Guild Wars 2

Darfod.9375:

There have been “I am confused” posts, but these are more aimed at the quirks of GW2 – dodging / combo fields / downed state / etc.
These could have been addressed by having a reasonable tutorial section of gameplay (which could be skipped by those who don’t need it), rather than a wholesale re-working of the early stages of the game.

You may not have seen this, but a dev answered my question on this, basically saying the reason they’re not making an in-depth tutorial is because “It’s too hard”

JonPeters.5630:

nethykins.7986:

I know this sounds like a no-brainer, but:
Don’t you think a well developed, clear and concise tutorial would have at least curbed some of the issues you have with new players “understanding” the game, instead of changing the core game pacing?

Actually not. Generally speaking tutorials are hard to implement, boring for experienced players and overwhelming for new players. The best tutorial is a system that slowly puts the content out to players because it gives experienced players something to achieve while reducing complexity and option shock for new players.

MikaHR.1978:

nethykins.7986:

MikaHR.1978:

nethykins.7986:

MikaHR.1978:

nethykins.7986:

-snip-

What exactly do you think makes them do (or do not) stuff.

A multitude of things:
Financial gain.
Under-estimation of workload.
Being understaffed.
Management or higher up giving commands to change.
Easier changes = Less work to do. May not be beneficial in the long run, but easy to implement.

And a lot more.

Now imagine that they went on and create this awsome, mid blowing tutorial (mind you they need 5 of those), but it would take 2 years and considerable work force (taling large amunt from allother content)

Would that be better or worse than this?

I’d say it’d be better, because they’d have fulfilled what they set out to do of actually teaching new players how a lot of game elements work instead of just unlocking elements without any guidance

But in all honesty, that’s something we will never know.

I’m guessing the assumption you’re making is that it’d take a long time?
I’m quite sure of that.
However, I’m also sure that what we have now probably took a considerable amount of time and workforce and it’s not particularly helpful. I’ve stated in previous posts, it may have made it faster from 1-15, but does that mean it does a good job of showing new players the ropes, especially when the speed of levelling has increased?

Ah, but you assume thats the only requirement. But its really not that simple (it would be in ideal world with infinite resources).

What they set out to do is probably something lik this:

1. Creat new player expereince that adequatly (not best mind you) teaches new players the basics
2. do it in alloted time (China launch)
3. do it with alloted resources

And too many people fixate on levels, when they mean so little. They wanted to show something new with each level, but in start of the game theres lot to show, and they streamlined it a bit to have more control over how fast it goes at those early levels (pacing). Noone can actually tell is it right or not, cat and box, dead or alive and all that.

I guess it’s all in the execution of point 1. The idea of a NPE is fine, but in it’s current form there’s so little emphasis on “teaching new players” some things, which is probably why I keep hammering that point.

And yeah, no-one can really tell if it’s right or not, because we don’t really know what it’s like to jump in as a new player if we’ve already got a handful of 80s.
The real test will be in the months (or…unfortunately years) before we see if it has a positive or negative effect.

MikaHR.1978:

nethykins.7986:

MikaHR.1978:

nethykins.7986:

-snip-

What exactly do you think makes them do (or do not) stuff.

A multitude of things:
Financial gain.
Under-estimation of workload.
Being understaffed.
Management or higher up giving commands to change.
Easier changes = Less work to do. May not be beneficial in the long run, but easy to implement.

And a lot more.

Now imagine that they went on and create this awsome, mid blowing tutorial (mind you they need 5 of those), but it would take 2 years and considerable work force (taling large amunt from allother content)

Would that be better or worse than this?

I’d say it’d be better, because they’d have fulfilled what they set out to do of actually teaching new players how a lot of game elements work instead of just unlocking elements without any guidance

But in all honesty, that’s something we will never know.

I’m guessing the assumption you’re making is that it’d take a long time?
I’m quite sure of that.
However, I’m also sure that what we have now probably took a considerable amount of time and workforce and it’s not particularly helpful. I’ve stated in previous posts, it may have made it faster from 1-15, but does that mean it does a good job of showing new players the ropes, especially when the speed of levelling has increased?

MikaHR.1978:

nethykins.7986:

-snip-

What exactly do you think makes them do (or do not) stuff.

A multitude of things:
Financial gain.
Under-estimation of workload.
Being understaffed.
Management or higher up giving commands to change.
Easier changes = Less work to do. May not be beneficial in the long run, but easy to implement.

Vayne.8563:

Most companies don’t talk about testing. Why would they? Why should they?

I’m pretty sure they were having problems keeping people after free weekends, which is why they haven’t had many. It’s a lot of work for relatively little return. Logic would say that those weekends aren’t people who are complaining about Arah being bugged. They were complaining about the leveling experience. They didn’t buy the game.

Sure they don’t talk about them, but when big changes are made that feel like it’s a step backwards, people question the QA process/how they got to where they’re at etc. It’s a common thing with games more than anything. I know I’ve seen it in and out of the games industry+with friends in the industry.

On Free weekends: I’m not too sure it’s this reasoning because I’d say that’s down to it just being select free weekends. That may not be enough time for people to really get into it, especially if you’re a casual player. I can imagine their numbers having a stronger foundation on this aspect if they had a free trial up to level 15 or something.

Anet probably tested it on US audiences, because if it’s been going on a year, the China game wasn’t far enough along to test it. My guess is the China stuff was implemented the way it was because of the testing too…and since the Chinese players who are already playing say they don’t like it, I sort of doubt it was made with China in mind.

Makes sense. I just wonder whether it’s all just based off metrics alone, because it’s difficult to see the “You’re learning more and having more fun” aspect in it’s current iteration, from a personal standpoint. I mean yeah, it’s fantastic there’s a speedier leveling curve (I honestly have not felt this but everyone keeps saying it so I guess I should assume so), and that dodge training is good, but everything else just feels like you’re getting ready to unlock something instead of just enjoying the game.

Also, curious to know how they tested that this makes players more eager to come back when it hadn’t gone live.

Colin says more people played longer with this system than the others. He says they’ll watch it and if it’s not the case they’ll change it.

Fair enough…though, I’m super skeptical about this because…well…Anet says stuff, but that doesn’t always mean they have to follow through.

I’m curious to know who took part in “over a year’s worth of research”
Was it Western or Chinese audience?

What was the defining factor that tells them players didn’t find it enjoyable in the previous iteration, and why did that lead to prolonging certain aspects of the game in it’s very early stages?

Would players play more with this current setup but eventually still stop playing, just at a later level? (The assumption here is that the gating becomes redundant if that same type of player is going to quit anyway, regardless)

If that demographic was the US/EU market, then it’s most likely just metrics speaking, if it’s the chinese market, then it’s most likely just a cheap way of “explaining” why they made the change even if it’s not really created for our demographic.

It’s all just about the metrics, I guess.

Also: Did this not come up AT ALL – like, not even a whiff – during the years of work on the game, internal and external testing, (I can only assume they did some general market testing) as well as a bunch of BWEs? Were they so oblivious to it back then?

Starter Zone + Water = No way of defending themselves in combat due to locked skills on water weapons.

How about just getting them to do another “By the numbers” infographic?

errm, wasn’t it always generally fast to level up as long as you did hearts, and events?
I remember it being a breeze leveling in early zones in the past.

Do the patch notes say there’s been an increase in exp gained for events+hearts? I may have glossed over it.

MikaHR.1978:

Nope, it shoud be exactly how it is, same rewards and you do what you enjoy.

If for nothing else, for the sake of constant proving people like in this thread wrong in claiming thers some huge demand when it isnt (there are still people in hard denial out there) and not skewed by bribing players with better rewards.

Its objective mesure, its like people measure 1 meter and you still argue its not and some (yours) random lenght is 1 meter and blaming 1 meter for being 1 meter and trying hard to stretch/shrink measuring tool to fit. It may be cute in the start but it gets hilarious afterwards.

Wildstar tried it your way. Well, results speak for themselves (just as in GW2)

So yeah, case is pretty much closed (been closed for few years now as far as MMOs go)

My post was simply a question, not a statement.

Nope, it should be exactly how it is, same rewards and you do what you enjoy.

The trick with this sentence is that “enjoyment” can also contain the rewards gained from doing said event, and the lack of it may lower the excitement gained. You seem to say the challenge is enough for enjoyment, but there’s no real way to quantify enjoyment. It’s a subjective matter. Which is why it’s so hard to please everyone.
Saying that, a majority of people probably enjoy things more when they’re rewarded for their effort.

When you work twice as hard at a job, eventually, you should get a raise. If you play extremely well during a sports match, you should be awarded an MVP. If you complete your studies at university, you should get your degree. Simple effort to reward system. I fail to see how this goes right over your head.

Anyhow, beyond that, I’m confused about your objective section. What do you claim is objective? The difficulty in making rewards match effort? The measurement of the rewards given to effort?

MikaHR.1978:

Illuminati.2431:

MikaHR.1978:

Illuminati.2431:

MikaHR.1978:

Illuminati.2431:

No, but you are talking about Anet monitoring numbers, and according to you, the numbers for ‘hard’ content like Aetherblade path are to low for Anet to make any new content like this.
All I’m saying, is that your way of logic: Anet’s numbers say not enough % of the playerbase plays this type of content, so why make more?, is wrong. Like I said, the numbers are totally not representable to the type of content, but they represent that if you make hard content that gives crap rewards, no one will play it.

Do you even read what I say before you rant on again and again? I never said that you said anything about Aetherblade path not being played. What I said was that when you used the Aetherblade path in your “Anet monitoring bullkitten” story, it is totally not representable.

But it is very representable.

It means you will do any crap if it has better rewards.

You are now saying it yourself:) It’s representable, yes, but for a whole different aspect for the game. It’s representable that a lot of players choose reward efficiency over challenge. Like you said:) But some guy keeps coming up with this that it is representable for the fact that players LIKE hard content or not. And it’s not representable for that.
The fact that’s it may or may not be played doesn’t mean we don’t want it. I think that from the whole discussion topic we can come to a conclusion that maybe the bigger problem lies in the reward structure.

Reward structure is fine.

If you want challenging content you have it. You dont want to do it. It IS representative.The end.

And of course they will focus what 99% wants and not what 1% wants. Man hours are very finite resource.

Yeah, ofcourse. I spent 2-3 hours on a way harder dungeon than regular dungeons, and I get the same or sometimes even worse loot than I would have gotten in regular dungeons. Yeah, that reward structure is fine.

If you enjoy challenge it is.

If its not about challenge it isnt.

Case closed.

I suppose you’d prefer content to have no reward tied to it?

Just a “Difficult for difficulty’s sake”

There is a 3rd type of group in this equation. While the first 2 are arguing over what the end-game should be, the 3rd group are the ones creating it. The devs.They also have their own ideas and ideals of what “Endgame” should be, and ultimately are the deciding factor with or without the input of groups 1 or 2.

Anyone want to put gold down that no revert happens?

duckideva.6358:

Tachenon.5270:

…So, somebody there (probably somebody too high up on ye old totem pole to talk sense to) decided it would be a good idea to put square wheels on the bus …

I think Tachenon has probably nailed it. This had to have been a decision by someone who doesn’t actually play the game, just markets it, analyzes it, massages it looking for ways to expand certain metrics, but isn’t someone who sits down and plays the game for pleasure. Whomever decided to gold-sink the ability for characters to actually play a full character, cannot possibly be anyone who has actually tried to run a new, untweaked, unfunded character through 80 levels.

My thoughts are that this power player is probably the type of person who uses the trump card of “Metrics” as a means to force change.
Numbers dwindling on earlier levels and alts in lower levels? Revamp the levelling process!!

While it probably doesn’t happen like this, It’s too easy to imagine it does.

Mesket.5728:

TheBladeRoden.4571:

Problem: Traits are too complicated for new players

Solution 1: Explain traits better ingame

Solution 2: Make them even more complicated by instead of visiting 1 vendor they must now complete 65 different tasks! Tasks that

1. are 25 levels higher than the tier it belongs to
2. require you to do the Pv? that you otherwise would avoid at all costs
3. risk facing ganking hordes
4. require going into dungeons under-prepared
5. will take hours of map completion for one trait
6. involve waiting hours for events in map (thanks to megaservers)
7. are downright too bugged to complete
8. you get to do over and over again for each alt

either that or

1. spend the amount of gold that only someone with an existing level 80 would have +
2. spend the amount of skillpoints only someone who’s had a level 80 for many many months would have

Mission: Appeal to New Players Complete!

This pretty much sums it all.

I truly don’t understand why ANet insist to keep this system. I can only think of someone trying to save his own skin at the company instead of recognizing he did it wrong to begin with. There is no other logical explanation.

I just think its a case of – it’s easier to keep it the way it is than change it to something better or even revert it back.

‘Path of least resistance’ and all that.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I don’t think adding tutorials are the answer . . . those who need it the most often aren’t going to suffer through the tutorials and will try to learn it on the fly.

It is known.

On the same side of the coin, slowing down Trait acquisition to try to get people to use them more isn’t quite the answer I think. At least the Trait resets shook out much like the old “Refund Point” system did in GW1 for Attributes.

I understand your point, and it’s a fair one.
Though, my stance is – “It’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it”

In the end you lose a lot less people by having something teach you about a game, than you do if the game just threw stuff at you and presumed you’d learn it without any fuss or frustration.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

ozmaniandevil.6805:

OK, I’ve calmed down… a bit.

My issue:

I should not have to print out a 3 page list of trait unlocks and hunt them down. From a new player point of view, how does this help me? I think the old system was fine. What was missing was information about what to do with traits, why they are important, and how to use them effectively.

You think that was terrible? Try Elite Skill hunting in GW1 where you had to go to the Wiki more often than not to find the skill, then the boss which gave it. Sometimes this boss was only available in a mission, or only in a terrible place to get to.

As much as I enjoyed Signet of Capture work . . . man there was a lot of a pain in that journey. Though that does bring me to my suggestion:

Any veterans of Guild Wars 1 remember the Skill Tomes? How about that for Traits, something which drops rather than has to be bought with Gold/Gems. (Maybe it can be bought with dungeon tokens or geodes? Or Laurels since some players likely have a ton of those sitting around? Or Karma?)

Considering they modified karma so much that new players have significantly less than it used to be, it sounds like a reasonable suggestion.

JonPeters.5630:

barefootstep.7026:

nethykins.7986:

I know this sounds like a no-brainer, but:
Don’t you think a well developed, clear and concise tutorial would have at least curbed some of the issues you have with new players “understanding” the game, instead of changing the core game pacing?

This. So much this.

Actually not. Generally speaking tutorials are hard to implement, boring for experienced players and overwhelming for new players. The best tutorial is a system that slowly puts the content out to players because it gives experienced players something to achieve while reducing complexity and option shock for new players.

I understand that this may be hard to implement. On the other hand, things that are “easier” may not suffice the troubles you face now. I guess it’s either, do easy – but pay the consequences later, or do hard – but secure your future with new players understanding of the game.

Boring for experienced players you say? Well, hey, have the tutorial force new players that have no characters on their accounts. On accounts with other characters on that have already completed the tutorial, make it skippable.
And to play devils advocate: You’ve stated this would be boring. I’ve got 2 accounts, and 11 characters in total…I still have to do the entry personal storyline EVERY time I start a new character. This is boring for veterans. Yet it’s still in the game with no intention of being removed, revamped or skippable AFAIK, and you could easily have the start point for alts be after the first initial personal story point.

I have to disagree here. A good tutorial system is one which actually tutors the player with the game’s systems that they may not be familiar with, not just unlocking it and then hoping you learn the basics of it yourself.

Hey Jon,

I know this sounds like a no-brainer, but:
Don’t you think a well developed, clear and concise tutorial would have at least curbed some of the issues you have with new players “understanding” the game, instead of changing the core game pacing?

ahem…

they should just make a tutorial to show you how downed skills work…(force player downed, then keep player stuck in downed mode until the enemy is killed and the player rallies – and that shows them what rallies are too)

Then make them as visible skills in the skill ui area because it’s pretty silly that these are skills and they’re not listed anywhere besides the wiki.

4ish words to solve their issues of clipping:
Pre.Baked.Cloth.Animations – you can see it’s using dynamics to currently drive the cloth animations at some areas. Just completely bypass that and key the animations. I mean…really, it won’t take them forever to do this.

An honestly, if Charr’s hunchback stance is a problem, just give Charr Side-capes/Shoulder Capes, and hide the left or right shoulderpad.

The drip-feeding of info to players seems like it could have been rounded up in a simple tutorial added in the prologue.

Thing is, I would say
“I think a robust tutorial would have probably taken them a lot less time, effort, resources to get across how to play the game for “new players”, and would have ultimately kept them free to make changes that were frequently requested"

But then I realised that these are just ports from the china client, which means possibly localisation was the thing that took the most time.

On a side note:
Also, here’s a wild suggestion for the downed thing….Place the downed skills in the character skills UI area so i can see what skills I have BEFORE I’m downed!!!!

Just do it like Call of Duty and it’s prestige…just tweak it a bit and allow players to reset renown hearts in an area that’s completed already.

Relshdan.6854:

i rarely hear complaints of difficulty leveling…..but when there is, its because of the poorly implemented/designed trait system revamp deprives new players (w/o silver reserves) of useful traits, and stunts their stat growth far more than this new tier of gear can overcome.

Well, there’s been a kind of artificial difficulty in leveling because of the new trait system getting you started on traits a lot late than it used to.

Leodious.5671:

skyd.9678:

This is not a feature patch, most of the things announced are simply fix wanted from community since 2 years (f.e. commander). Now i should wait other 6 months for class balancing and needed fix, meanwhile, no sab, no legendary, no class, no races,no pvp improvement….should i continue?

They are actually fixing things people want, and you are complaining?! Seriously?

Thank you, Anet. These are things people asked for, and you gave it to us. I know people complain about the lack of communication, and there are certainly still things that people want that have not been done, but there are probably reasons. You should still do those things. Make the effort. But thank you for doing what you have done.

We should be glad, and we should let the company know when they do things we actually like. More whining doesn’t accomplish anything.

I think you’re glossing over the point where Anet class “Fixes” as “Features”.
This needs to be clarified because while we see something like the dungeon instance owner thing as a fix (because it’s been a “fix” in previous patches to try and resolve everyone being kicked from a dungeon), Anet obviously see it as a fix worthy of being a Feature.

I dunno…is it “If it takes more than 6 months to fix, it’s instantly a feature”?

“But we can’t answer what exactly we’re working on, what we might work on next, or what progress we’re making on stuff we are working on.”

So….why have anything up at all?

Why do blog posts?
Why do interviews?
Why do Q+A’s or panels at events?
Why have CDI’s at all if it’s just going to be an echo chamber instead of a discussion?

I’m just wondering if Anet’s NDA policy is having a detrimental effect on the devs opportunity to communicate as well as the community’s impression of the devs.

Between a rock and a hard place I guess.

IMMERSION!!!!!!!!

+1
(in b4 anet says no because of……‘exploits’ – trust me, they’ve said this before with other things)

Err…does anyone know the mysterious unit of measurement of this 600/1200/1500/2000 range everyone keeps harping on about?

It’s perfectly ok to have another account.
I have 2 – because buying character slots is still silly in price, and buying a new copy is significantly cheaper – So this only inconveniences me by means of having an alternate email address (which I already had set up for years)

Go. Buy. Have fun. Enjoy!

I’m a casual player, play on and off a handful of times a week, and most weekends. The last time I got an exotic was I think some time in march, after taking on Behe. Got Final Rest(?)….I exclaimed on chat, this was the first exotic I’ve had for months and months – then everyone told me that this particular weapon drops a lot more often now, since it was bugged before.

How nice

@Diaz:

What’s worse about the in-game ‘hints’ is that you have to unlock the sections.
So if you started this game out fresh, you’d have no understanding of any of the more complex actions until you do it first, THEN it appears in your help, and when it does it’s extremely vague.

So yeah…that’s completely backwards.

One thing I think you missed, which really can change how gamers play is:
“How is the player rewarded for learning the game?”

Woah, woah, there…I’m not talking about loot drops, i’m talking about rewarding the player in other ways for learning the game, or at least (when a tutorial is put in) for when a player succeeds in applying something from the tutorial beyond just damage dealing. (Getting a boon that lasts for a quarter of a second is hardly rewarding, and if boons aren’t explained properly, then it’s kind of pointless. This is where DPS is a big thing. The game in centralised around being offensive – in PvE at least)

Get into any fight, solely focus on damage = Gold award on dynamic events, get loot drops from champions, kill quicker.
Get into any fight and solely focus on support = Bronze on dynamic events, if you don’t tag the champion with enough damage you may not even get loot, kill slower.

In the end, really “learning to play the game”, becomes counteractive because they’ve set it up to be that way.

I agree with all you’ve said, but I think a lot more probing needs to be done on the implications of GW2’s “learning” system.

blakkrskyrr.7413:

nethykins.7986:

Test.8734:

tigirius.9014:

I too find it amusing how somehow farmers have been made to be the badguys

Because THIS…

tigirius.9014:

it costs thousands of gold to buy a single legendary or 500 gold for a skin

…Is the FARMERS’ fault. The farmers’ and the TP PLAYERS. Without EITHER of those, NO ONE would have THOUSANDS of gold, ergo NOTHING would be so EXPENSIVE.

If GW2 had NO farmers, the game would be MUCH, MUCH better for everyone ELSE.

You’ve obviously not considered there’s every possibility that the price would skyrocket if less farmers existed.

Farmers often help curb that spike between supply and demand.
If there are terrible drop rates in game and you at least want a chance to purchase something on the TP, then you’re more likely to get that item if farmers constantly…well…farm it. That ends up getting farmers trying to undercut each other for a sale.

- The more farmers there are, the more there are on TP, the lower the price gets.
- The less farmers there are, the less on the TP and the more expensive it’ll get.

While I’m not saying this is the be all-end all of farmers and the TP, but it’s definitely not just Black and White as you assume.

refer to my posts from 2 above this one. Anet is terrible at economics.

And they have an economist….apparently.

The “dynamic” part of alot of this ultimately falls flat on it’s face because…
(Psttt….here’s a little secret…)
Some events will replay itself, over…and over…and over…and over.
It being started at random doesn’t make it dynamic, just makes it random, IE: without purpose.

It’s less a problem of GW2 and just a problem of MMO games trying to be a unique experience 100% of the time. You just can’t do it, unless you’ve programmed an infinite amount of choices and if the AI is very, very smart.

For example, centaurs rushing the village at a random occurrence rate, burning down housing, getting chased out and doing that cycle over and over again is NOT dynamic…it’s just 1 event repeated.

However, it gets dynamic when centaurs rush the village, burn down housing, get chased out THEN doing something truly different.
That’s the hard part.

Test.8734:

tigirius.9014:

I too find it amusing how somehow farmers have been made to be the badguys

Because THIS…

tigirius.9014:

it costs thousands of gold to buy a single legendary or 500 gold for a skin

…Is the FARMERS’ fault. The farmers’ and the TP PLAYERS. Without EITHER of those, NO ONE would have THOUSANDS of gold, ergo NOTHING would be so EXPENSIVE.

If GW2 had NO farmers, the game would be MUCH, MUCH better for everyone ELSE.

You’ve obviously not considered there’s every possibility that the price would skyrocket if less farmers existed.

Farmers often help curb that spike between supply and demand.
If there are terrible drop rates in game and you at least want a chance to purchase something on the TP, then you’re more likely to get that item if farmers constantly…well…farm it. That ends up getting farmers trying to undercut each other for a sale.

- The more farmers there are, the more there are on TP, the lower the price gets.
- The less farmers there are, the less on the TP and the more expensive it’ll get.

While I’m not saying this is the be all-end all of farmers and the TP, but it’s definitely not just Black and White as you assume.

Azhure.1857:

nethykins.7986:

lol, @ reading =/= playing content.

Yes, “lol”, ‘cause every GW2 player who didn’t play GW1 should not read about the lore and story of the first game if it is of interest to them – no they should pay for it and go play it.

LOL, indeed.

My comment isn’t directed at those invested in the lore. Some people play for achievements, for the cosmetic gear involved or (god-forbid) to actually SEE the stuff play out rather than just read up what happened. They won’t be satisfied with simply reading plot.

It’s like saying anyone interested in cinematography, editing, or acting will be completely satisfied simply reading the synopsis of a movie or TV show if they aren’t able to get their hands on it.

Your assumption is that just reading the lore will fulfil all types of players.

lol, @ reading =/= playing content.

Anyhow….so how does this work for new gamers starting up well after the LS2? will they just have a stack of gold they’ll have to gain to see the older content, or have to cough up dough?
What incentive will there be for those new players to even purchase it?

Tiger Ashante.1792:

Now I know some trolls and sourpusses will come along and try to negate this with various rhetoric “it’s a new game”, it’s the honeymoon" etc. etc. etc.

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/41735/Europe/

Not sure who you’d call a troll here but, with all the flack it got AFTER release, guess who’s number one on (surprise, surprise!) the first week of launch.

Anyhow, if you’d really wanted to give ANet a pat on the back, come back after 6-8 months and let us know how their retention is looking.

wait…so…what ever did happen to the CDI’s?

Lanhelin.3480:

Duran.3196:

posting it here = big mistake

ANet is not against player driven strategies in a whole. They nerfed the champs in the starter areas, but left all other champs as they were.

Today I was in QD with a fresh toon and the chat was much more newbie oriented than it was before. This is and should be absolutely ok. Actually it’s nice to have a conversation with a newbie without being interrupted by train issues all the time.

But the champ train wasn’t made impossible, there are other maps where it can happen. I enjoy participating the train from time to time myself, for the loot or just for the mmo feeling in the open world as open PvE is the major part why I play GW2. It’s just about us to find new ways.

Just because they haven’t hit the others now doesn’t mean they won’t or that it’s an indication they’re fine with player driven strategies.

It took this long to get to QD.

Really, Dusty Moon?
The last place you expect them to respond to criticism is on their official forums?

Izaya.2906:

Anet actually made sense removing trains in starting zones.

Those places are where people start out playing, having them think that spamming 1 is all there is to this game has promoted bad gameplay for new people and prevented them from learning their classes properly.

It’s a long overdue move in the right direction encouraging better gameplay from people if they want the best rewards and not spamming 1 forever on their loot stick.

Hey, you know what else helps show players how to play a game properly, using all skills and showing them how the game really works?

Tutorials.

You know what this game does?
Pretty much gets you to spam 1 until you can unlock the other skills on the bar, or until you can get out of the instanced zone – whichever one comes first. Then pick up a new weapon and watch it happen all over again.

How about improving the first thing people encounter in game? Make a better tutorial and you’ll have less ‘press-1-spammers’

nethykins.7986:

IndigoSundown.5419:

DanteZero.9736:

Add in toxic players with horrible attitudes, and you scare away new players

I have no doubt that the attitudes were the real cause of the changes to starter zone champions. I can see where the developer wouldn’t want that kind of environment. I can also see how increased reports would impact in-game CS, creating an efficiency or resource issue.

Meanwhile:
“Zerker warr, lv80 or GTFO”

…Yup. Totally targeting the full extent of toxic attitudes by relegating it to that individual starter zone…

You fail to realize that you can simply not join those parties because they don’t want you and you don’t want them(each can play how they want).

And you fail to realise that you don’t have to stay in QD if you start out. If you’re human, you’ll come across it no doubt, but that’s suggesting that EVERY. SINGLE. PLAYER. is going to play human race.
Stating I don’t have to join those parties is akin to saying players don’t have to stay in the QD starting zone.
I can wholeheartedly agree with the former. Would you not agree with the latter?

If you are a newbie(or just wanna kill solo champs for the challenge) and want to kill a champ you will get yelled at and verbally abused by the zerg and you are stuck at the same zone with a zerg.

Assuming that those are the only champs that exist in QD – I’m quite sure there are more than that. And again, you’re never really “stuck” in a zone.

IndigoSundown.5419:

DanteZero.9736:

Add in toxic players with horrible attitudes, and you scare away new players

I have no doubt that the attitudes were the real cause of the changes to starter zone champions. I can see where the developer wouldn’t want that kind of environment. I can also see how increased reports would impact in-game CS, creating an efficiency or resource issue.

Meanwhile:
“Zerker warr, lv80 or GTFO”

…Yup. Totally targeting the full extent of toxic attitudes by relegating it to that individual starter zone…

Unfortunately, there’s a disconnect (as it has been since release) between what Anet says, and what actions they take.

This is simply just them going through the motions of let’s patch it now with something really simple, and come back to it when we have time to think of something more creative to solve our problem.

Standard “fix the symptoms not the disease” mentality. They eventually get to the disease but it takes them a kitten ed long time.
I think it’s just a little dangerous doing this all the time – I can see people getting frustrated and leaving. Even with the choice to come back, if the sentiment remains that whenever there’s a problem, ‘expect it to get more frustrating before it gets better’ then it’s more likely to keep them away from the game.

Off topic: The “We Don’t Want You To Grind” Statements:
Easily trumped by the cosmetic end-game. Legendaries was a grind requirement. Skins from dungeons are also a grind requirement. And with the constant change in how easy/hard it was to acquire the crafting mats or tokens, it made the whole “It isn’t a grind” argument kind of pointless. And well….there’s DR too. And Once Per Day Per Account rules….and everything else.

@Deamham, they won’t do it because they’d not want to swallow their pride. They’d give in to the statement they made pre launch that they’re not your average MMO, but at the same time, MMO’s are not just being the WoW cookie cutter any more, unless you’re directly looking at the sub-par korean MMO market,

You’ve basically stated what Rift does. (Allows you to spec into any class type you like through skill allocation when you pick up/purchase ‘souls’)

Don’t understand people like Stooper that say no-one wants it.
You don’t speak for everyone, only for yourself. YOU don’t want it.

I’ve never seen the choice to pick a playstyle become a bad thing for any game so far, and I don’t think GW2 would topple if that became the norm.

“They don’t have anyone who’s far enough into the engine to re-code that entire part.”

This part worries me because it kind of trivialises the CDI’s to some extent. What good is asking to improve the game (which could involve the core structure) if you can’t physically improve (core) parts of the game.

John.5732:

nethykins.7986:

Another Successful CDI. >_>

This is my point. Not the sarcasm, but what happened with the Ranger CDI can’t be our only chance to fix this profession. The outpouring of posts, more than I have seen on a single topic, should show that the players are willing to work toward a better game. Please, Anet, work with us.

Personally, what i took from the CDI, is that the class is stuck in limbo, and they don’t know what to do with it in it’s current state, and I really don’t think a bandaid solution will benefit rangers. While Allie did a decent job of keeping up, it’s all the other devs that should have been part of this and constantly communicating is where this CDI fails.

Another disappointing thing is that ‘long-term investment’ in changing some parts of the class is brushed aside simply because it will take too long to implement or fix, not because they’re bad ideas, but because it would take them too long to see the benefits.

I didn’t think I’d have to say this but I might as well: Rome was not built in a day.

Don’t expect ranger players to be ecstatic just because you created a makeshift solution.

/ramble

Another Successful CDI. >_>

Chrispy.5641:

nethykins.7986:

Just to add do your closing statements – especially on the “Go big or go home” statement.

I’m personally confused about ANet’s bipolar nature:

• - “Our Game Design philosophy has changed….. but…. This is what the philosophy of the ranger should have always been …so it should stay that way”
  – “Yeah, we burnt LA to the ground and if we think dungeons aren’t good enough, we scrap them and start over. Who says we don’t take risks? ….but…. we’re not going to look into an overhaul of a class that needs it…”*

Surely, if something needs an overhaul it should be given?
(Revamped dungeons, Magic Find, and WvW progression says hello….and they’re all asking why the ranger isn’t invited to the overhaul party.)

But, what big overhaul to the class does everyone propose, and not just propose, but how would it work? Its easy to just say “Permastow Pets!”, but, how does it work? You can’t just say “Overhaul the Ranger!”, and expect Anet to wave a magic wand and expect to fix everything. You can’t expect them to spend months and months of their time running on a player suggestion about permastowing pets if it turns out to be a dead end and not work at all, since it takes alot of time and money to do such a thing.

You can do that to Lion’s Arch, where they just have to move around graphical assets, but to completely change around the ranger, something 1/8th of the players of this game spend all of their time doing, is considerably more difficult.

Yeah, go on and argue that there have been plenty of reasonable suggestions in this thread,….this thread, that way less than 1% of all Rangers have posted on, where probably 1% of those posts have put any thought into how it affects the game beyond “Well, I don’t see any downsides, so its good, right?”. There is a lot more at play here than just removing pets, or increasing weapon damage. It changes the entire balance of power in the game when a change is made, and everything related to it must be taken into consideration.

I’m not advocating Anet’s Philosphy concerning the Ranger, because, frankly, I think it sucks. But, I also understand the position Anet is in, because, if they make big changes to the Ranger, and it turns out to not work,…that is a lot of wasted time, money, and effort to fix something when it didn’t actually fix anything.

I understand the calling out for change but not knowing how to do it – and having them spend months on something that eventually turns up not working, but isn’t the point of taking suggestions is to eventually use one of them…it could be anything. It could be spirit buffs from stowed pets, or just a permastow option that increases attributes, and any single one of them could cause the same outcome.

They’ll eventually waste time and money on something. We could even say they’d wasted time and money on the current iteration of the ranger as it stands now, if they have to have a CDI a year or so into the future to have players tell them that what they intended isn’t working, then a few things in the past would be a waste in the grand scheme of it all.

On a lighter note though:
I’m pretty sure AFKing in LA was something players spent 1/8th of their time doing in game.