheesing rather than challenge. Instagibs by themselves aren’t bad, but when you combine them with poor telegraphing, this game’s fetish with instant cast AoE (no telegraphing them beforehand) and generally poor attack design (auto tracking missiles that deal ludicrous damage, hitboxes don’t synch to animations), it becomes a kitteneesey. You’d thinking this is something they’d address since launch, but nope! They design more stuff with that mentality…

With full soldier’s, traits + runes you’re looking at about 2109 vitality.

The bonuses translate to 63.27 to healong power, precision, and power. Not worth it, IMO, especially when you could be using runes with more useful effects like boon duration.

Sentinel grants 2445 vit with traits and runes, but it’s who’d want to use sentinel?

“Ever weapon swap” as in there’s no cooldown?

Leo G.4501:

Snip

I too can play the victim card for the many times valid arguments were brushed aside like I was some sort of troll, but I won’t because that’s irrelevant to points the discussion. “You should just go play the game you’re talking about because obviously love it so much.” “You guys are just on a crusade or something” How many times has this rhetoric been repeated so far? I haven’t kept track. It’s not important to make a point of it in a debate.

Furthermore bringing that up is logcially fallacious as well as dishonest. It’s a debate. You should let the facts of your arguments do the speaking, not how much your sensitive feelings happen to be jostled by someone else’ options. Speaking of which isn’t that just a form of complaining? Anyway, I’m just poking fun. Won’t bother to bring it up again~

Onto positioning. Asking for clarification is a good step, but why not post your own counterpoints first as to why positioning matters instead of complaining about my argument? That’s not going to make me and less right.

Well, whatever. Because of movecasting, instant cast, canceling and “dodging” you don’t necessarily have to pay attention to where you’re attacking from as abilities remove a lot of pressure. Firstly, dodging allows you to instantly cancel the damage of attacks launched your way (if you can see them that is). You can “dodge” while not actually moving outside of them humorously enough because it’s really an invincibility toggle with movement tied to it. That’s why I opt to call it an invincibility toggle. Movecasting removes the inherent tradeoff to attacking where you’re stuck in an animation. Games like street fighter are balanced with fixed animations in mind because there’s an incredible amount of depth to exploiting the vulnerabilities caused by the tradeoffs of each and every attack. When you are subject to that kind of vulnerability without a an easy get out of the way button your relative positioning and timing matters more.

Did you overextend? Will you get away in time? In GW2 the answer is, respectively, no and it probably doesn’t matter. You’re not stuck in an animations and can probably just cancel your attack and run away (while attacking even). You can also simply toggle your invincibility a few times and get get away. The one exception to this would be the Ascalon fractals but only because there’s no feasible way to handle mobs with NPCs and a bunch of reflects (class preference due to a single skill). Also when you pull a bunch of ranged mobs but they attack you down from any position if you aggro them.

In GW1 the front-mid-back row dynamic where each member of your party supports your team based on their relative positioning. It’d take me pages to explain the in depth details, but essentially the front row protects the mid row, which supports, while back row does the DPS (it’s been a looooong while so I could be off). If your front row doesn’t protect your mid or back row, they’ll wipe and so will the front row. If the mid row doesn’t support the front row, it’ll wipe and so will the rest of the party. If the positioning of your characters is off, if one character overextends or one is left vulnerable due to poor positioning you’ll be punished for it.

Edit: spelling

gurugeorge.9857:

TwoBit.5903:

That doesn’t, however, mean that the game isn’t without faults that are discussing. If the developers happen to be listening, all the better.

The question is whether they are faults or just different gameplay design. Should the design have been the same as GW1? I can understand GW1 fans wanting it to be so, but that doesn’t mean GW1 objectively had better gameplay. Better in some respects, worse in others.

It’s not a simple matter of better or worse, since that rely on a subjective measure of quality. Debates would never go anywhere if that was the case. And just saying it’s better in some respects and worse in others really isn’t saying much at all, since that’s the case for all games.

That said, in terms of concepts like strategy through resource management, or things as minute as the quality of the game’s conveyance of challenge through telegraphing, I think objective arguments can be made about the game’s failings. Several posters and I have even explained why the latter is done poorly in GW2.

Dresden.1736:

If you do the math, full Celestial in the hands of a good player is better than a lot of the mix and match. The 2400 attack and armor doesn’t look that inspiring on the surface, but if you’re worth your weight as an Ele, you’ll be in perma-Fury and perma-Might(25), and that significantly boosts your DPS.

You should be sitting around 70%-75% Crit Chance and 90%-100% Crit Damage, depending on what Upgrade Components you decided on throughout your gear. That allows you those beautiful 10k+ hits AND you get the benefit of good HP, Condition damage, and Healing.

Power and weapon attack are calculated separately. The damage formula is Skill coefficientxpowerxweapon damage/(Enemy Armor). You’ll see a huge direct damage reduction because of the drop in power, not the drop in power + attack as you seem to be suggesting. Condition damage hardly makes up for it in a PvE setting where conditions drown eachother out. Crit chance and crit damage scale off of power, so while they seem high on paper, they are only as effective as power which is low.

This is just kludge math, but the difference between power from celestial and power from zerkers/valk/soldiers is around 473 (1745-1272) which equates to a flat 28% drop in direct damage, roughly 20% if you factor in might stacks. Factoring in crits, the difference in precision between valk and soldiers is 22%, which equates to 29% (.22 × 130%) average damage increase of base damage.

You’re better off running zerkers with a bit of knights, sacrificing very little attack and crit damage for a significant boost in survivability, and you can get both stats rather cheaply now thanks to badges.

Edit: forgot to factor in weapon stats, but since it’s a % difference the results should be roughly the same.

Leo G.4501:

TwoBit.5903:

Leo G.4501:

milo.6942:

man, it’s really obvious you didn’t play gw1
i can’t even have a discussion about energy without you pre-deciding based on other games. for instance in your last paragraph:

Well, if it requires people to play a specific game to ‘get’ then why don’t you just play that game if it has what you want?

And I’m basing my perspective on other games, yes…one of them being Guild Wars 2. Creating builds to recover energy (initiative!) back being part of the fun is hugely subjective. I’m surprised you’re so locked into your perspective that you don’t see that.

I mean, yes, I can understand what you’re talking about and how it could work and how it could be seen as entertaining or strategic to some, but that isn’t universal or even majority. Not only that, but in context of GW2, it’d require a huge change to the core of the game.

I’ll certainly participate in a thread discussing hypotheticals like GW2 but with emphasis on energy, but such a hypothetical isn’t superior to what we have except in your head. The task is transitioning it to a more balanced and action oriented set of rules and playstyles that the game aims for.

I’m pretty sure the discussion you two were having centered around comparisons between strategic depth GW1 and GW2 specifically. If you don’t know then you shouldn’t assume. You know what they say happens when you assume, right? How is it hypothetical when existing example it provided. You can even go play that example right now, and I encourage it if you’re one to go around and make assumptions without even showing the slightest familiarity with its concepts.

Again, you’d have to discount what GW2 does to make that point. It’s a hypothetical because, unlike GW2, GW1 doesn’t emphasize real-time placement, movement and timing in the same way. Or are you saying GW1 lets you move to escape attacks and attack on the move?

But no, my discussion isn’t between GW1 and GW2 because I’ve never played GW1 and don’t plan to. It is and always has been about the strategic depth of the mechanics of cooldown vs mana/cooldown themselves in MMOs and I’d appreciate you not trying to bend the conversation to be otherwise. Not to trash GW1, but I don’t have time to play all the games out there unless it’s some form of combat I can’t get elsewhere.

If you like GW1 mechanics, then play GW1. Stop chasing graphics and just play the game that’s fun. Trying to morph an existing game into your favorite seems selfish anyway, like if I went on a crusade trying to morph GW2 into City of Heroes. I’d prefer a new game prop up that does some of the things CoH did.

The concept is best illustrated in the GW1 vs GW2 debate, because that’s the game GW2 is based on. Proximity matters.

Position in real time is key in GW1 due to it’s front-mid-backrow metagame. Really you should play the game before making more comments about it. Positioning is far less important in GW2 because of movecasting and your invincibility toggle. Skill use is less tactical because of instant casting, instant canceling, balance through cooldowns and most importantly of all the lack of resource management.

It’s not a crusade. It’s a debate, and it’s meant for discussion and growth of knowledge through comparison. There are faults even with games that I do like playing, but I still discuss their faults despite knowing that it won’t change anything, for the sole sake of debating. When someone else debates the quality of a game I like, I’m mature enough to respect their own personal narratives and I’m certainly respectful enough be sure that I know what talking about when I present counter arguments.

And I’m perfectly fine with GW2 not changing. I play other games. That doesn’t, however, mean that the game isn’t without faults that are worth discussing. If the developers happen to be listening, all the better.

There should be a glyph that refreshes attunement recharge, like Renewed Focus for Elementalist. Maybe on a 40-60 second cooldown. It would increase the viability of non-Arcana builds, and individual skill cooldowns should prevent it from being overpowered in builds that invest heavily into arcana.

Gehenna.3625:

Daily page views of the website…3 million views per day. Wait, are they actually using us coming to complain here as a selling point? LMAO

I’m curious as to how this is calculated. I mean, I see the same people post all the time, so it can’t be 3 million views from unique individuals. I think I click at least 10 links per visit. Does it count me clicking the link and leaving the thread as separate hits? Then there’s the fact that I refresh a lot.

Leo G.4501:

milo.6942:

man, it’s really obvious you didn’t play gw1
i can’t even have a discussion about energy without you pre-deciding based on other games. for instance in your last paragraph:

Well, if it requires people to play a specific game to ‘get’ then why don’t you just play that game if it has what you want?

And I’m basing my perspective on other games, yes…one of them being Guild Wars 2. Creating builds to recover energy (initiative!) back being part of the fun is hugely subjective. I’m surprised you’re so locked into your perspective that you don’t see that.

I mean, yes, I can understand what you’re talking about and how it could work and how it could be seen as entertaining or strategic to some, but that isn’t universal or even majority. Not only that, but in context of GW2, it’d require a huge change to the core of the game.

I’ll certainly participate in a thread discussing hypotheticals like GW2 but with emphasis on energy, but such a hypothetical isn’t superior to what we have except in your head. The task is transitioning it to a more balanced and action oriented set of rules and playstyles that the game aims for.

I’m pretty sure the discussion you two were having centered around comparisons between strategic depth GW1 and GW2 specifically. If you don’t know then you shouldn’t assume. You know what they say happens when you assume, right? How is it hypothetical when existing example it provided. You can even go play that example right now, and I encourage it if you’re one to go around and make assumptions without even showing the slightest familiarity with its concepts.

Astral Projections.7320:

• Copies Sold: 3 Million Copies Sold.
• Weekly Active Users: 2.5 Million Active Users per week.

It pains me that people are buying into these sketchy metrics. These are numbers from more than half a year ago. It’s more like 2.5 million hits per week, not even unique ones. And hits to what we don’t even know. Could be the login screen or even the main web page. Also playtime averages to 12 minutes per “active user.” That’s barely enough to fit in a daily.

As for the OP, who knows, but I have an inkling that they’ll have to do something later this year to bolster the playerbase with Wildstar and ESO being released.

Dailies are a lazy way of recycling content. It wouldn’t be so bad, but the content and tasks just aren’t that interesting.

FirstBlood.7359:

Mana management forces you to play your UI instead of the game. It’s another layer that makes your game more complex, but not better.

You still play your UI due to stamina, boons, conditions and cooldowns. Not as much as WoW, but moreso than many other games, imo.

I call them “luckies” and “grindies.”

“We don’t make grindy games”

The issues with GW2’s retention can be easily explained without the use of articles, especially the ones that try to conflate opinion, personal observations, and sketchy data collection (we don’t even know how his survey was conducted) with science.

All of the MMOs described are designed with the same themepark mentality in which there’s a set goal and when you finish it the game is rather pointless until the next content patch. Complaints about there being “nothing to do” stemmed from the fact that there was, well, nothing (engaging enough for them) to do after max level. Colin’s spiel about the entire game being the endgame was simply delusion on a massive scale; the entire game isn’t designed to be engaging enough for multiple playthroughs and this is evident by complaints of how boring it is to level alts.

On that subject many things promised pre-purchased hype simply failed in execution. The no trinity gameplay and the promises of eSports level pvp come to mind. False promises are bound to disappoint and send players away.

There are also sure to be players that are are either dissatisfied with game or just not engaged enough to even play through it, but there’s nothing that can be done about that since it’s a matter of tastes. These are likely another subset of players and we don’t know their exact exact percentages among those who left since it’s impossible to delineate without the metrics.

The fact that stunbreakers are so build-enabling that the devs have to move them around speaks volumes of the game’s design, IMO.

Corian.4068:

I think Anet is realizing that the MMORPG player that WoW has created doesn’t care about good game or level design. They don’t even care about fun, really.

They’ll do any old boring thing if it gets them a shiny at the end. Is it a bonus if it’s fun? Yeah, maybe a little. But they’re not willing to play something fun without that carrot there. On the other hand, they’re more than willing to play something that isn’t fun—or to an extent that it stops being fun—if there is a carrot.

It’s not their fault that this is the modern MMO player and has been for nearly a decade now, but maybe they should’ve seen it coming too.

Those are the the type of assumptions that appear to be the basis for failed WoW clones. If those assumptions were true we’d see more success in those clones.

The types of players you describe do exist, but I doubt they constitute the entire MMO playerbase. GW2 succeeded by selling on the premise that it wasn’t going to be a grindfest like Lineage or WoW, so that says something about the wants of mmo players, 3 million of them in fact!

The things these types of players do are often for the sake of personal progressing. There’s little headroom for that in GW2, just a tiny bit of progression behind timegates, and the reward for dailies isn’t that enticing either. Those carrot chasers you described would probably find more enjoyment in games like Lineage.

Iason Evan.3806:

From reading all of this, I see some great points. Most of the points I see though are things that lead me to believe that some of the people making them shouldn’t really be playing GW2 because it probably isn’t their cup of tea. At some point, you just have to cut your losses and find something else to play that suits you more.

It’s like when we get into a relationship with someone. We can either like them for who they are or try to change them into what we think they should be, or what we want them to be. There are some people here trying to make GW2 into what they want it to be and it’s not just superfluous changes. They want changes to the core game and vision. I just don’t think that works. There are people that like to play a social style game that gives them things that make them feel rewarded. It seems that isn’t enough for some here. You may need something more complex. I kinda feel like there are some people here that want this game to be some really complex game. Some others just want it to be above average and others want it to just be a gear treadmill.

Whenever I want to play something hard I go play Street Fighter 4 online and remind myself that GW2 is probably more my speed. This game is for the masses. It isn’t niche. it isn’t a complex puzzle with a need for spreadsheets and calculators. It’s a place to be silly and social and occasionally it offers up a challenge in a high level fractal or dungeon boss fight. This isn’t EvE. This isn’t Zelda. This isn’t StarCraft 2.

It’s Guild Wars 2 and it’s pretty stinkin’ awesome.

Saying it’s awesome and not why leads me to believe that’s it’s purely bias. This game may not be Zelda, EvE or StarCraft 2, but each of those games deliver on on some concept that GW2 tries to emulates they do it far more effectively in both aesthetics and mechanics. Quality is best measured in relative terms after all, such is the nature of innovation (or constant backpedaling in GW2’s case).

If I don’t DPS my team will take slightly longer DPSing without me.

CMF.5461:

Immobilize, daze, fear, knock down, and weakness (endurance limiter) are the counter play to dodge.

More depth for sure could be added, but it is not shallow per say. I would like to see them do more with what they have though, and pull away from stats and more to skills and timing.

Right now it is kind of a hybrid of classic stat based mmo and an action game. So it feels like the weaker of both.

At the same time CC limites build variety towards cleansing and stunbreakers because of the importance of burst mitigation. The very activation if cc cleanses is instant, and this makes gameplay front loaded and less-I’m not sure if this is the right word for it- deliberate and tactical. There’s a trade-off to these skills but quite frankly the trade-off is merely a cooldown or a choice of skills that don’t really offer much of a choice (they’re inferior or gimmicky due to the metagame).

The thing I dislike most about PvP in GW2 is that there’s no concept of risk reward to skills, and this is due to a combination of the lack of resources, move casting, and balancing with cooldowns in mind. It makes combat front-loaded. It’s more of a race than a game of wits. By risk/reward I’m talking more about combat like Street Fighter, Dungeon Fighter Online, and even Starcraft (yes, Starcraft). Every action or decision in those games leaves you vulnerable at least in some form. For DFO and Street FIghter, this is the speed, hitbox, and vulnerability box of each of your attacks. For starcraft, it’s making decisions with the resources and this is done through prediction.

In GW2 you trade blows and dodge occasionally, making sure your DPS sustain is better than your opponent’s DPS sustain. It’s literally a race. Because of the way skills are balanced some classes will always lose to others and so forth. There is some counterplay at a team level, dividing professions among objectives, but most of the action is really a race between professions on nodes. This is why people have been complaining point capture. The fighting going on in nodes may look dynamic, but the objectives and decision making are fairly static.

Harbard.5738:

TwoBit.5903:

Harbard.5738:

TwoBit.5903:

Harbard.5738:

Welcome to MMOland? People were crying “gimme shinies” for months, so they decided they wanted the easiest-to-please and lamest player-base, people who play reward systems and not games. Can’t say I can blame people calling the shots at anet, sadly, it’s just way too easy. You don’t need a meaty game, all you have to do is roll out the +stat crap and rewarded “achievements” and those people shut up and keep paying. Wouldn’t that corrupt your lofty game designer ideals? lol

If this is all part of MMOland, well then MMOland kind of sucks.

Well, pretty much sums up my point. Not saying I don’t agree with you, but face it, man. That’s MMOland. Or am I missing some awesome game out there? Feel free to PM me the name.

On the bright side, GW2 took a mini step ahead, and we now get to play it every now and then in between real games, without subscriptions, when/if Anet releases something that’s not a stupid clunky minigame, while we continue on our Ever lasting Quest for the Next MMO-Which-Might-Not-Pretty-Much-Repeat-The-Same-Crap-And-Eventually-Suck.

I’ve already planned my Next adventure This game (or rather the forum) is tiding me over until then.

You’re saying reading Erasculio and Vayne derail topics for ~2 years (yes, they will be here still) will keep you amused until your Next adventure? lol

C’mon, man, there are good games out there, even GW2 is still pretty ok, don’t do that to yourself. But if worse comes to worst, I suppose this year’s holidays will be a Landmark for the genre, at least something pretty cool seems to be on the way to save you from haunting the forums. At any rate. Good luck! – Oh and I really hope you’re right people will stop playing reward systems and start playing games, that’s the only way this genre is moving forward.

Not for the two whole years. I’m stubborn but not masochistic. And besides, Wildstar looks promising despite looking a lot like WoW (right down to the character interaction and gear system), and I’ve got am every-growing library of steam games to try and finish.

ilr.9675:

darkace.8925:

I wouldn’t call it shallow. Homogenized? Sure. But not shallow.

Thief is definitely not Homogenized… And guardian (when it comes to soloing dungeons) stands out pretty well too while also being second best Endgame support class after Mesmer. This is unfortunately the realities of Asymmetrical balance though. In order for something to feel different, it has to basically be imbalanced and allow for great degrees of Success in one direction and Epic Failure in another.

Easily the WORST class in this regard is Ranger for dozens of obvious reasons.
…Hence why Ranger needs to regain those “Tracking” skills it had in Alpha and also get a lot more Group-support skills for ALL of its pets… In other words, much like in Gw1, the irony is that they have to further imbalance things to make them feel more balanced.

You are right by saying that overall efficacy isn’t balanced (it rarely is), but if you look at the skills on the level of the nuances of their execution, the game really does seem homogenized. For example, the ranger’s longbow and warrior’ rifle. Both weapon sets require you auto-target, auto-attack and cycle skills when needed, and there’s very little difference in the order skills are cycled if they’re not utilitiy skills (which aren’t that important in PvE). This is why many classes often feel the same.

In Vindictus, the difference between a sword-wielding Fiona and a hammer-wielding one is like night and day despite being the same character. The only difference between the two is windup speed and damage, not even the special skills are all that different. Yet the game feels completely different because difference in frames and dps makes the the hammer literally feel has in risk reward and and the sword feel faster and more reliable. It’s both and aesthetic and functional difference.