Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
- - - - -

Blizzard improving on ANET's Concepts


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Zhaitan

Zhaitan

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 374 posts
  • Location:3rd rock from the sun
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 27 August 2014 - 05:53 PM

Over Last one year, I am noticing Blizzard is taking ANET's concepts (at least I heard about these from ANET first) and implementing a much better solution.

ANET's multiguild approach vs., Blizzard's community
In GW2 you can be part of multiple guild whereas in D3, you can be part of 1 guild but, can join multiple communities to participate in community activities where your clanmates can also participate. Hence, in D3, the issue of representing a clan/guild does not arise. Multi guild function in GW2 is broken as most of the big guilds will require 100% reprsentation.

Fractals vs. Rifts
Fractals were supposed to provide short, challenging content with increasing level of difficulty. Eventually, fractals ended up being a bigger effort than dungeons with lesser rewards.

Fractured vs. Greater Rifts/Patch 2.1
ANET promised leaderboards for fractals. Eventually, they realized that they simply could not implement it with the current form of fractals. I believe, Blizz took that concept and introduced greater rifts with leaderboards. They have solo, 2 ppl, 3 ppl and 4 ppl leaderboards for greater rifts.

Not that any of these things create any issues, but, I simply could not help noticing these.

#2 Calypso589

Calypso589

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 271 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:26 AM

I will never understand why people whine about a guild havingits members rep 100%

People suddenly cant dick around with friends in orher guilds because of this? Doesnt make sense to me.

#3 Azure Skye

Azure Skye

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2099 posts
  • Location:(づ。*◕__◕。)づ・。*。✧・゜゜・。✧・。*。✧ Magic!
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[CUTE]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 28 August 2014 - 02:36 AM

View PostCalypso589, on 28 August 2014 - 12:26 AM, said:

I will never understand why people whine about a guild havingits members rep 100%

People suddenly cant dick around with friends in orher guilds because of this? Doesnt make sense to me.
Because the guild leaders take so much time and effort to make the guild to where it is, There isn't no loyalty and people use and abuse the multi-guild system. People on a start up guild steal members of an active guild and try to steal to their guild, just preying on their members, i know you could still do it under the one account guild system also but this makes it easy to do.

#4 Averath

Averath

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 02:49 AM

If I'm going to receive threats to be kicked for representing another guild, then I'm not going to be a member of that guild for very long.

The simple fact is that you either make a guild with selfish intentions, which basically means you're using other people to build up influence rather than buying it yourself, or you're intending to use it as a personal guild. Or you make a guild for others. If you make a guild for other people, and people are convinced to leave your guild for another, then there is an underlying reason why they left and that is something you need to consider addressing. Why did they leave? If they liked it in your guild they wouldn't have left. It's as simple as that.

I'm a member of five guilds. I have a personal guild, a member of one of the Tequatl Terror Squads that doesn't require 100% rep, a member of a server-wide community guild that doesn't require 100%, and a guild I represent 99% of the time, but still doesn't require 100% rep. When you require 100% rep, you're effectively telling your members that they're not allowed to participate in community events, or participate in guild missions if they're not capable of doing so with your guild. Perhaps your guild is primarily active at a time a player is asleep, but they enjoy being a part of your guild regardless. Why should they suffer because you feel the need to monopolize their time?

#5 Calypso589

Calypso589

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 271 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 03:52 AM

View PostAverath, on 28 August 2014 - 02:49 AM, said:

If I'm going to receive threats to be kicked for representing another guild, then I'm not going to be a member of that guild for very long.

The simple fact is that you either make a guild with selfish intentions, which basically means you're using other people to build up influence rather than buying it yourself, or you're intending to use it as a personal guild. Or you make a guild for others. If you make a guild for other people, and people are convinced to leave your guild for another, then there is an underlying reason why they left and that is something you need to consider addressing. Why did they leave? If they liked it in your guild they wouldn't have left. It's as simple as that.

I'm a member of five guilds. I have a personal guild, a member of one of the Tequatl Terror Squads that doesn't require 100% rep, a member of a server-wide community guild that doesn't require 100%, and a guild I represent 99% of the time, but still doesn't require 100% rep. When you require 100% rep, you're effectively telling your members that they're not allowed to participate in community events, or participate in guild missions if they're not capable of doing so with your guild. Perhaps your guild is primarily active at a time a player is asleep, but they enjoy being a part of your guild regardless. Why should they suffer because you feel the need to monopolize their time?
\

Things you can only do once a week (such as guild missions) should obviously be only done with the guild that has you repping them 100%. That's a given.

But repping 100% of the time has ZERO impact on any one player's ability to perhaps do a dungeon with another guild that they need (assuming the guild group they're joining has majority in the party so you're not being a detriment to THEIR acquisition of influence).

Aside from ensuring that certain prerequisites are met to ensure that influence isn't being lost (such as the dungeon scenario described above) I see no reason why repping a guild 100% of the time keeps you from joining and enjoying members of other guilds.

I honestly think the player base makes a bigger stink out of it then it actually is.

Btw, I'm just building on what you were saying.

I'm assuming you were replying to Azure Skye?

#6 FoxBat

FoxBat

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 3975 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 06:32 AM

You can make comparisons, but it's a bit of a stretch to say Blizzard is specifically looking at Anet here.

1. Communities are little more than chat rooms, that basic functionallity that Bnet 2.0 stripped for a long time. Now these new chat rooms are very useful, since you can participate in multiple while playing the game, but thats it. You want more features you gotta get a clan, and you can only be in one clan.

2. You have to earn Rifts via farming keystones, and the upcoming greater rifts require much rarer keystones. Path of Exile's Map feature is a much more likely inspiration, a game that released pretty close to D3 retail, and is likely its closest competition in the genre.

3. Leaderboards have existed since arcades did, and the seasonal leaderboards are, like PoE's leagues, looking back to Diablo 2's ladder system.

Edited by FoxBat, 28 August 2014 - 06:33 AM.


#7 typographie

typographie

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2028 posts
  • Guild Tag:[LAW]

Posted 28 August 2014 - 03:25 PM

View PostAzure Skye, on 28 August 2014 - 02:36 AM, said:

Because the guild leaders take so much time and effort to make the guild to where it is, There isn't no loyalty and people use and abuse the multi-guild system. People on a start up guild steal members of an active guild and try to steal to their guild, just preying on their members, i know you could still do it under the one account guild system also but this makes it easy to do.

But to be clear, if players are abusing their membership to poach other members, then that's the behavior they should be interrogated/kicked for. You don't know someone is abusing the system that way until you actually catch them doing it, anyway.

If its loyalty you're concerned about, the only real way to instill loyalty is to be a guild that attracts good players and makes them want to rep. Forcing players to rep won't make them any more loyal if the guild is lame, and conversely, you won't have to force it if the guild is good.

Casually deciding which guild to represent at any given moment is a feature of the game the developers intentionally implemented. Players should not accept guild leaders telling them which intended features of a game they are allowed to use. As far as I'm concerned, that's out of bounds for any guild I'm part of.

Edited by typographie, 28 August 2014 - 03:33 PM.


#8 draxynnic

draxynnic

    Lorebug

  • Moderators
  • 7682 posts
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 29 August 2014 - 01:27 AM

Taking other people's ideas and improving on them has basically been Blizzard's modus operandi basically since the innovations in Warcraft 3 faced a less than universally enthusiastic response and they moved on to WoW. There was even a quote floating around a few years ago, although they might deny it now, along the lines of not being in the business of innovation but of refinement.

However, they are very good at refinement. Which is one reason why competing too directly with them never works - if your ideas are compatible with their own, they'll take them, refine them, and put them in their own game.
Got any comments or queries about moderation in one of my spheres of responsibility? Make sure I get the message!

#9 Phineas Poe

Phineas Poe

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1215 posts
  • Location:Washington, DC
  • Profession:Engineer
  • Guild Tag:[iQ]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 29 August 2014 - 01:56 AM

View PostCalypso589, on 28 August 2014 - 12:26 AM, said:

I will never understand why people whine about a guild havingits members rep 100%

People suddenly cant dick around with friends in orher guilds because of this? Doesnt make sense to me.

The 100% rep rule is a two-part thing.

1. Influence is everything in this game. Without influence you can't have buffs. You can't do missions. You can't spawn your own Teq/Wurm events. And when you're not repping, you're not helping gain influence for the guild.

2. Guild rosters are capped. Therefore every seat kinda matters after a certain point. For 100 to 200 man guilds this may not be an issue, but for 500 man guilds that clear out inactives, every roster slot is fairly precious. And I will always give it to the guy that's willing to rep all the time. It's a show of dedication.

#10 Averath

Averath

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 03:21 AM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 29 August 2014 - 01:56 AM, said:

The 100% rep rule is a two-part thing.

1. Influence is everything in this game. Without influence you can't have buffs. You can't do missions. You can't spawn your own Teq/Wurm events. And when you're not repping, you're not helping gain influence for the guild.

2. Guild rosters are capped. Therefore every seat kinda matters after a certain point. For 100 to 200 man guilds this may not be an issue, but for 500 man guilds that clear out inactives, every roster slot is fairly precious. And I will always give it to the guy that's willing to rep all the time. It's a show of dedication.

I'll use this to reply to the other posts as well without bloating my post more than it needs to be.

Typographie's point is the same point I was trying to make, but I took it another step further while thinking of the psychological influences of requiring someone to rep a guild 100% of the time.

Take, for example, guild missions. Let us say that I am in Guild A. Guild A requires 100% rep. They do Guild Missions once a week at 2 PM every Thursday. At this time I am in class. If I abide by their rules, I will not be able to participate in Guild Missions for the entire semester. Why should they change their schedule for a single player, afterall?

Naturally I'll represent another guild and participate in their guild missions when I have time. This is a logical course of action to take, as it is my only choice if I want to participate in Guild Missions.

Now to touch on the points made in the quote I've linked to. I am in a guild that does not require 100% rep, and yet I rep it nearly 100% of the time. The guild leader does not ask us to rep the guild because he is more than willing to spend his own money to fund the guild's activities. He outright purchases guild influence from the vendor in order to queue events. Often times this isn't necessary because the community of this guild is so conductive to cooperation that it isn't necessary.

Second, you're right in regards to member caps and priorities. However, requiring 100% rep in a game where you can have five guilds leaves a sour taste in some player's mouths because of the psychological effect of feeling as if you're infringing on their freedom. You are demanding something of them, and they may feel that that demand is unreasonable. At that point your opinion no longer matters, because this is a recreational activity, and if they feel your demand is unreasonable then they have every right to tell you so. You can kick them from your guild, but what does that really accomplish? Burning bridges with a member who may have represented your guild the majority of the time if such a rule was in place. Burning bridges with a member who may have become an officer to help organize events for your guild, or lead in WvW. There are so many things you have to consider, and requiring 100% rep seems counter-productive.

Don't demand from players. Foster an environment where they don't want to stop representing, because they enjoy spending time with the people around them.

#11 Calypso589

Calypso589

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 271 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 05:39 AM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 29 August 2014 - 01:56 AM, said:

The 100% rep rule is a two-part thing.

1. Influence is everything in this game. Without influence you can't have buffs. You can't do missions. You can't spawn your own Teq/Wurm events. And when you're not repping, you're not helping gain influence for the guild.

2. Guild rosters are capped. Therefore every seat kinda matters after a certain point. For 100 to 200 man guilds this may not be an issue, but for 500 man guilds that clear out inactives, every roster slot is fairly precious. And I will always give it to the guy that's willing to rep all the time. It's a show of dedication.

ok fine, so you don't join another guild with a full roster that wants to have it's members rep 100% as well.

It still doesn't keep you from playing with friends you might know in those guilds or from doing dungeons with them when you're not with your guild (again, assuming necessary steps are taken to ensure their guild makes up party majority so you don't cheat them out of influence).

Keep in mind, i'm not arguing against guilds having it's members rep 100%, just so there's no confusion. lol

There's so many workarounds to either being a member of or enjoying the company of other guilds that repping 100% of the guild YOU are a member of is literally no big deal.

It does NOT keep you from playing with other people. You just need to take certain precautions here and there to ensure that influence isn't lost such as the dungeon scenario I described. And then obviously you're not going to do guild missions with another guild. lol

That's why I don't get why people rage when they're asked to rep 100%

It means nothing and gains your guild everything. lol

Edited by Calypso589, 29 August 2014 - 05:47 AM.


#12 zwei2stein

zwei2stein

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1020 posts
  • Location:Yurop
  • Guild Tag:[RA]
  • Server:Ring of Fire

Posted 29 August 2014 - 08:31 AM

View PostCalypso589, on 29 August 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

ok fine, so you don't join another guild with a full roster that wants to have it's members rep 100% as well.

It still doesn't keep you from playing with friends you might know in those guilds or from doing dungeons with them when you're not with your guild (again, assuming necessary steps are taken to ensure their guild makes up party majority so you don't cheat them out of influence).

Keep in mind, i'm not arguing against guilds having it's members rep 100%, just so there's no confusion. lol

There's so many workarounds to either being a member of or enjoying the company of other guilds that repping 100% of the guild YOU are a member of is literally no big deal.

It does NOT keep you from playing with other people. You just need to take certain precautions here and there to ensure that influence isn't lost such as the dungeon scenario I described. And then obviously you're not going to do guild missions with another guild. lol

That's why I don't get why people rage when they're asked to rep 100%

It means nothing and gains your guild everything. lol

Technically, you are right. Practically, it is huge burden and does prevent you from playing with people.

Lets assume there is group of friends in small guild you want to play with and also big guild with 100% rep for big stuff.

If you rep big guild you will:

* Miss most of chatter/bonding - you will not know about half of their injokes soon enough or if buddy got new job/haircut/wahtever.
* Miss out spontaneous group formation to do x. You might get whisper, but if there are enough bodies to get by without you, you will not.

You can work around that by being in party, but that has limited slots and is pita to maintain. You can work around that by whisper chatter, but that does not work well when you communicate with group. You can work around that by using out of game communication/forums/voice comm... but...

Is it big deal? It does not seem, but it is sneaky issue.

This game misses ability to simultaneously praticipate in multiple guild chats or to have custom chat rooms.

TLDR:

Of course you can do dungeons with friends while being in 100% rep guild. But price is that your relationship to friend group will change from member to outsider.

#13 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3304 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 08:43 AM

The borrowing of ideas is actually the reason why I hope GW2 does well: A.Net implemented a ton of amazing features and I wish they'd get spread around. I really wish all new MMOs would be built around the Megaserver, no factions, no racial restrictions, now downtimes on patches, ... At the same time, I am really glad how D3 does the Mystics because you can then point to it and say that T-Stones are lacking in comparison. Or how utterly superb warping to your fellow party member is.

I really wish devs, and especially players, would be willing to look outside of their game and go "Wow, these guys sure are doing this superbly! Let's try to emulate it!".

#14 Calypso589

Calypso589

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 271 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 12:11 PM

View Postzwei2stein, on 29 August 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

Technically, you are right. Practically, it is huge burden and does prevent you from playing with people.

Lets assume there is group of friends in small guild you want to play with and also big guild with 100% rep for big stuff.

If you rep big guild you will:

* Miss most of chatter/bonding - you will not know about half of their injokes soon enough or if buddy got new job/haircut/wahtever.
* Miss out spontaneous group formation to do x. You might get whisper, but if there are enough bodies to get by without you, you will not.

You can work around that by being in party, but that has limited slots and is pita to maintain. You can work around that by whisper chatter, but that does not work well when you communicate with group. You can work around that by using out of game communication/forums/voice comm... but...

Is it big deal? It does not seem, but it is sneaky issue.

This game misses ability to simultaneously praticipate in multiple guild chats or to have custom chat rooms.

TLDR:

Of course you can do dungeons with friends while being in 100% rep guild. But price is that your relationship to friend group will change from member to outsider.

Yeah I agree, it needs the functionality GW1 had of multi-guild chat. Alliance chat, I think it was called?

At the same time, the issues you bring up to me aren't even worth noting either.

Missing out on inside jokes? You've got your own guild for such things and if ever a situation arises where you're in another group and something is mentioned you don't understand, you simply ask and they'll tell you and boom, you're right in on it now too.

As for spontaneous group missions to do X, yeah sometimes you'll miss out by not being in chat but at the same time, having enough people to do something doesn't mean there's some arbitrary cap on who can come. If you've got friends, they see you're on, they'll mention the activity to you.

Maybe not every time but you also don't need to be there every time. No big deal.

Those are itty bitty negatives in a SEA of positives but I totally agree alliance chat needs to return.

#15 typographie

typographie

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2028 posts
  • Guild Tag:[LAW]

Posted 29 August 2014 - 01:36 PM

View PostCalypso589, on 29 August 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Yeah I agree, it needs the functionality GW1 had of multi-guild chat. Alliance chat, I think it was called?

I don't see how that system could be made to work in GW2. In GW1, alliances were groups of guilds with a structured relationship to each other. Every member of each of the 12 guilds in the alliance saw chat from those 12 guilds. In GW2, we can join any five random guilds we want. How does such a chat channel decide who does and doesn't see chat messages if not everyone is in the same five guilds?

I personally don't see anything particularly wrong with the multi-guild system as-is. It really hasn't done anything that's all that different from the standard guild model of other games, in effect. Either way, players participate in the guild they want to participate in. If players aren't repping your guild in this system, they likely wouldn't even be in your guild in the traditional system.

Edited by typographie, 29 August 2014 - 01:42 PM.


#16 draxynnic

draxynnic

    Lorebug

  • Moderators
  • 7682 posts
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 29 August 2014 - 03:30 PM

I'd presume it'd simply be a case of it being possible to be in five alliances at once, if all your guilds happen to be in separate alliances.
Got any comments or queries about moderation in one of my spheres of responsibility? Make sure I get the message!

#17 Phineas Poe

Phineas Poe

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1215 posts
  • Location:Washington, DC
  • Profession:Engineer
  • Guild Tag:[iQ]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 30 August 2014 - 12:51 AM

View PostAverath, on 29 August 2014 - 03:21 AM, said:

You can kick them from your guild, but what does that really accomplish? Burning bridges with a member who may have represented your guild the majority of the time if such a rule was in place. Burning bridges with a member who may have become an officer to help organize events for your guild, or lead in WvW. There are so many things you have to consider, and requiring 100% rep seems counter-productive.

It's not when you consider the fact that 100% rep allowed my guild to spawn our own Tequatl kills whenever we wanted to. We were able to attempt Wurm multiple times each Saturday because of it, which directly resulted in us getting our kills each week. It allowed us to run every single buff, including waypoint cost reduction, on the weekends and most buffs throughout the week. My guild required 100% rep and we got a lot of shit done because of it.

I understand that's not everyone's speed, and that's fine. It really is all about what your objectives are as a player. But there's a lot more to the rep rule than "monopolizing" a guildie's time.

Edited by Phineas Poe, 30 August 2014 - 12:52 AM.


#18 ilr

ilr

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2726 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 10:38 PM

Anet made a less than clear decision that it would no longer listen to the old PvE community that helped it make Gw1 such a success.

They made a more than clear decision that they would only listen to "friends of conquest mode" when designing nearly all of the balance and roles across all classes.

What's happening now is the natural results of that.  Blizzard sees an opportunity to retain a lot of players through those improvements, because Anet conceded the lead on innovating.  Lots of developers are doing this.  Even SOE has managed to gain an edge in "innovating" purely b/c studios like Anet decided that they were special snowflakes and didn't have to take feedback seriously.

#19 Zhaitan

Zhaitan

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 374 posts
  • Location:3rd rock from the sun
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 04 September 2014 - 07:43 PM

View Postdraxynnic, on 29 August 2014 - 01:27 AM, said:

Taking other people's ideas and improving on them has basically been Blizzard's modus operandi basically since the innovations in Warcraft 3 faced a less than universally enthusiastic response and they moved on to WoW. There was even a quote floating around a few years ago, although they might deny it now, along the lines of not being in the business of innovation but of refinement.

However, they are very good at refinement. Which is one reason why competing too directly with them never works - if your ideas are compatible with their own, they'll take them, refine them, and put them in their own game.

You hit the mark right there. Refinement.

One thing that I did not mention in the OP is that Blizzard took steps back when they realized their original business model simply did not work and alienated a huge section of the playerbase. They launched Auction House and then removed it. May be their approach was too drastic to completely eliminate trade from the game, but, from certain perspectives, it makes sense - What you find is yours and you can share it with others who took part in your adventure. It does put certain restrictions, but, overall, I like it from philosophical standpoint.

I wish ANET looked back at their mistakes/failed implementations and said, "Hey, we ♥♥♥♥ed up but, we will fix it." Hopefully, they will.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users