Well basically MMO is a Massive Multiplayer Online game so it is totally normal to expect to see many people around me.
One where most areas represent hostile wilderness… where it’s totally bizarre to see lots of other people…
Outside of city instances (which were already crowded in my Fort Aspenwood experience) seeing lots of people generally detracts from the plausibility of the world. How scary can the Godslost Swamp really be if there are dozens of professional face-wreckers just hanging out there for 10 minute before big bubba makes his scheduled appearance? If this were an modern urban setting MMO like City of Heroes I’d probably be right there with you, but its not – its feudal/steam-punk fantasy and having 100 people on the Bloodtide Coast map at all times does not improve the ambiance one bit.
I would much rather have had better content scaling than an invisible series of chutes that try to dump the maximum number of people into the minimum number of shards.
I disagree with your idea of what the game is supposed to be. There is supposed to be a bunch of adventurers breaking out into the world everywhere you go. Do you really think whole villages are supposed to really be decimated by the 5 undead that attack when its scaling down to one person? Its supposed to be hordes of undead, and you and 4-5 others helping out is actually more inline than you soloing it. And usually in megaserver, people tend to be spread out around that much.
When i broke into font of rand with like 6 or 7 people, that made a lot of sense actually.
Now im not saying megaservers have no problems, but claiming that the world is supposed to be empty, nah I really dont think so. Its not like, aside from World events you tend to see more than 3-10 people doing anything at once, which is probably how its supposed to be.
World Events on the other hand? total fail now.
Ulgoth used to be fun.
Before Megaservers made it “Fun for Everyone.”Boo, ANet. Boo.
When the game was new, similar blobs of players were around for this SAME event, even ON my rather desolate server. No boo from me. What does this screenshot is meant to prove in any case; that many players doing the event is “bad” for the game?
Bad for FPS at most. Which has always been the case when masses play; at least now there are options to turn down graphics-wise which weren’t available at lunch.
It was garbage then and its garbage now. Im not saying events should be empty. The megaserver is actually really fine without the boss scheduled events. Back when this was a normal occurence, people were telling devs to fix content, make it interesting, complaining about lack of claims and dps only mattering, and way too many particle effects.
fact is very few events created by anet actually play well with this many people. They shouldnt make these events encourage 100 people on one event.
30, 40, heck even 50 is doable.
I was actually in the same situation with ulgoth, i started to experience huge lag spikes, not sure why, then over the course of the next few minutes i saw people pop in the map, hordes, fps drops, every event is completed. People in chat start saying megaserver sucks, whereas just 15 minutes ago people were saying it was great.
I know you are a fan, but the honest truth is the current boss implementation is a big part of why people dont like megaservers. When you take the boss events out of the equation, its generally pretty good.
5 or 6 people around for random events, people shouting what events are happening, non ulgoth attack, with 10 people with probably like 40 by the end of chain. The event schedule and how that interacts with megaservers is one of their big problems. Honestly, no schedule at all, with an event chain that can be started on demand is probably a better bet, though imperfect.
Content is content even if it is no longer available.
Content isn’t anything if it doesn’t even exist anymore.
No content is content if people play it. Doesn’t matter if it’s not around anymore.
actually its not. It was content, in present tense, it is not. Much like if i draw picture i have a picture, if i burn the picture, it is no longer a picture.
Now if they make it partially replayable, or add story elements, its content again.
Living story should have, as people said be used as a tool to expand the world and its features.
Say for example the new trait change system was caused by an event where dragons sucked extra magic out of the world, seperating charachters from their true powers through connection to the mist. Now they have to train harder in order to obtain their souls skills. A new group of npc/trait guide people come in who teach new adventurers how to harness this power.
See thats an example of using living story to usher in a larger change. Then the content of the traits becomes a part of the living story, and maybe they build some plotlines into trait aquisition.
Essentially the implementation is disjointed, somewhat lack luster. IMO its failing to deliver on most fronts besides giving something new to do every once in awhile. They have had some good events/features here and there. But rarely have they been introduced very well. and many of those interesting events and features no longer exist.
as an aside, that last cutscene for living story….
well its good that somethings disappear.
thinking about it recently, i think one of the big reasons we will need an expansion to get new real content, must be because anet doesnt keep many creation type people on hand for regular release.
They always talk about things taking a lot of resources, that really dont take that much resources, unless you dont have a lot of people with that skill set on staff.
GUI or menu graphics 4 – 8 hours
One level texture 1 – 2 hours
One scenery object 4 – 8 hours
One detailed object(animated or seen up close, like a gun) 8 – 12 hours
One good room in a map 2 – 4 hours
Modeling and painting a character 30 – 50 hours
Rigging a character 4 – 8 hours
Animating a character, per short animation 1 – 2 hours
Now, during development, they could probably do this super fast they probably had multiple concept artists, 3d artists animators etc. Now though they probably have a lot less. Im guessing they like to hire these guys mostly by contract so they wont pick up a bunch of new guys until they decide definitively that they want to make an expansion.
based on random time table things, im guessing they got
1 ui guy
2 3d artists
1-2 concept artists
1-2 animators
in an expansion/creation mode they probably got at least 3, maybe 5 times as many of these guys.
A bit odd though because personally i would say these types are worth it, especially the 3d artists and concept designers, they sell a lot of 3d artwork for 8-10 bucks a pop. If it takes 100 man hours to make, and you are selling lets say to 5% of a 1 million playerbase. thats 5 million per item.
Overall, my guess is the expansion model is better because you get what you pay for. right now they make money mostly off of micro transactions, so you will get game design that focuses on that. If they get money for new content then you will get mostly new content.
As above mentioned, for general PvE it’s great. People are doing events and there is active map chat. It’s like the game was at the start when people were still crowded into the starter zones.
However for guild missions, getting into the same map as people on your friend list or guild, temple events (which are hard to get as the temples are continuously defended) and boss meta events which are huge computer crashing zergs; these all have problems that need to be addressed.
I think defense events probably need to have some cool events that only pop when you are in a positive condition. The elementals are a nice touch, but events is the meat of the game.
Also the traits that need defense need to be able to be completed in some way even if the mpa is winning. AKA every defense event needs to give you the oppurtunity to get the trait
I leveled a toon to 46 after the patch.
Overall I like the new system more,but I have a few remarks.
Pre lvl 30.
You could start unlocking traits a bit earlier,at lvl 20 maybe?
You could add some of the starter trait unlocks to lower level maps.
Weapon skills take no time to unlock,utility slot skills take no effort to unlock given the amount of sp scrolls people have amassed,so what that adds up to is a bit boring
leveling process form 1 to 30.
After lvl 30.
The intervals at which you gain trait points should be made clear to the player in the beginning.
It would be nice to have markers of trait unlock locations on the map,so you won’t
have to go through the list of traits to check out the ones available in the zone you are in.
I liked the option to buy traits with gold and sp.It’s an good alternative for content you don’t want to play.
definately feels like the game starts at 30 post patch.
and it also feels like you play not expecting to actually play as you wish till you reach higher level.
that said going out with goals, and going to some interesting content is good, i generally like the stuff in mini dungeons, or requiring environmental challenges. The stuff linked to the dynamic event chains are pretty cool, since there is usually people around/doing events now.
map completion EHHHHHH i really dont like completing maps
WvW/Eotm this is kind of ehhhh some people dont like pvp, some people dont like eotm. pretty random aquisition here. Dont really like it.
Other problem is, its all the same for every charachter, some stuff is interesting to repeat, but map completetion? the same maps? every time? ehhh
Think the system needs a third option for aquirement, that is more solo oriented, and somewhat instructional/based on the traits, this can act as a tutorial. Maybe after master, this option is not available. At that point maybe you can expect players to do anything in the game. But during the leveling process? i dunno.
the biggest obvious issues with the megaserver is
guilds >events/missions etc
creating and reinforcing the new concept of communities
the less obvious issues are, handling dynamic events without putting them on a bus schedule.
I will say the potential is pretty good with megaservers, and they no longer have to fear empty zones when it comes to making new content.
(if its empty with 24 worlds, no one really wants to be there, aka a content problem)
Suggestion: Low-Population Megaserver shards.
These would be the same as normal megaserver shards, but with a map cap of about 30 people. They would be entirely opt-in: you would have to a) know they exist, and b) select the ‘low-pop’ option to be placed in one.
Reasons:
1) Gameplay: massive zergs are good for some things, and a lot of players seem to enjoy them. But having massive amounts of players around isn’t fun for everyone, all the time. Most exploration and event stop being challenging with more than 2 or 3 players. Moreover, exploration is terrible if all the events in the zone are done, and there are 10 or more players at all the remaining ones.
2) Performance: I, and a lot of other players, don’t have brilliant PCs or internet. Having every map full all the time has massively increased loading screen times, the likelihood of lag, and so on. Being able to zone into a play on a map with fewer people makes the game perform much better. It is, however, no longer possible on the megaserver.Cons for Arenanet:
None. As it is a megaserver system, the server resources would be directly in proportion to the amount of players who choose to opt-in. If not many players want to play on low-pop shards, then barely any system resources will be used. If lots of players want to use them, then Anet will know they are popular and that is was an good decision to implement. Moreover, it increases player choice, which will always make more players happy. In no way would it decrease enjoyment for players who like full maps.
yeah this is one of the best options for solving the “comfortable” population issue. I would soft limit it at like hmm maybe 40 though, with people able to join in up to regular cap though.
They would only be generated on need or something.
i think a medium may be good as well, but maybe that would fracture it too much. Also bosses probably need to be redesigned/schedule. I mean your probably going to always have a large pop focused on the boss.
perhaps they wish to allow people to buy them in order to kill their remaining items, but if that was the case, why kill the one in peoples banks?
well the truth is this system is designed to make the leveling process weaker, and incentivize people to want to level up to get to the real game. They are going to be making it take more exp to level, and give more skillpoints to those who pay monthly in china.
Im sure there are some differences in our version, but they definately want people to feel like they need to level up more. This is not the only reasons for the design, its also the fact that level 40-60 was the lull phase, by moving the traits to later, it gives you more desire to push through these levels and get to the real game. They also have the most amount of work for traits in this level range, to fill the gap and be less boring. As well as give you other directions between story mode.
The problem is? they have now moved that big boring play gap to say 10-30. Since exp doesnt go that much faster after 10, its basically the same amount of time of boredom. Its also making it boring at a time when most people are past the new phase, and not at the commited to the game phase.
A better answer would be to create new bonus traits/skills that you can begin hunting at 40-80. Problem? well that would mean a lot more new skills/traits than we have seen… ever since release. So they decided to leverage existing systems and use old assets.
But even with that implementation its bad. i will more carefully run through the big flaws in a post later.
hmm earning is down but precursors are up, hmmmm
I’m pretty new to GW2 after playing WoW for years. Been playing for a couple of weeks now. And I have to ask if I’m doing something wrong in zones.
I am consistently lagging far behind in level by the time I 100% complete a zone. For instance, I just completed Dredgehaunt Cliffs last night, a 40-50 zone. I’ve done everything, gathering along the way and doing events, and I’m barely over 45 now. If there is a large level range in a zone, I often times run into areas of multiple enemies that are hard to get through becuase they outlevel me by a large margin. Got through some of it with a few friends, though.
So, if I’m on by myself, is the only solution to pack up and go to another zone to make up the difference rather than stay put and try to 100% complete in while I’m leveling? That kind of doesn’t make sense to me, but I don’t want to just sit around doing nothing but grinding mobs for levels either.
another factor i havent seen people mentioning, is bonus exp. essentially the longer enemies have been alive the more exp they give. With bonus exp from kills, given by food and oils, (20%) it can be really large.
The best and fast combinations come when i dynamic event takes you to places where people havent killed in awhile. It can be a rather drastic gain in exp.
I will say i think that the snow areas, are bit more barren, with worse plotlines than other places imo. There were a couple memorable chains, but mostly they felt pretty ehhhh.
wait i didnt know this, you cant get any rune back from any item you apply a skin to? You used to be able to salvage transmuted gears.
Why would they do this exactly?
phys, I think you’re absolutely right. There are definite winners and losers here, but all systems can be changed. Since we know they’re investigating and tweaking Megaserver RIGHT. NOW. it would be in all our best interest to keep it calm, rational, and provide QA-quality feedback to help them improve.
Sadly, the people best in a position to provide that feedback seem to be providing the lowest quality feedback so far.
People arent always going to react in the most logical way, then again reacting in the most logical way doesnt often get results.
regardless, if they actually want feedback, they have to do a bit more to encourage it. People have given pages of feedback, and they havent said anything or even asked questions.
I perfectly understand not wanting to step in a mine field, but when you are in a mine field, you basically are going to have to step on it eventually. I mean if you make a program, and it breaks a bunch of other programs, you are going to have to tell the customer something.
As of right now, anets official response to people who said you broke my game is nothing at all. There was a german community rep response, but its not over here. The only thing i can gather from that is the language filter is temporary.
And i dont think tweaks will solve these issues, its going to require some big things, that probably should have been in place before firing it up. If it takes them a month to solve the guild/community issue, they will lose a lot of players and a lot of trust.
But how many more would they have lost due to the wasteland effect and people feeling that no-one is playing the game. There is a reason why I don’t play Guild Wars 1 anylonger.
Well i guess we have passed the point we re we know what the other path brings, while people may have felt a wasteland effect, i think its better than active anger and feelings of betrayal. Doesnt matter right now though.
I guess the real key is what they can do now to alleviate some of these issues asap.
I personally think they could have put this on the backburner, and focused on adding some major new content, that would have got the world a lot less empty feeling. IMO the number 1 problem with GW2 at this stage was lack of new content. you can only watch the same movie so many times.
Sadly new content is probably even further out now, they have to fix core systems they changed.
But like in sports all Anet has to do is start winning. Start implementing things the majority of the fan base wants and a lot of the negativity will fall into the background.
Wardrobe? Check.
Account-bound dyes? Check.
Underflow system? Check.
Free retraiting and repairs? Check.
Better rewards for PvP and non-Conquest maps? Check.Are you sure the negativity will fall into the background? :-/
most of those issues are QOL issues.
the megaserver has created design and paradigm shifts, and day to day problems. So yeah for those that the megaserver totally altered their experience the other things are a small thing in comparison.
now if you arent community/guild oriented or prefer smaller world events/dynamic boss schedules, the patch is probably over all pretty good for you.
Oh yeah and if the trait system sucks for you, thats gonna make the whole game suck for you till you are 80 and fully traited.
Frankly, they have nothing to gain from posting anything that is not in FINAL stages of implementation. Every comment any Devs makes on these forums (or anywhere on the Net) is twisted, selectively quoted (if not misquoted) while being improperly analyzed and interpreted by anyone with an agenda to promote (kind of like the RL press…hmmm).
While I would like to hear a few more, " we understand this issue is a concern of the player base and we are looking at possible action….stay tuned.", comments, I fully understand the “Speak No Evil”, mentality they have had of late. I don’t particularly like it, but I get it.
apparently anet doesnt have a good grasp of what sort of problems changes they make may generate for players. To be perfectly honest, from the inception of even the idea of a megaserver, the problems that arose were pretty obvious to people who play the game.
Will i be able to play with my guild?
what about world events?
what about dynamic world?
what about my community?
So if anet cant see some of these problems coming, they can save some development time by actually running some of what they are planning by players, before they end up with a big patch solution that doesnt solve the problems, or creates a bunch of new ones.
Even if they dont care for feedback, generally you will let a customer know what the expected timelines are for changes.
Eurhetemec, I’m not going to sit here and have a personal argument with you on this thread. If you’d like to do that, you’re welcome to message me here or in-game and we can do that.
I have never said that Megaserver is perfect. What I have said, repeatedly, in multiple threads (some of which you may not be reading) is that Megaserver is an improvement for me, needs some tweaking (better ability for guilds to get together, inclusion of Friends list as a mechanism for sorting, ability to choose a style of megaserver such as RP, Dungeon runner, casual, etc) and has a large problem dealing with language which definitely exists, though is not a problem for me. If you disagree, you can easily look up my post history to verify this information.
I think the design of Megaserver is imperfect but a step in the right direction. I think it can be tweaked and made to work well.
What I’m less certain of are these forums. There are lots of smart people saying lots of smart things, even things I disagree with, about the update. But those smart things are often lost in a sea of complaints, I’m-quitting posts, hyperbolic “this has ruined everything” posts, and demands for immediate responses from the devs.
This is all counterproductive. We would all be much better off attempting to provide actionable feedback that explains precisely the issues we have while giving enough information to allow the devs to fix the algorithms for Megaserver.
If this is happening somewhere on the forums, I have not seen it.
the emotional hyperbolic responses are feedback too, they give you a clue to the intensity of the problem.
looking at these threads, i see you have some really intense problems for people of certain playstyles, intense enough to make them leave the game, and rage even when before they were fairly content.
Essentially the megaservers are EXTREMELY bad for decent sized guilds, and people who selected their communities, they also pretty bad for people who selected their desired population density.
And i dont think tweaks will solve these issues, its going to require some big things, that probably should have been in place before firing it up. If it takes them a month to solve the guild/community issue, they will lose a lot of players and a lot of trust.
They really need some help with this process, i dunno if they should pull people to the side, or do cdi, but it doesnt seem like the team grasps these issues until after it blows up. They also need to communicate, because its likely people will have no solution any time soon. IF they communicate their intent and customers like/accept it, they are is less likely to be angry, and less likely to give up on the game/harbor hate for the devs or the game.
maybe its an acceptable loss, and they hope to replace the community driven people and the large guilds, but lack of communication, and these changes sitting for a long period of time is a recipe for losing these people.
btw i think its a step in a direction that could have benefits, but i think they will need to build some pretty hefty/different systems to really support the system without making the game a bit more sucky.
(edited by phys.7689)
I love how everybody acts like the overflow system worked perfectly. Do you know how often I was able to play with my full guild for new Living World events on patch day?
Never.
How about my full party?
Occasionally.
How about just my girlfriend?
Usually, but not always.
Very often, by the time we all loaded into a map and tried to join on somebody else, that somebody else’s server would already be full. As would ours. Not soft-capped full. Hard-capped full. (We weren’t guesting.).
It worked perfectly for me, thanks. Play with my wife? 100% of the time. My party? 100% of the time (literally – I have no idea what stopped you here – can you explain?). Everyone from my guild who wanted to group? 100% of the time (maybe I got lucky there but…).
You must play during non-peak hours or on a low-pop server. Playing around 5-9pm server time (PST), events like Escape From Lion’s Arch would almost instantly create an overflow. Getting into main? Ha! Hilarious!
Okay, so you enter your overflow. Did all five members of your party make it into the same overflow? No, just three? Okay, the two people not with the three of us, join on us. Oh, the world is full? Okay, let’s join on the two of you. Oh, your world is full too?
That was how these events would go for us for WEEKS. Marionette was like this for over a week. Escape from LA was like this for a week or two. The events to retake LA seemed to be a bit better, but it was still hit or miss.
Trying to get 10-15 guildmates into the same overflow? Forget about it. That is simply not happening.
This is frustrating to me because I’m happy with Megaserver, yet I accept that it also has issues that require fixing. I don’t seem to be getting the same courtesy back. Opponents of Megaserver don’t seem to recognize that it solves a huge problem that many of us had. (Or that it should solve the problem. It remains to be seen.) It’d be nice for you to at least acknowledge that the system serves as an improvement for many people who don’t want to go back to the old way.
So your saying they designed the system to fix a problem that only occured when they had massive events which is like 1 per month, and then broke like 3 or 4 MAJOR backkittenelated systems to put into situations when it wasnt usefull at all? That doesnt sound like a good solution to the problem that most people had consisitently.
I can think of some advantages, but acting like for most of the game people couldnt get into content with their guild/party/server is just not very accurate.
Comparing the emergency state system to the always on system doesnt make a lot of logical sense to me.
At the very least a streak busting algorithm should be implemented. It would not flood the market as it would work both ways. Those that rng heavily favors would be averaged down against those who rng hates being favored up.
streak busting would imply that rng was just about chance of success. Its also used to pick possible outcomes.
How do you have streak busting when rng is used to pick gold, armor, trophies, loot bags, salvageable items, weapons as possible drops. Which streaks do you bust? and would that even help?
the only thing that is mob specific is crafting materials, and the drop rates are low enough, that you are generally better off hunting more of something else, since mob density is more important, and the best path to that is dynamic events that are scaled up.
They can’t change the reward system. The interdependence between gold and gems won’t allow it. It will destabilize their economy and they’ll lose revenue.
I played for a year and never got a good skin drop. Best thing was a 6g exotic amulet from a world boss chest a while ago. That’s in ONE YEAR of playing.
So yeah, I’m one who doesn’t enjoy this crappy loot system but it’s here to stay because the game is designed this way. RNG and sucky rewards all around.
the gold/gem exchange has always been more about time in game versus out, as well as whats in the gem store.
As long as gold is the main medium for exchange, and you have to spend your time doing something, people will use it to exchange for goods they dont like the methods of getting. So buying gold will always be a shortcut based on time, and the activity required in the game to get X. People buy gold in every MMO, because even if the economy is inflated or whatever, that only changes the gold exchange rate, not the fact that you can buy it.
I think the main reason for the design descion is the that they are trying to make everything equal. You can do whatever you want, because generally its as likely as anything else to drop whatever you need. The side effect though is that everything becomes about your paycheck, and whatever means gives the fastest gold end up being the most effecient route to most items in game.
Well we do have some exciting rewards, such as dyes…..oh wait. >_>
You can get a unidentified dye. It’s not like a specific pink mob could drop a cool pink dye or a dark dungeon can drop some cool dark dye. So no we don’t. (Not a lot, there are a few)
Now that would be cool.
Haven’t dyes been removed from loot tables?
Unidentified dyes you mean? No I am pretty sure I did get a dye after the patch. But am not 100% sure.
should be removed from the loot table. If I read their patch notes right.
That would be stupid.. and why would they do that?
So you mean you can only get them from the cash-shop / trading post? Like most mini’s.
they descreased supply, and increased utility of each dye, as has been said they are account bound now. Its not as bad as it seems though because the supply is pretty large.
You can in fact get them though if you need them, by crafting and mystic forge.
The main gameplay way to get dyes now is through crafting/cooking.
It may in the long term give cooking more value, maybe ascended cooking will be about crafting a new dye teir… hmm
no point in attacking specific people if you disagree with their ideas, say what you disagree with about their ideas.
My position.
Unlocking of traits is good and interesting
Pushing the level back to 30 makes leveling 1-30 fairly boring. While i know some people didnt use them/or care, many people did. Its not really about difficulty in this case, its about boringness.
Even beyond the level pushback lets look at.
- Trait aquisition gripes
- doesnt feel like a progressive system you hit 30, and your traits are spread seemingly randomly looks like the level range is 15-70 and two different game modes.Which is pretty odd for something that you ideally would be able to pick whatever one is most useful to you at level 36. One would assume since you put it in for midlevel charachters it would be something that would lead them through the world and towards content but that is not the case.
- The trait aquisition has no context, this may seem a bit cosmetic, most people dont care about immersion or lore, but it isnt just cosmetic. The fact that there is no context makes it jarring for players, and makes people looking for certain playstyles do things that are against their playstyle.
- for example: trait aquisition for feedback bubble, a defensive/supportive skill for reviving allies. Placed in a WvW jumping puzzle? would someone interested in this trait probably be attracted to a jumping puzzle in WvW? a puzzle often done solo, and seperated, where even if your friends are with you, they probably died due to falling, and dont need a revive
- extremely noob unfriendly, i have been playing the game since start and have done almost everything on the list at least once. Even i see some things and i have very little idea how to get them without looking for a guide. Not only that but you have to look at every single trait to figure out what is actually level appropriate. Perhaps the colors the gave it fine/masterwork/rare etc should have been more based around level ranges to obtain said skills.
Its basically a system better suited to a high level player. It should have probably been something mostly for top level players, essentially special skills.
I think most new players will end up buying the skills, and many repeated players. If that was the intent, the prices are probably a bit high.
Well we do have some exciting rewards, such as dyes…..oh wait. >_>
You can get a unidentified dye. It’s not like a specific pink mob could drop a cool pink dye or a dark dungeon can drop some cool dark dye. So no we don’t. (Not a lot, there are a few)
Now that would be cool.
Haven’t dyes been removed from loot tables?
Unidentified dyes you mean? No I am pretty sure I did get a dye after the patch. But am not 100% sure.
should be removed from the loot table. If i read their patch notes right.
they have solutions, but they require pretty large development and paradigm shifts.
- First off chat filters,
- I think this is the right idea but the wrong implementation.
They essentially need a sort of universal language chat, and possibly server chat, that only people who have the settting/server can hear.
- I think this is the right idea but the wrong implementation.
- This is different from a on off filter because that simply shuts off peoples voice completely.
People speak in home tongue when they want to talk to other people in home tongue, but sometimes they expect to speak to any and every body. The filter/chat channel has to be similar. IE, i can communicate with other players, but also i can talk to any one else of (chosen grouping) if i want.
- problem is, it also has to be something that makes instant visual sense to people, since they had no need of it before today, people are used to world chat, and will defualt to that even if they get access to new chat channels.
- Server identity/events/planning.
- They need to create homelands now, A place where people looking for other people of their server/world/grouping go to congregate and relate. They could make cities into this, but slightly problematic, because cities were desolate for some servers. This type of place would be the hub for world based activities, and a place where you know everyone from there is part of your world.
Question is, would enough people go there? Most servers only had enough people to maintain one hub, so how many people would be there? i guess thats up to the server community. - This would probably be a pretty large undertaking, they would have to design a whole new area.
- If done as i envision, it would be a major undertaking where the cities condition would be effected by what your server is doing in WvW and in PVE, as well as some voting and descions systems for building/altering the city. But this is best case scenario. I fully realize this system would take too much work and time for anet to be likely to do it.
- They need to create homelands now, A place where people looking for other people of their server/world/grouping go to congregate and relate. They could make cities into this, but slightly problematic, because cities were desolate for some servers. This type of place would be the hub for world based activities, and a place where you know everyone from there is part of your world.
- Community wise, i think homelands would solve many issues, It would be a place to gather, generate server pride and involvement, and be a hub for communication. This combined with a chat system for groupings, would essentially allow you to communicate just with your server at will and thus reinforce it even in the multiserver world.
- Guild solution,
- allow guilds to get treated as a group by the system for limited events(essentially queue guild together).
IE the system holds or creates a space for all of them at once, up to 100 slots at a time. if they dont have enough room for the whole group, in any available server it will place them in a new map. (this map will be open to whomever after that)
- allow guilds to get treated as a group by the system for limited events(essentially queue guild together).
- World bosses,
- This is almost a requirement: you need a system for tracking events, it can be something people unlock, or get access to at a certain level, or via npcs, but there needs to be a way to see whats going on without going to an outside site, list, or whatever.
- 1 option: create one pop that is guaranteed based on time, and other pops that can happen during that time based on conditions in the map.
- 2 option: another solution is to have your guaranteed cycle,with other cycles that are a bit more random, and spawn based on how many people throughout the worlds are completing events. IE when a lot of people are playing actively, more varied events spawn.
- Overpopulation on WB
- option 1: set map softcap lower. Unless your game clients are designed to handle 150 people using all their best skills in small areas, dont create content that forces it.
- option 2 restructure world events and bosses to scale in location as well as size, think like the marrionette which broke large groups into smaller groupings, except make it so that it has options for only 20 people to be able to win. However i recognize this would be a lot of work, and take some pretty good design (grats to the designer of marrionette, imo thats the best world boss design for large groups)
But yeah, there are solutions, but i dont think that the algorithm will solve these problems, it needs some actual design, and then even in best case scenarios with algorithm, it still needs a lot of work and redesign of small systems.
I will say that honestly the megaserver system if implemented well, is probably the best solution. The main problem is that implementing it well is a big task, its the type of thing that would have been best if the system was designed with it in mind. (and even possibly the lore)
Servers shouldnt be something you pick at the start menu now, they are basically joining communities/WvW allegience. They should be something you opt into because it in someway resonates with you.
A lot would need to change to make this system actually work well.
the reason rewards are so bad, is two fold.
A) almost everything in the game is totally rng based.
B) for some reason they tend to design with really large numbers in mind for everything.
since mobs can drop any and everything, most time hunting/targeting specific monsters/places is worthless. Also since mobs can drop any and everything, thier drops are balanced around giving you small pieces or chances around good loot.
the designers have a tendency to pick fairly large numbers. 300 silk scraps, 10000 candy corn, 250 orichalcum blades, heck look at even blues and greens
24 mithril ore 12 elder wood and 8 teir 5 mats for a green. Whats the value of said item on TP? 1 copper over npc sale price.
now as someone has said, because drops are random, the game forces you to TP the vast majority of items you find, at the same time none of these items have any value to you, so you just want to get rid of them. also for any item you want to get, since the drops are 100% random, your best bet is the tp. the only targeted methods of creating items is crafting, but the value of items is based around all the people who got random drops they didnt need taking up space, so crafting is generally the worst option.
In the end the best way to get anything ends up be gold, but the game doesnt want to have players creating too much gold, so most methods of obtaining gold are highly regulated.
so yea rewards generally have to be bad in this system. They would need to overhual loot aquisition in general, and probably overhual how much things are brought to market.
Ok, tried it out. The trait system needs work
the pushback to 30 is noticeable, a lot of basic traits you would be able to mess around with at 20 are now far later in the progression. The beginning you get bored fast. The only thing you have to mess with is your weapons, and i cant see that lasting much longer past 20. So then you got 10 levels of nothing really interesting going on.
once you hit 30, your next skill is essentially 6 levels away, and you can do very few to none of the skill unlocks at this level.
It feels more like this was designed for high end players who are somehow making a level 60-80 new charachter. traits are effectively offlimits until like 50.
While it could have been a nice extra progression for low levels, it doesnt work that way at all.
this system works with new traits, and probably with new skills, but its really bad as a core progression in its current iteration.
hand to hand, though id rather it come with martial artist
spear
uhhh think you have all the weapons covered after that.
And to Wanze: I think – and that is only my gut feeling – it couldn’t make things worse, at least. Because then you wouldn’t have people trying to buy low, sell high, driving the price even higher.
Flipping lowers prices. Imagine Wanze and I are both trying to sell Dawn, and each have bought one to sell. I list mine at 1000g and he undercuts me for 950. So I cancel the listing and relist for 900, he does the same for 850. Etc, down to 500g before someone comes along and buys it. The buyer got a deal, and we wasted the fees relisting to compete to sell first.
If you can only farm items, then sell them and the buyer is stuck with an item he can’t sell, then you buy from whatever price the seller wants. It would make things worse for buyers because sellers face less competition.
wanze would just leave it there, taking a 100+ gold paycut to beat your price should only be done in dire circumstances
im going to stop you right here, there is nothing inherent to TP merchanting versus say for example boss fighting that means one should give you more than the other.
Currently, there quite obviously is as I have pointed out a tiring amount of times now and there has been no evidence given to suggest that needs to change outside of “muh feelings!”.
why not make it possible to get rewarded in ways that dont unbalance the macro economy
etc.
I’ve already said I would give rewards to highly skilled participants in pve/pve and I would certainly love to see high risk, high skill requirement gameplay added.
Still, you would be unable to “balance” gold gain in and of itself because of the fundamental difference in the core mechanics of the two systems (which I can’t believe people don’t grasp in all honesty). But then, that wouldn’t bother you right as you are not after gold gain, as long as you could get the elite items as a reward for doing the elite content.
as long as i can progress and have goals attainable by playing and getting good at whatever playstyle im into, im fine and dandy.
And while i might not win tournaments, i would rather pay a gold entrance fee for a chance at the pot, because that entertains me.Id rather fight a boss who kills people and takes 10 per person per group wiped, gladly paying because it makes it more thrilling. (and its optional)
rather get account bound awards like SAB skins and Fractal skins, because it gives me reasons to do certain types of content
dont really care about cash, just happens that GW2 decided to focus the reward gain on high end things in the game on cash.
Fenrir and me both acknowledged this to be a good idea but it has absolutely nothing to do with nerfing the tp. Its completely off topic and I dont know why you keep bringing it up as an argument to nerf the tp.
i bring it up because the argument for nerf tp is that
players cant get rewards except via tp because tp rewards based around gold accumulation.
So either they can attempt to bring the gains via TP down, or they can try to make players not mind by giving them ways to achieve things without nerfing the TP.
Essentially i am saying dont nerf the TP, fix the other playstyles possible gains.
To make an analogy to nerfing a class, i would be saying dont nerf that class, improve the other classes because they are under performing.
to which others have said, they cant do it because it would flood the economy, to which i reply do it in ways that do not flood the economy.
Everyone really just wants to have viable playstyles and goals here. They dont have to nerf the TP to achieve this.
The best things would be to create other reward structures, more methods of wealth exchange/risk for various playstyles, as well as increase player understanding of the TP game.
for example, a lot of people dont know when they are losing at the TP, because they think everything they get is free.
If we are going full blast core gameplay on the TP, they could add things like a portfolio.
when you put items into portfolio it tells you their average value from sales over X period of time, max buy and max sell,
when sell and item you craft it tells you the value of the materials involved.
when you sell an item you have salvaged it tells you the value of the possible salvages
when it sees that you are losing money (even if your are gaining it back through drops) it gives/changes your rating.
etc. I mean a lot of people actually think they are coming out ahead sometimes when mathematically they arent really
anyhow whatever things most likely wont change much, the type of things i propose take a lot of work/ui/etc. Just a shame that i have to play the TP to get ahead, back to hustling warez
im going to stop you right here, there is nothing inherent to TP merchanting versus say for example boss fighting that means one should give you more than the other.
Currently, there quite obviously is as I have pointed out a tiring amount of times now and there has been no evidence given to suggest that needs to change outside of “muh feelings!”.
why not make it possible to get rewarded in ways that dont unbalance the macro economy
etc.
I’ve already said I would give rewards to highly skilled participants in pve/pve and I would certainly love to see high risk, high skill requirement gameplay added.
Still, you would be unable to “balance” gold gain in and of itself because of the fundamental difference in the core mechanics of the two systems (which I can’t believe people don’t grasp in all honesty). But then, that wouldn’t bother you right as you are not after gold gain, as long as you could get the elite items as a reward for doing the elite content.
as long as i can progress and have goals attainable by playing and getting good at whatever playstyle im into, im fine and dandy.
And while i might not win tournaments, i would rather pay a gold entrance fee for a chance at the pot, because that entertains me.
Id rather fight a boss who kills people and takes 10 per person per group wiped, gladly paying because it makes it more thrilling. (and its optional)
rather get account bound awards like SAB skins and Fractal skins, because it gives me reasons to do certain types of content
dont really care about cash, just happens that GW2 decided to focus the reward gain on high end things in the game on cash.
And dismissed as a minor problem.
Except it hasn’t.
When someone points out exactly why different systems can and do have different potential gains is specific areas. Countering that with"but they should all give the same gold, the game is not competitive!" is not a very good argument to make. At all.
im going to stop you right here, there is nothing inherent to TP merchanting versus say for example boss fighting that means one should give you more than the other.
Dont say things like
Resource generation:
because the amount of reward this boss gives could have been based on how much it took away from other players
Risk: because if the boss can take away gains from other players it involves risk
Intital investment
Because perhaps the boss is in an area where you have to work pretty hard to get up to
The point is the game designs the content, the rewards, the gains and everything else. The designers decide what is guaranteed what is not, what is risky what is not, how hard, etc. Why is the TP the only system that scales well with effort/skill/effort/demand etc, they could have designed many systems to scale that way.
to be clear.
If the reason why certain activities rewards suck is because,
they create resources
why not make ways to get gains that dont create resources
if its because there are no risks
why not make methods of play that require risk
if its because it requires knowledge/ skill
why not make this task scale reward with skill/knowledge
if its because it unbalances the macro economy
why not make it possible to get rewarded in ways that dont unbalance the macro economy
etc.
So to be clear, you believe and understand that tp merchanting is and should be the primary method of obtainining most (not all) endgame items?
100% of endgame items (I’m pretty sure you mean precursors, why be obtuse about it) are obtained in one of two ways – they are looted as drops, or they are forged in the mystic forge. Every single one originates in the hands of someone who is, at least at that moment, not a merchant.
There’s no way around it. For every merchant that has purchased and used a precursor to make a legendary, there’s a player on the other end that either found or forged a precursor and decided they’d rather have a giant pile of gold than the weapon. It isn’t like precursors are coming out of nowhere from a NPC merchant; they all come from other players. Think about the circular flows of cash in the economy; it’s a lot more complicated, but much more representative, than just calling the merchants takers and being done with it.
its actually anything of value, that people would probably pursue after hitting 80. Ascended materials for items are based around creating demand and item sinks, which is deciding their value based on the Macro Economy. The idea of 300 per day is not an idea that represented actual playtime to achieve, but one that represents turning whatever else you do into money then buying the item.
You will also notice as the gem shop has more and more desirable items, gold on hand decided whether you can attain them. Seasonal items are also designed in a TP/money earning fashion. In halloween 2 it was probably impossible to earn certain skins through regular play, the only logical way was to use gold.
the game is designed so that gold is the most logical way to do most type of activities players who have reached max level might pursue. Which creates problems when certain methods are more profitable, because its as if the game is telling you this is the way to play.
generally games reward playstyles that represent the ideal way to play, and punish playstyles that dont. So by making TP, or anything the most effecient way to obtain your goals, they are making the game at the end, about doing whatever that most effecient thing is.
Or you can choose to ignore those goals and create your own, but that type of thing would be outside the scope of game design.
Essentially assume all these values are the same for now. Now, should every playstyle with have the same earning potential?
You are asking not only a pointless hypothetical question, but one I have already answered. Unless two systems are exactly the same in every single aspect, then there is no reason why they should be forced to have the same potential gold gain rewards.
You also dodged my question. Now do you think two utterly different systems (like A and B in my example) should have the same potential gold gain reward (point 5.)?
I want to be able to progress towards endgame goals at a decent pace playing the non tp game. making money isnt my goal.
Define “decent pace”, your idea of “decent” or “reasonable” might be completely and utterly different to mine, as mine might be utterly different to the next guys. I can get luxury endgame items via pve at a “decent pace” as far as I am concerned. Now if other people are unable to maximise their reward gain via pve or have an unrealistic expectation of how quickly they should get endgame items, then that is there problem, not mine or the systems.
Again I would add in a token/reward/endgame skin system for high skilled players (not the average joe, top level players), like the legendary rewards for major pvp tournaments. If you win a major tourny, or can solo dungeons, or top a GvG WvW table etc, then there you go, choose item x, you can keep it or sell it, up to you. Or choose item y, only available to people who have achieved certain things and account bound, so you know everyone who has it has done the thing needed to get it.
hypotheticals exist to solve problems logically, and incrementally.
you have to start from a premise than adjust the equation based on the additional factors.
So if I believe for my design that A = B
only then can i start identify variables and balancing the equation
for example
the balanced equation may be
((riskA * effortA * success conditionA)/(time of taskA) x current progression/maximum progression)=100 earned points
now playstyle B can achieve the same results of 100 earned points with less risk, but greater effort. Or via getting a higher success condition. Etc
This is not the case right now though, no matter how skilled/prepared or how hard you try you will hit a cap on earned points via one method, while the other method is comparably uncapped with effort/risk/progression etc.
for players who are more skilled, less risk averse, harder working or just dedicated and consistent, only one method of play scales well to your abilities. Which means in order to achieve those goals, you either have to decide to take a loss on entertainment (if that method isnt your thing) or do something you dont like. IRL this is the norm, but there is no good reason for it to be so in a game world created to be an adventure. As long as there is this difference, people who dont want to play the TP game, will be annoyed that the game is balanced around them being better at the TP. (not saying tp baron level, but generally coming up with some merchant based plans for success)
People with either feel the rewards for playing suck, because they dont feel like its progressing them to their goals, or feel like they are being forced into a method that gives returns at a faster pace when played well.
should A = B
now A may be a combination of skill/knowledge/dedication/adaptability/effort/risk etc, but assuming all these are the same, should the activities have the same potential to make players feel rewarded?
Ok, I’ll bite. Yes, players should “feel” rewarded for what they do in game. If I do SAB, or any other hard jumping puzzle, my reward isn’t just an end chest. It’s the fact that I completed challenging content. Same as when I first did the Great Wurm. I didn’t get any good loot at the end, but I enjoyed every minute of it with my guildies in TTS. I also feel rewarded when I’m defending my Keep in EBG, so that my server is able to get that extra point when the timer resets.
But what I know you’re getting at is that you want money. You want loot for doing things your way. That’s fine. As we’ve discussed in this thread, the feeling of Entitlement isn’t a bad thing. We all want more stuff for less effort. Going on with this train of though, it seems you want the following: Time = Loot. So basically, for every X hours you spend in game, you want Y amount of Gold or equivalent. What happens here is that this doesn’t only affect you. It affects all players in game. So as more Gold is created, the less it’s worth overall.
Regarding the usage of the TP, you need to try and understand that rewards from events are not the same as profits from the TP. One creates Gold out of thin air. The other trades existing Gold among players, while deleting 15% of it. You’re so set on thinking that event loot should be on par with the TP. I’ll try to give you an example of just how unrealistic your idea is. I’ll use some made up items.
Metal Slime are a rare drop that sells on the TP for 1 Gold each, and has Buy Orders for 40 Silver each. Enough people are buying at full price, and also filling my Buy Orders so that I’m making a profit of 45 Silver per. The velocity of the item has me making ~300 Gold per hour. With your idea, you want to be able to make 300 Gold per hour doing other stuff. Ok. So let’s say you can make 50 Gold per Dungeon speed clear, with no DR. If you manage to clear the dungeon in 10 minutes, you’re making the same amount as me.
Take this situation above, and imagine thousands of players doing the same thing all day long. Now, you have new wealth being generated a 300 × 10,000 per hour rate. All of a sudden, the economy breaks, and Gold is next to worthless. But Metal Slimes are still the hot commodity! Due to Supply and Demand, coupled with a weak currency, Metal Slimes now sell for 100 Gold per, with Buy Orders up to 70 Gold. I’m still able to make 15 Gold profit on each flip. With the same velocity, I’m now making ~9,900 Gold per hour. Your dungeon speed clears are still only making 300 Gold per hour.
Edit – I forgot to point out that this snowball effect keeps getting bigger. The more money you introduce into the game, the more expensive everything else becomes. But even if the currency is weakened, the earning potential of the TP remains, as markets adapt to the new currency values. The rich will stay rich, and the poor will feel like they’re making money, but in the end, they’re still poor.
you are mistaken i dont want gold, i dont even particularly like earning gold. I want to be able to progress towards endgame goals at a decent pace playing the non tp game. making money isnt my goal.
I understand your resource creation fears, but activities do not need to create resources. they can make resource allocation tracks for multiple types of play, and they can make account bound methods of progress.
I dont really want gold, id prefer if i could do interesting things on the path to acheiving goals
Essentially assume all these values are the same for now. Now, should every playstyle with have the same earning potential?
If all playstyles are the same, that means there’s only one playstyle. Meaning same difficulty. Same mechanics. Same rewards.
Playstyles are different for a reason. You cannot assume that defending a keep in WvW is the same as a Tequatl run. You cannot assume that SPvP is the same as doing CoF. And you sure as heck cannot assume that doing SAB Tribulation Mode is the same as mapping a zone.
no it really doesnt.
playstyle is how you choose to play the game, how effecient they are at getting relevant rewards is what should be the same.
nothing will ever make playing basketball be the same playstyle as being a programmer, regardless of how well each is rewarded.
SAB is has, in general pretty good rewards, the best way to get sab themed rewards is by playing SAB, the better you get at it, and the more you know SAB the more effecient you become at getting sab rewards. That is very good.
This is not the case for a great many other things. The most effecient way to gather most materials is to learn to play the TP. because a great many materials earning per time period (with respect to actually getting those materials) is pretty ineffecient.
Far as map completion which should be about exploration/knowledge/traversing, they dont really have many rewards that work well with this playstyle. They basically throw you generic rewards in small quantities.
to be clear, i am not saying they should give the same exact rewards, im saying they should be similarly rewarding. this is the top of the equation, you can break down what rewards and risks, skill later, those are parts of the equation but first before you can balance an equation you need to have an equation
should A = B
now A may be a combination of skill/knowledge/dedication/adaptability/effort/risk etc, but assuming all these are the same, should the activities have the same potential to make players feel rewarded?
….
So why do i disagree with that? Because it would push you towards experiencing less of the game content, or at least try it out.
If it wasnt for my legendary quest, i would have never experienced many aspects of the game, like wvw and the trading post and might have uninstalled the game long ago.
While playing the tp, i realized that my experience of other game features and their rewards made me more efficient at playing the tp. That causes me to go back and test out other game modes, when their rewards get changed. Since last patch i have done more pvp than before since launch. I think as Developer, Anet should aim at engaging every player with every game mode at least once and again in while to keep them logged in and in my case, they did that rather well by making me craft a legendary and introducing me to the trading post, which is my core gameplay and makes me revisit all content on a regular basis. If i could have earned a legendary by just doing map completions, i might have done that, so i dont think that a totally balanced reward system will be beneficial to the game.
Part of the reason you ended up at TP, is because you are a man of effeciency, and the TP has the best reward structure design.
You even mention that improving the reward structure has made sPVP more attractive to you.
i think the main reason people have beef with TP, is because its currently the dominant method of obtaining most other rewards. I dont think people would care about a TP tax very much, if they could make decent progress towards their goals without having to play that game mode.
As far as exposing people to everything, I kind of get what you are saying, but when you look at the legendary the end result becomes about 90% most effecient to use the TP for most players (for you its different because your earning potential makes the mastery more time consuming) but still, if you decided to make a legendary again, it would probably take you about 80-100 hours. while it takes the average player a great deal longer to achieve the same goal (talking about actual focused playtime here)
and thats the issue, effort, skill, risk, etc scale way better via TP than other activities.
So my solution isnt nerf the TP, its give other playstyles methods that can better scale with effort skill risk dedication etc. If that requires making more rewards be re allocation, thats fine, as long as the methods exist.
I said potential, not actual. One would assume that actual would be based on demand, and skill etc. But you have answered enough.
It appears we disagree fundamentally. While i dont think every player should earn the same thing, i think that one should aim for similar earning potentials in a best case scenario when done well. The logical reason i can see to award players differently is when they specifically want to incentivize certain behaviours that better that benefit the game.
but since we disagree on that point, we dont have much common ground to come to an understanding.
If you think systems should have the same “potential” rewards regardless as to the fact that their mechanics are different then yes, it is clear that we don’t share common ground as that idea makes zero sense to me.
The “logical” reason for differences in potential rewards cross system is due to the inherent difference between the systems structures. The differences in potential rewards within the systems then boils down to player driven factors.
Take the example below, (note it is a hypothetical example and not an comprehensive outline of the differences between pve and the market model):
SYSTEM A –
1. Zero risk.
2. Zero capital needed.
3. Non competitive/non zero sum.
4. Grants secondary rewards.
5. Can earn gold from it.SYSTEM B -
1. High risk.
2. Large capital needed.
3. Competitive/zero sum.
4. Grants no secondary rewards.
5. Can earn gold from it.Now you suggest that system A should give the same “potential” return in terms of gold gain (point 5.) as B, really?
the only variables im trying to deal with at this time in the equation is playstyle differences.
you can adjust the equation to other such variables after.
2)initial capital is not a good factor at all unless there is risk. thats just a requirement that people start at a certain point. It has its place due to creating progression and gating people to similar levels of play, but its not really relevant to the core issue of what people should be able to earn.
3)As far as zero sum, i already stated that we shall assume for the sake of example that they are both resource reallocating activities.
4 and 5) is talking about the type and combination of rewards, but in my example i strip those by saying similar earning potential, IE its suggested that we are talking about the same gain.
So the major factor not covered in my example is risk. but this is a value which should occur after you figure out if people should even have similar earning potentials.
Basically the stuff you say are things that might adjust the equation, but getting to the heart of the matter you first have to decide if at its basis you believe in the idea, then you would adjust the gains in relation to relevant factors.
Essentially assume all these values are the same for now. Now, should every playstyle with have the same earning potential?
(edited by phys.7689)
I perfectly understand the difference, let me break this down into simple series of questions, so people dont misunderstand me.
Assuming the macro economy is not an issue, or assuming that two playstyles use the same type of structure, say for example both are reward reallocation
Do you agree that both playstyles should have the same earning potential(when played well or properly)?
As long as the formula is simply “Do X, get loot”, then it’s already in game. No two items are worth the same to different players, so you can’t bring balance to the equation. Kill the Shadow Behemoth, get Final Rest. Kill mega hologram Scarlet, get Scarlet’s Kiss rifle. How do you balance that?
Note – I’m not talking about the Gold value, but rather the skin.
Not sure what you are getting at here, not like saying it makes no sense, just saying i dont understand what you mean.
I perfectly understand the difference, let me break this down into simple series of questions, so people dont misunderstand me.
Assuming the macro economy is not an issue, or assuming that two playstyles use the same type of structure, say for example both are reward reallocation
Do you agree that both playstyles should have the same earning potential(when played well or properly)?
No, I would not say that two systems both being “reward reallocation” centric should mean that they both give the same earning potential.
But if two systems were identical in every single aspect, then there would ofc be a case to be made for equal earning potential across the systems. Still, even then there would be a disparity in earning potential between groups within said system.
I said potential, not actual. One would assume that actual would be based on demand, and skill etc. But you have answered enough.
It appears we disagree fundamentally. While i dont think every player should earn the same thing, i think that one should aim for similar earning potentials in a best case scenario when done well. The logical reason i can see to award players differently is when they specifically want to incentivize certain behaviours that better that benefit the game.
but since we disagree on that point, we dont have much common ground to come to an understanding.
<snip>
People have explained why there can be a difference in potential “gain” between the two systems about nine thousand times in this thread and others like it thus far, so I am unsure why you seem to be asking the same question thirty odd pages into the thread.
Do you really have to ask why “rewards” might not the same between two systems with such massively different underlying core mechanics? I’d have said the reasons are obvious.
The differences and reasons why extend far, far beyond the scope of just “because one is a gold sink”.
I perfectly understand the difference, let me break this down into simple series of questions, so people dont misunderstand me.
Assuming the macro economy is not an issue, or assuming that two playstyles use the same type of structure, say for example both are reward reallocation
Do you agree that both playstyles should have the same earning potential(when played well or properly)?
There is also the possibility of account bount rewards so players can earn somethings without directly contributing to the total economies resource.
The current implementations often put the macro economy ahead of the actual player experience/game design.
3)Even if the tp is supposed to be one core gameplay mechanic, why is it more dominant than others with respect to obtaining rewards. Before you say because other playtypes inflate the economy, ask yourself why they are not some designs in place that dont inflate the economy, but reward other playstyles.
Again, you make the mistake of comparing rewards from events and quests, to TP profits. These are two inherently different things. One creates items and coin, the other trades it with a Gold Sink attached. I’ll try to explain it below.
Generating items/coins: The game generates reward chests and other loot drops when certain criteria are met. Defeating a boss, completing an event/task, or killing a target. These items and coins never existed before they dropped, thus have an important effect on the health of the game economy. The more of these are generated, the more their values decrease. This is why it’s important for Anet to curb events that reward “too much loot”. A good example of this was last year’s Ancient Karka chest. So many high level items were generated, that the market for them collapsed. This wouldn’t be a problem if GW2 were like a single-player console game. Those don’t have an economy with a shared market.
Market profits from TP: The Black Lion Trading Post does not generate rewards. Everything available on the TP already exists in game. The TP is a tool that allows players to buy and sell items they want/need, all while eliminating Gold via build in sinks (i.e. taxes and listing fees). Prices are set by Supply and Demand. The more of a certain thing someone wants, and the less of it are available, the more expensive the item. Wealth is moved between players, with 15% of the value in coin being removed from the game.
Going back to your question, there are ways to reward different playstyles. You have not only Gold as currency, but Dungeon tokens, Karma, WvW Badges, and even SPvP reward tracks from ranking up. The items that are Account Bound do not contribute to inflation. As such, that means they can’t generate wealth for you either. The player needs to decide how they want to be rewarded. Farm for items that can be sold to other players, or farm for items that you want to use for yourself.
this is irrelevant to the question of why is one playstyle better at obtaining game rewards than the other.
you can think of it as an equation where you look at the end result
playstyle A with X amount of hours played player can obtain rewards in the value of Y generated by some means or someone
playstyle B with X amount of hours played player can obtain rewards in the value of Y generated by some means or someone
Im not mistaking the difference between resource creation and resource reallocation, im saying it doesnt really matter which is which to most players, just how fast they can get rewarded.
So my point is IF the primary reason why regulay playstyles are not rewarded is because they are resource creation, then why arent other resource reallocation methods of giving reward not promoted, and made as facile as TP activities?
I outlined some examples in previous posts.
to be clear when i say reward, i mean getting something for your time, not whether its a player or the game that provides it. When i am talking about resource generation, i will say resource generation, and resource reallocation, because both can be rewards in my book.
(edited by phys.7689)
gold is a reward, and the items you buy with gold is a reward.
Do you really think wanze with his 60k gold in value (many of which are items) can truely say he has gotten no rewards playing the TP?
I feel like you guys must be arguing semantics here, because you can’t possibly really beleive that getting gold and items is not a reward.There is an important distinction that exists that must not be ignored, which is why the “semantics” are coming into play.
Wanze was not rewarded by the game. He was rewarded by other players.
That distinction is the reason why rewards obtained through playing the TP CANNOT be “balanced”. ArenaNet does not control them.
It can be balanced, but im guessing you are saying it wouldnt be a good idea.
That said why doesnt anet come up with more solutions for the players to reward other playtypes. Spvp tournaments with gold entrance fees (pot awarded to winners) Formal mercenary questing/player created systems, Mercenary hiring in WvW. Competitive dungeoning, pay to enter, winner per cycle keeps the cash per cycle etc. There are tons of ways, and services that dont create items they could introduce for other playstyles.
btw rewards is a poor term for what you guys are talking about, because player reward in terms of what they get per hour, from the server/other players must be considered in design as well.
i would say something like generating resources if i wanted to be clear in my meaning.
If you accept the notion that it’s in a player’s right to sell an item for as much as they can get and buy an item for the least amount of coin then the problem some are having is the source of the item and the use of a bought item and that’s it.
A player willing to buy an item from lowest seller or sell an item to the highest bidder doesn’t care where the item came from or how the buyer is planning to do with it. They spend and earn the same amount of coin.
…(cut only for brevity, it is a very good explanation)…
I think that your whole post is getting to the point very effectively. It shows exactly the point people have been making in that the “issue”/“problem”/“complaint” is directly attributable to players and how they choose to play the game. Unless there is a way to educate players on how they are contributing to the “issue”/“problem”/“complaint” , then it will continue to exist.
I think that the suggestion by Wanze of a Dolyak Express on the TP would be beneficial in this regard.
See i have a few problems with this idea of player education.
1)the fact that players need education on the TP in order to get full value of their playtime, suggests that the TP/merchanting is a core gameplay mode/design of the game. If so, i really wish they had marketed it as such
2) If TP /merchanting is a core gameplay mode/design it needs way more tutorials, warnings, information, UI and design/regulations in place. If the game is primarily messed up due to players who cant play infesting the game mode, why does the game actively push them into the game mode? Where is the gear/liscence check on TP playing. Why are pro veteran TP players taking advantage of noobs?
3)Even if the tp is supposed to be one core gameplay mechanic, why is it more dominant than others with respect to obtaining rewards. Before you say because other playtypes inflate the economy, ask yourself why they are not some designs in place that dont inflate the economy, but reward other playstyles.
over and over I keep seeing comments about the rewards from tp. Been playing it for some time. Even googled and wiki search still not able to find a list of items the tp gives as a reward. Just wondering if someone who keeps saying the rewards from tp would mind to post the link of possible rewards. I just can’t seem to find it. go figure.
Either there is a list of rewards or they don’t exist. But as adamantly as some claim there is, there must be a list somewhere. Need to know what I need to buy to be able to claim or attempt to get the tp to drop that item for me. Is it like the forge? random?
gold is a reward, and the items you buy with gold is a reward.
Do you really think wanze with his 60k gold in value (many of which are items) can truely say he has gotten no rewards playing the TP?
I feel like you guys must be arguing semantics here, because you can’t possibly really beleive that getting gold and items is not a reward.
over and over I keep seeing comments about the rewards from tp. Been playing it for some time. Even googled and wiki search still not able to find a list of items the tp gives as a reward. Just wondering if someone who keeps saying the rewards from tp would mind to post the link of possible rewards. I just can’t seem to find it. go figure.
Either there is a list of rewards or they don’t exist. But as adamantly as some claim there is, there must be a list somewhere. Need to know what I need to buy to be able to claim or attempt to get the tp to drop that item for me. Is it like the forge? random?
The issue here is that the players bringing up this complaint don’t understand the fundamental differences between rewards generated from events and quests, and profits from the TP. This is akin to saying “Apples grow on trees, and so does milk”. So don’t worry. Any and all complaints bringing up “balancing rewards from the TP” are pure fallacies.
what you dont get penguin, is that it really doesnt matter on a micro level. You are talking about large scale economics, what you are ignoring is the people who live under them.
yes, TP use deflates the economy and is an exchange of goods and services.
yes Gameplay creates goods and services.
but on the personal level its irrelevant. for each player it comes down to value earned per playtime. The truth is penguin, a working super economy is completely optional in games. Many successful games have no economy, or extremely limited economy.
The problem is the value earned per playtime is very low for many players of a certain playstyle. and comparably high and with a non linear growth method competing with it for the same goods and services.
Now on the high end, Designers and economist people should be trying to design solutions that allow users to feel greater value per playtime without inflating the economy past planned levels. But that doesnt mean that its not a problem just because it works in the macro economy.
Serious question for you, Pixie. Do you honestly believe that the Anet developers have no clue that people are frustrated with some of the Megaserver functionality right now?
I find it far more likely that they 1) know 2) are trying to do something about it 3) aren’t saying anything because they’re trying to figure out a fix and implement it as quickly as possible but haven’t fully fleshed out what that looks like or how long it will take.
one might assume they are, but honestly based on past history this is wishful thinking. Many times they have had patches with big pushback/errors/issues and then silence and nothing is done about the majority of the beefs.
That said the language hotfix appears to mean they are trying to be more on top of problems. I just hope they dont think that is a good solution(shutting out over chat was a big mistake). I also dont know why they didnt create personal channels/groups if they wanted to implement the megaserver system.
I mean i get the advantages and possibilities, but they needed to also add better filters and new paradigms for selection/grouping/communication in order to go along with the system.
I didn’t want the mega-server yesterday, I wanted it when it’s ready.
You know, you can test all you want but until it is rolled out, you never know what is going to happen. This is coming from an applications person – there are NEVER smooth rollouts, NEVER.
As somebody who works in enterprise software consulting, I was expecting Megaserver to be a technical disaster. It was not. It was shockingly smooth.
Language issues may be a design disaster, but they are NOT a technical disaster. The code was tested well and worked impeccably.
The code isnt the problem though, it was a major design shift and they did it with no solutions at all for some very obvious problems. Before mega servers even hit, from the moment they were anounced, i was like hmmmm how are they going to solve problem X Y and Z.
Shouldnt they have had some solutions built before making the change? why was the change necessary to drop right now?
As far as feedback to the community, i get that they are busy, but they probably need to include the community in some of the design phase, because apparently no one saw these issues coming, yet within like 2 minutes of the mere announcement of megaserver multiple people had realized design flaws.
perhaps they need to just say screw it and set up a public test server, because this is becoming a constant thing, where they take something back to the design loop, and come out with obvious design issues revealed within like 2 minutes.
I mean i get the unforseen results, but really, language issues? guild issues? traits that require events 44 levels higher than they can be obtained? 3 bosses a day? Static scheduling? Server culture issues? These should have been things they knew about and had things in place that would alleviate or deal with the issues.
Also feels like they are a bit out of touch with the game as its actually played in live, when you hear things like you can play with your friends more, when for 90% of people 80% of the time they would be able to play with their friends 100% of the time before, and now 64% of the time is high.
(edited by phys.7689)