Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
- - - - -

Is it Fun?


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2246 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 22 April 2013 - 02:22 PM

Been having a bit of fun using the Wayback Machine to peer through ANet's blog, which they decided to take down.

I thought I would share something from their blog and see what kind of discussion it leads to.

Source: http://web.archive.o...easures-success

Quote


To begin this blog post, let me pose a question: How do you measure the success of an MMO?
Historically, it’s been easy to point to success with traditional MMOs: subscription numbers were the ultimate means a company used to measure how well a game was doing, and customers typically looked at those same numbers as well to gauge the success of the game. The number of concurrent users—how many players are online at a given time—was also important, but that number was usually hidden from users, since it typically painted a less rosy picture of a game’s health when compared to the number of active subscriptions.

Now let me pose a second question: If the success of a subscription-based MMO is measured by the number of people paying a monthly fee, how does that impact game design decisions?

The answer can be found in the mechanics and choices made in subscription-based MMOs, which keep customers actively playing by chasing something in the game through processes that take as long as possible. In other words, designers of traditional MMOs create content systems that take more time to keep people playing longer. If this is your business motivation and model so you keep getting paid, it makes sense and is an incredibly smart thing to do, and you need to support it.

When your game systems are designed to achieve the prime motivation of a subscription-based MMO, you run the risk of sacrificing quality to get as much content in as possible to fill that time. You get leveling systems that take insane amounts of grind to gain a level, loot drop systems that require doing a dungeon with a tiny chance the item you want can drop at the end, raid systems that need huge numbers of people online simultaneously to organize and play, thousands of wash/repeat item-collection or kill-mob quests or dailies with flavor text support, the best stat gear requiring crazy amounts of time to earn, etc.

But what if your business model isn’t based on a subscription? What if your content-design motivations aren’t driven by the need to create mechanics that keep people playing as long as possible? When looking at content design forGuild Wars 2, we’ve tried to ask the question: What if the development of the game was based on…wait for it…fun?
If we chose fun as our main metric for tracking success, can we flip the core paradigm and make design decisions based on what we’d like to play as game players? Can we focus our time on making meaningful and impactful content, rather than filler content meant to draw out the experience? Can we make something so much fun you might want to play it multiple times because it’s fun, rather than making you do it because the game says you have to? It’s how we played games while growing up. I can’t tell you how many times I played Quest for Glory; the game didn’t give me 25 daily quests I needed to log in and do—I played it multiple times because it was fun!

So if your key metric for success of your game is fun, how do you make content that fits that goal, and how do you know if you’re succeeding?

It’s easy to tell if a subscription-based game is hitting its metric of success, you simply look at the number of subscriptions; fun is much harder to define. To accomplish this, we’ve had to fundamentally redefine our development process of content in Guild Wars 2 around this concept of fun, and it starts with asking a very simple question that surprisingly isn’t asked that often in game development: “Are you having fun?”

This metric of success impacted a lot of our early content-related design decisions for Guild Wars 2. Some examples include:
  • Fun impacts loot collection. The rarest items in the game are not more powerful than other items, so you don’t need them to be the best. The rarest items have unique looks to help your character feel that sense of accomplishment, but it’s not required to play the game. We don’t need to make mandatory gear treadmills, we make all of it optional, so those who find it fun to chase this prestigious gear can do so, but those who don’t are just as powerful and get to have fun too.
  • Fun impacts decisions. Every time you finish a dungeon you get tokens you can trade in for reward items that you want, rather than having a small chance of getting it as a drop, because it’s more fun to always get rewarded for finishing with something you want to have!
  • Fun impacts development. Explorable dungeons have multiple paths you can take and random events. Because of this you don’t feel like you need to play the same dungeon over and over again if you want to chase the prestigious rewards at the end, but can instead mix up that experience to keep it fresh and fun.
  • Fun impacts customization. The event and personal story systems allow you to get a sense of customization from your characters. Playing through the game, each character can experience completely different content, and the world can always stay fresh and new in the pursuit of new story lines, and an ever-changing dynamic event world. It means going back to a place you’ve already been with a character can be fun, and it means making a new character on an entirely different personal story chain can be fun as well.
  • Fun impacts gameplay. The pursuit of fun in content led us to make many gameplay decisions, including:Everyone who helps kill a creature gets experience and loot, so you’re not competing with other players; everyone gets rewarded for events with karma they can spend to buy rewards they want, rather than get a random roll of stuff they might not want; content scales in difficulty, so if more people show up, there is still stuff for you to do; everyone is able to revive one another, so you view other players as assets that can help you achieve your goals, rather than people who might get in your way; everyone can harvest resource nodes and get the rewards in the world together, rather than racing other people to them who might steal it from you. All of these things are just more fun!
We didn’t just ask “Is this fun?” in early development, though; we also asked this question constantly throughout our development process, and in a lot of different ways.

First—and this is one of the things that I love most about ArenaNet—we ask our QA team to ask this question when they test everything that goes into the game. When they play an event, they don’t just file bugs, they write suggestions and ideas for how to make it better. They give their feedback on the experience: Did they enjoy it? How could it be improved? How many rampaging rabid raccoons could be added to this event to make it amazing? They send this feedback directly to the designer building the event, and talk and coordinate with them to help make it better. I’ve never heard of a game company where the QA team is so integrated into the development process, where they can enact and impact change on a daily basis in the game. They aren’t just testers, they are developers who help make every part of the game better, and they do this by constantly asking the question, “Is this fun?”

Next, we ask this question of the company as a whole. We do what we call “All Calls” and “Small Calls,” where the entire company, or subsets of the company, play through parts of the game and give their feedback, comments, and suggestions. This helps us refine the content, and the key question we ask during all of this is “Is it fun?” We then continue this process with our closed alpha testers, and let thousands of people play through the content we’ve developed and ask them to leave detailed feedback and suggestions on if the content they are playing is fun. Our content designers patrol the internal feedback forums constantly for comments on the content they build, and make changes based on the feedback they have received.

Finally, we expand this process to the largest possible audience, to our beta test with hundreds of thousands of players. To get feedback on fun from an audience this large, we need to ask the question in a way that’s simple for them to answer, and easy for us to condense the feedback down into simple-to-look-at numbers we can then act from. To do this, we added surveys to the game that occur after you finish story steps, renown regions, events, and dungeons. Each of these asks players a few simple questions, but the most important question we always ask? “On a scale of 1 to 5, how much fun was what you just did?” From this, we print out giant reports of survey information, then meet as subteams and target the content that isn’t scoring well on “the fun factor” before brainstorming, together, on how to make that content more fun and exciting.

If our model was subscription based, we might be spending all this time racing to add as much filler content as possible to keep players chasing the carrot. Instead, as content designers with the goal of creating fun, we get to spend this time refining our content and making it amazing. As designers, this is both liberating and refreshing in an industry in which developers rarely get time from publishers to actually polish their games. (High-five, NCsoft!)

So remember: when you’re playing in any of the upcoming beta weekends and that little survey pops up, tell us what you really think. Those metrics truly help us guide our work, and help us get a sense of if you’re truly having fun. At the end of the weekend, jump on the Beta Forums and leave your true honest feedback—if you loved something, tell us why, and if you didn’t enjoy something, please let us know that, too. We really do read and listen to the feedback in the pursuit of making the most fun game we possibly can, because we know if you’re having fun, the game (and our company) will be fine in the long run.

I hope you come out of reading this with a bit of insight into how our content development process is different based on the metric we’ve chosen to gauge the success of our content model in Guild Wars 2. It’s a bit different, and at times we’re flying by the seat of our pants—but most importantly? It’s fun!

Edited by El Duderino, 22 April 2013 - 02:23 PM.


#2 Lordkrall

Lordkrall

    Legion Commander

  • Members
  • 5370 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 22 April 2013 - 02:25 PM

Yes it is fun.

#3 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 2274 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 22 April 2013 - 02:25 PM

I think the question went from "Is it fun?" to "How can we monetize it?"

Heck, even reddit fanbois are starting to question the game, though admittedly there was a "Why did listen to all the haters, this game is great" fluff post.

Right now there's one about WvWvW needing some innovation (it is becoming stale to fight the same fight every week, especially when the tiers settle out and there's not much shift between matchups) and another about 8 months from launch, where the top comment is how GW1 was better.

It's 'fun' in that its the best we have right now.

WoW is stale and old, a theme park and a treadmill.

SWTOR is okay, but its basically a broken system limping along.

GW2 is the One-Eyed King of the Kingdom of the Blind.

All we're waiting for is the man with two functioning eyes.  It might be Wildstar, but who knows.  GW2 is popular because it's the strongest WoW alternative on the market, basically being the choice for people not interested in a 9 year old game with largely nine year old character models.  In a way, that is kind of sad.

Edited by MazingerZ, 22 April 2013 - 02:31 PM.

It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#4 I'm Squirrel

I'm Squirrel

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1116 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Guild Tag:[DPS]

Posted 22 April 2013 - 02:40 PM

This question is vastly biased.

The people having fun will obviously say lots of good things about it. These people are usually the only people playing the game and participate in official forums and surveys.

The people that hated GW2 from the beginning and still hate it, will say the things that it needs to improve on and obviously go with no it is not fun. These people usually do not participate in forums, play the game 0-3 times a week, or disregard everything about it. I feel like THESE are the people ArenaNet should be asking, "Is it fun?"

Because obviously if you go with the people that enjoy GW2 and have fun with it are people who have constant emotional conflicts whether they support the game, whether they should give total negative feedback, etc.

And the people that absolutely do not find anything about GW2 entertaining can just come out and say things out, straightforward, like, "these worlds bosses are boring and suck!" "WvW is STILL a mindless zergfest" "GW2 has no end-game content and it is boring and not worth playing once you reach level 80." "It is not fun at all." Thus, ArenaNet knows, they need to work HARDER and develop better ideas.

If they want my opinion, this game lacks both short and long-term fun, this game lacks proper gameplay content, this game lacks purpose, and this game's company has not shown any community support for our ideas ever since development. Whats good about it: it makes for a below average time-waster.

Edited by I'm Squirrel, 22 April 2013 - 02:47 PM.


#5 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 2274 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 22 April 2013 - 04:07 PM

View PostI'm Squirrel, on 22 April 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

If they want my opinion, this game lacks both short and long-term fun, this game lacks proper gameplay content, this game lacks purpose, and this game's company has not shown any community support for our ideas ever since development. Whats good about it: it makes for a below average time-waster.

It's nowhere near as innovative as WoW was when WoW stepped out beyond EQ.  It is the best "not WoW" option (after 9 years of WoW reigning king) that the genre has to offer, much like how John Kerry was the best "not Bush" or Mitt Romney was the best "not Obama" option.

The problem is, you don't have to be WoW to make bank, you just have to change your business model.  Hence why we have "F2P." The people not paying for gems are window-dressing to keep the game population up and to keep the people actually paying the company for their tripe involved.  If this were a sub game, it would have died out like SWTOR did.  First from the people who were bored not wanting to pay money and then from people who didn't want to play on a dead server.  Or purchasing the game and then seeing their free 30 days was playing on a dead server.  Instead, you get pretty much less content than SWTOR had to offer, but more people playing it because its F2P.

And the money-makers that produce the gem store 'game enhancements' are always going to get development priority over the free 'story content.'  And the bigger budget and resources.

Edited by MazingerZ, 22 April 2013 - 04:09 PM.

It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#6 Resolve

Resolve

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 540 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 04:23 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 22 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

...ANet's blog, which they decided to take down.


That's really funny.

One thing I find quite interesting is the extremely low number of people there are watching this on streams. Apparently it isn't that fun to watch.

#7 Featherman

Featherman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1028 posts
  • Location:Frolicking in Kalos

Posted 22 April 2013 - 04:29 PM

"Fun" in this case is a buzzword used to give credence to conjecture and other nonsense.

Edited by Featherman, 22 April 2013 - 04:29 PM.


#8 Lordkrall

Lordkrall

    Legion Commander

  • Members
  • 5370 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 22 April 2013 - 04:45 PM

View PostResolve, on 22 April 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

That's really funny.

Ah yes, because we all know that they simply removed all the blog posts that didn't "fit" anymore, and it had nothing at all to do with moving servers and therefore losing stuff and such.

The fact that the whole blog seems to be gone should be a rather good hint.

#9 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2246 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:06 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 22 April 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Ah yes, because we all know that they simply removed all the blog posts that didn't "fit" anymore, and it had nothing at all to do with moving servers and therefore losing stuff and such.

C'mon man, that's pretty weak. First of all, they are a game dev company. They surely backed up the database before moving anything. Also, I found all of this online. So can they.

#10 Lordkrall

Lordkrall

    Legion Commander

  • Members
  • 5370 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:23 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 22 April 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

C'mon man, that's pretty weak. First of all, they are a game dev company. They surely backed up the database before moving anything. Also, I found all of this online. So can they.

Of course they can. But seeing as people attack them when they do stuff on their free time I doubt they would have much interest to "wasting time" on getting those things back online.
Claiming they took it down because it "don't fit the current game" is just silly.

#11 two maces

two maces

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 625 posts
  • Guild Tag:[CCTV]
  • Server:Sea of Sorrows

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:26 PM

I just think the attention span of gamers is a lot less than it was 10 years ago. Hence most "old" gamers need a constant refreshment of games.

#12 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2246 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:45 PM

View Posttwo maces, on 22 April 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

I just think the attention span of gamers is a lot less than it was 10 years ago. Hence most "old" gamers need a constant refreshment of games.

I'm not so sure. Yes, I think my attention span, in terms of one gaming session, is down. But, overall, I don't change games a lot. I like to stick to something for a while. Granted it was 8 years ago, but GW1 held my attention for a very very long time. In fact, longer than any game ever, unless you count the entire Madden series which I've been playing since 1994.

I think there is an overall shift in all entertainment. I would call it "The Avatar" effect. We are spending all this time on making things shiny and pretty, but the underlying things that have previously made entertainment fun, such as strategy and story, seem to be lacking more and more.

I remember a time when I barely beat any game I played because it required so much time and effort and skill. It seems that every year games get a little easier, a little less interesting, poorer plot lines. Not every game, but the majority of games.

It's like as a society we have become infatuated with the shiny sparkly stuff and forget about the fun stuff. I know people are going to say "you don't speak for me" and I hope those people are right. I hope I don't even speak for myself - but I think, as it relates to the entertainment we mass consume - I can speak for a large majority of consumers.

So, while games like GW2 do have fun things in them, there are also these things that almost need to be added to account for that majority. I mean, how fun is it "working" to get achievements and titles and shiny new weapons? I think those things, while probably necessary to an extent, are become more and more the norm and not the exception in entertainment.

I believe, as it relates to the OP, ANet really does care about making a game fun and not just adding the shiny stuff... But something happened. Something happened along the way where they just went after the shiny stuff, which is why many feel, myself included, that they only care about making a buck. Because, that really is what all that shiny stuff is about - not about making a "fun game" in regards to what has historically made games fun: strategy, cooperation, story, etc.

Maybe I'm just bitter, but it really does feel like a completely different philosophy governing everything in this game recently as opposed to the ANet that made GW1 and even the ANet that developed GW2 pre-release.

Something happened...

Edited by El Duderino, 22 April 2013 - 05:47 PM.


#13 lmaonade

lmaonade

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1122 posts
  • Location:That one place with the thing
  • Guild Tag:[NGE]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 22 April 2013 - 06:29 PM

it's fun for a while, then it gets repetitive: farm mats, WvW, play TP, repeat, guild missions are still kinda fun, but only mostly because afterwards my guild just sits in a giant group and just chats for a while (which is probably the most fun thing in the game atm, rather than the content)

this is the case for me at least, experiences may vary.

View PostEl Duderino, on 22 April 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

snip

I agree with most of what you said, maybe it's because I started gaming when I was a single digit in age and now a little more than a decade later I've "grown up" so to speak and capturing my attention isn't as easy as it was before, but I find that a lot of games today have terrible substance, they hook you on the visuals and leave many things to be desired in the meat and potatoes.

And as for Anet, I think they really wanted to make a fun game, but I think they also made a serious attempt to separate GW2 from GW1, whether or not that's good is up to the player of course, but it certainly would alienate a lot of the GW1 crowd.

Edited by lmaonade, 22 April 2013 - 06:39 PM.


#14 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 2274 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 22 April 2013 - 06:51 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 22 April 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Of course they can. But seeing as people attack them when they do stuff on their free time I doubt they would have much interest to "wasting time" on getting those things back online.
Claiming they took it down because it "don't fit the current game" is just silly.

Considering the amount of citations that went back when the Karka patch rolled out, better to make it harder to dig up the old information when they move forward with other changes that go against the vision people bought into.

Also, if anyone wants a greasemonkey script that changes Krall's profile pic to an ArenaNet logo, I've got it.
It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#15 Captain Bulldozer

Captain Bulldozer

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 392 posts
  • Guild Tag:[SoDF]
  • Server:Isle of Janthir

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:08 PM

I remember being hesitant about a lot of the design announcements for GW2 as they were coming out... it seemed to me at the time that they were trying to make a more and more generic game than the unique phenomenon of GW1.  At the time, I was very much of the opinion that, while I wasn't liking some of the stuff I was hearing, I would still give Anet a chance with GW2 because I figured if anyone could make a good game out of these generic MMO elements, it would be them.  And I was at least partly right.  GW2 is really a good game.

Still, I have come to the conclusion that the game just does not have any serious longevity for me.  To this day I could have fun going back to GW1 and farming, doing dungeons, replaying the story missions.  There are plenty of games out there (and I'm not talking about MMOs only) that are fun to play once, but that you'd never pick up again.  There are also those that you can play over and over again (with some break time maybe), as well as those you can't even stomach enough to finish.  GW1 was a play over and over game... but GW2 is a game that you play it and then kinda forget it.  It lacks that mystical force that keeps me enthralled and entertained past its shelf life... (and many seem to feel the same way).  The question is, what is missing?  

The bolded posts from the blog in the OP sound like a fantastic idea... incorporating those ideas in an unabridged way would most likely make one hell of a game.  However, if you read those 5 topics, you can fairly easily see how Anet didn't follow even one of them entirely.  In short, if Anet had stuck to its own theorycraft, it would have made a better game.  But that's not what happened... either because the publisher exerted more control, or the in-house big shots lost sight of the dream when confronted with all the potential dollar signs.  

So, yes, the game is fun.  But in my opinion, it is not fun in a long lasting way.

Edited by Captain Bulldozer, 22 April 2013 - 07:11 PM.


#16 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2246 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:11 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 22 April 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

All we're waiting for is the man with two functioning eyes.  It might be Wildstar, but who knows.  GW2 is popular because it's the strongest WoW alternative on the market, basically being the choice for people not interested in a 9 year old game with largely nine year old character models.  In a way, that is kind of sad.

Off topic: I can't wait to see what Neverwinter has to offer. It looks it could be very similar to GW1.

#17 Featherman

Featherman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1028 posts
  • Location:Frolicking in Kalos

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:12 PM

@Duderino

It's a combination of things. From a technological standpoint we now have budget computers that can run high fidelity games on a reasonable budget while the developers have engines and techniques (like normal mapping) to deliver games with such graphical fidelity. Games like Crysis set the benchmark and other games follow suit. There's also a glut in the industry for talent, most of them dealing with art so it's cheaper to get people to create such visually stunning games.

However, visuals are one thing but the actual design part of game design is whole different kettle of fish. We're still developing the terminology to understand it and new techniques to deliver it.

It's like film, really, and it falls into the same caveats. Graphics and effects make the most impact therefore the best means of advertisement. They're also much easier understood both by the audience and the creator. The emphasis naturally shifts towards those aspects and likely away from things of substance. Game development is a business after all, so you can't blame them.

Edited by Featherman, 22 April 2013 - 07:39 PM.


#18 Daesu

Daesu

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1344 posts
  • Guild Tag:[NPO]
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:35 PM

Quote

Fun impacts gameplay. The pursuit of fun in content led us to make many gameplay decisions, including:Everyone who helps kill a creature gets experience and loot, so you’re not competing with other players; everyone gets rewarded for events with karma they can spend to buy rewards they want, rather than get a random roll of stuff they might not want; content scales in difficulty, so if more people show up, there is still stuff for you to do; everyone is able to revive one another, so you view other players as assets that can help you achieve your goals, rather than people who might get in your way; everyone can harvest resource nodes and get the rewards in the world together, rather than racing other people to them who might steal it from you. All of these things are just more fun!

Unfortunately, this is not true.  You still can't kill champions when you are solo and you still can't do dungeons when you are solo.

If more people shows up, great, but depending on the time, day, and server, not everyone is available to do a particular dungeon or group event at certain times.  Which then excludes you from enjoying said content.  I don't mind if the rewards are lower if you do it with fewer people, but it shouldn't exclude you from the content itself.

Edited by Daesu, 22 April 2013 - 07:38 PM.


#19 Lordkrall

Lordkrall

    Legion Commander

  • Members
  • 5370 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:39 PM

View PostDaesu, on 22 April 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]
Unfortunately, this is not true.  You still can't kill champions when you are solo and you still can't do dungeons when you are solo.

If more people shows up, great, but depending on the time, day and server, not everyone is available to do a particular dungeon or group event at certain times.  Which then excludes you from enjoying said content.  I don't mind if the rewards are lower if you do it with fewer people, but it shouldn't exclude you from the content itself.

Actually it is very possible to solo quite a few of the Champions in the game, and there are also videos where people solo dungeons. So clearly you CAN do them solo, but you need to spend loads of time and be very good ^^

#20 Daesu

Daesu

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1344 posts
  • Guild Tag:[NPO]
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:48 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 22 April 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Actually it is very possible to solo quite a few of the Champions in the game, and there are also videos where people solo dungeons. So clearly you CAN do them solo, but you need to spend loads of time and be very good ^^

Then that would not be good difficulty scaling, would it?

A good difficulty scaling mechanism should properly scale difficulty based on the number of players participating in said content.  It should be almost as easy to do it with 10 players as it is to do it solo.  This is not the case, otherwise any average player SHOULD be able to solo these content without mad skills, loads of time, etc.

Edited by Daesu, 22 April 2013 - 07:49 PM.


#21 Lordkrall

Lordkrall

    Legion Commander

  • Members
  • 5370 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:53 PM

View PostDaesu, on 22 April 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

Then that would not be good difficulty scaling, would it?

A good difficulty scaling mechanism should properly scale difficulty based on the number of players participating in said content.  It should be almost as easy to do it with 10 players as it is to do it solo.  This is not the case, otherwise any average player SHOULD be able to solo these content without mad skills, loads of time, etc.

So.. where in the quote you posted did they say that you would be able to do every single thing in the game on your own without having any trouble whatsoever?

#22 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2246 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:57 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 22 April 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

So.. where in the quote you posted did they say that you would be able to do every single thing in the game on your own without having any trouble whatsoever?

Actually, making the game largely solo-able has always been something the developers have always talked about and one of the reason GW1 got henchies right before the game was released.

Also, the whole "content scales with difficulty." If it did, then dungeons would scale for the difficulty of solo-ing dungeons.

Edited by El Duderino, 22 April 2013 - 08:00 PM.


#23 Daesu

Daesu

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1344 posts
  • Guild Tag:[NPO]
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:57 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 22 April 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

So.. where in the quote you posted did they say that you would be able to do every single thing in the game on your own without having any trouble whatsoever?

Read my post #18 on this thread.

#24 Lordkrall

Lordkrall

    Legion Commander

  • Members
  • 5370 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:03 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 22 April 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

Actually, making the game largely solo-able has always been something the developers have always talked about and one of the reason GW1 got henchies right before the game was released.

Also, the whole "content scales with difficulty." If it did, then dungeons would scale for the difficulty of solo-ing dungeons.

If they said every single part of the whole content of the game scales with difficulty I would agree. They did not however, and the vast majority of things in the game actually DO scale based on group-size from 1 up to quite a high number.

#25 Daesu

Daesu

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1344 posts
  • Guild Tag:[NPO]
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:05 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 22 April 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

If they said every single part of the whole content of the game scales with difficulty I would agree. They did not however, and the vast majority of things in the game actually DO scale based on group-size from 1 up to quite a high number.

The "majority of things in the game actually DO scale based on group-size from 1 up to quite a high number"?  Care to name a few?

I don't think "the majority of the things in the game" even scales much in the first place.  They are just easy enough to be solo, so that if you have 10 players, it would be easier.

Edited by Daesu, 22 April 2013 - 08:07 PM.


#26 Featherman

Featherman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1028 posts
  • Location:Frolicking in Kalos

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:07 PM

View PostDaesu, on 22 April 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

The "majority of things in the game actually DO scale based on group-size from 1 up to quite a high number"?  Care to name a few?

I don't think "the majority of the things in the game" even scales much in the first place.  They are just easy enough to be solo, so that if you have 10 players, it would be easier.

DE's if you consider that the majority. And the way they scale them is to set thresholds for instagib attacks.

Edited by Featherman, 22 April 2013 - 08:10 PM.


#27 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2246 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:11 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 22 April 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

If they said every single part of the whole content of the game scales with difficulty I would agree. They did not however, and the vast majority of things in the game actually DO scale based on group-size from 1 up to quite a high number.

Well, it seems to me they were referring to the whole game. If they wanted to say that only part of the game would scale with difficulty  why would they bother to make the point that was something different about how this game operated.

I mean, when they said that they basing the game on the fun people have - did they just mean part of the game, like dungeons aren't included in the fun? Because, if your logic is true - then dungeons weren't designed to be fun, because they don't adhere to the things that ANet themselves say makes something fun.

Edited by El Duderino, 22 April 2013 - 08:12 PM.


#28 Lordkrall

Lordkrall

    Legion Commander

  • Members
  • 5370 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:12 PM

View PostDaesu, on 22 April 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

The "majority of things in the game actually DO scale based on group-size from 1 up to quite a high number"?  Care to name a few?

I don't think "the majority of the things in the game" even scales much in the first place.  They are just easy enough to be solo, so that if you have 10 players, it would be easier.

Lets see: Every single DE in the whole game? Sure a few are group ones and those might be hard (but not impossible) to solo, but the rest of them is fully possible to solo and still do with a decent sized group without making it too easy.

Another thing would be the personal story, which is scales as well.

Edited by Lordkrall, 22 April 2013 - 08:13 PM.


#29 Daesu

Daesu

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1344 posts
  • Guild Tag:[NPO]
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:13 PM

View PostFeatherman, on 22 April 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

DE's if you consider that the majority. And the way they scale them is to set thresholds for instagib attacks.

I don't think the DE ever scales down even though they have done some work to scale up veterans to champions if there are enough people participating in them.  And how about dungeons?  These don't even scale down.

Their content difficulty scaling is still sorely lacking.

View PostLordkrall, on 22 April 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

Lets see: Every single DE in the whole game? Sure a few are group ones and those might be hard (but not impossible) to solo, but the rest of them is fully possible to solo and still do with a decent sized group without making it too easy.

Another thing would be the personal story, which is scales as well.

It is not be a question of whether it is "possible" to be solo, but whether it should be as easy to solo as it is to play the content with, say, 10 players.  So that any average player would be able to solo them.  That should be a measure of a good content difficulty scaling system.

Most of the content you mentioned are just easy enough to be solo in the first place, which doesn't necessarily imply that they actually "scale with difficulty".

Edited by Daesu, 22 April 2013 - 08:17 PM.


#30 Featherman

Featherman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1028 posts
  • Location:Frolicking in Kalos

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:17 PM

View PostDaesu, on 22 April 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

I don't think the DE ever scales down even though they have done some work to scale up veterans to champions if there are enough people participating in them.  And how about dungeons?  These don't even scale down.

Their content difficulty scaling is still sorely lacking.
Indeed. Sorely lacking and incredibly skewed. You can technically solo dungeons with certain classes, but the delivery of the challenge is such that you wouldn't want to. It's just not that fun.

DEs only scale up, I believe, because at base level they're meant to be done by everyone. The obvious drawback to this is that they'll be farmed, so they recently scaled them up....by throwing instagibs into the particle clusters. Boy these designers sure have a hard-on for that kind of "challenge."

Edited by Featherman, 22 April 2013 - 08:19 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users