Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 28 Apr 2012
Offline Last Active Mar 31 2013 03:26 AM

#2181824 What one change would you make to GW2?

Posted Shayne Hawke on 21 March 2013 - 12:23 AM

Remove from game and cease development of gear above Exotic.

#2152139 Can we agree on a dedicated PvE server?

Posted Sans on 27 January 2013 - 09:28 PM

Since guesting is being added tomorrow, can we all agree on a server where we can all guest for regular Non-Dungeon PvE content?

One where maps aren't completely empty?

That way DE's are always active and full of people participating.

Can a mod make a 2 polls ???
one for US servers and one for EU servers so we can vote on it.

#2134785 So it seems a lot of naughty boys and girls got one last gift from Santa this...

Posted Afya on 04 January 2013 - 01:11 AM

I think half of the crafter BL/mystic salvaged their rare piece after gaining the level, to regain some of the lost. This has been the trick for quite some times. In fact you'll probably see that in many of the crafting guide. It's Anet's fault for not thinking clear enough when they create the recipe. I'm not involved in this but Anet's reaction disappoints me.

#2108451 So how long before DE's & Champs are removed ?

Posted Jobuu on 05 December 2012 - 05:39 PM

View PostRedStar, on 05 December 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Nearly all champions are utterly useless.

The loot they give (if you are lucky) is generally worthless.
The experience they give is relatively small.

The time and effort needed to kill a Champion would be better rewarded if you spent it killing trash mobs.

As for DE Champions, the only time you want to kill one if it's the final event of a chain where you can get a lot of experience (Kessex Hill), if it's blocking access to a WP or the gods champions which give a chest and the karma armor merchant.

That's why very few players bother to fight the Blood Witches (which are incredibly annoying) or any Champion that isn't a melee (and thus easy to kite) enemy.

agreed. this is what they should be working on first; not some stupid new tier of gear. make the existing world more alive by encouraging people to get out there.

#2103821 Do MMO players demand too much?

Posted Red_Falcon on 01 December 2012 - 06:31 PM

I'm 25 and generally pleased in most games I played.
Some games just weren't for me and I abandoned them; for instance WoW was too easy / too child-oriented for me so I quit - but I did not hang out in the forums to troll or cry or anything.
As for SP games I try them before I buy them so it's safe to say I never wasted a cent.

I believe a lot of people found complaining to be their new MMO.
Log on this forum, cry about this, cry about that, flame this guy, troll that guy, get super mad at that other guy, cooldown, log off.
It's their playing session.
Game world: the forum
Servers: the forum sections
Character: their nickname
Classes: moany teenager / the guy with bad grammar / the elitist / the jerk / etc

#2100568 Anet on why there is vertical progression

Posted Beale on 29 November 2012 - 03:09 AM

View PostDrekor, on 28 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

I don't like his response and to me it underscores a complete change in core design philosophy for the game. I'll elaborate a bit on each of his points


What the hell happened to ANets developers? It honestly boggles my mind how you can make a game as good as GW2 then only a few months later release a patch as bad as this. Were they replaced by their evil twins or something?

The problem here is where it really comes down to it. Mike is basically saying it's a numbers issue not a design issue.

This feels like what happened in RIFT.  The game starts out with a specific and well articulated philosophy, attracts a lot of players, the players who don't like the philosophy leave making a lot of noise, and suddenly we start seeing patches which fundamentally change the nature of the game.

Two observations:

First, marketing: A game is an entertainment product, not a technical product.  Success is about the emotional experience of the customers.   This is true whether you're producing a Broadway play, making  a movie, or opening a Club Med resort.  Any idiot can tell you that a movie which tried to be all things to all people would fail miserably.

Now, let's picture a movie whose producers and directors somehow thought they could, advertised that they could, and on opening day every theater is full.  In the opening scene we have a high adrenaline car chase / smashed cars / macho guy driving / hot babe with too few clothes on in the passenger seat...and the families with small children get up and leave the theater.  This cuts to another scene where a truly eloquent speaker gives an impassioned discussion of minute points of philosophy worthy of a Harvard PhD...and all the people who liked the chase scene get up and leave the theater.  Then cut to five minutes of children playing and playground drama between the kids...more leave.  Then the folks in the car from the first scene put their clothes on and actually have an interesting drama with a plot...for the handful of people who stuck around.

My first point: developing a game you make decisions who it's for, design the game for that segment, market the game to that segment, and don't look back.  On day 1 you sell to a subset of the game market, which you have chosen, plus a some people just there to explore.  The people who don't fit your segment will all leave.  If you've served the segment poorly, even more will leave.  But from that moment on, every time you change direction, even slightly, you signal an additional set of people to leave and you cannot get back the ones who left already, or never came because the game wasn't for them.  So a game designer who panics and shifts direction repeatedly guarantees the outcome RIFT had, which is that essentially all the customers left.

My second point: I think that at release there is a shift of power in the game publishers, from the developers, to the bean counters.  The bean counters see 2 million units sold, do not understand that a million of those were sold to people the game wasn't targeted to and couldn't possibly retain, and panic when those million leave after a month.  They look at the exit polls and identify the fact that the game was designed to plateau instead of having a perpetual gear grind as the cause of those million people leaving, and demand that the developers fix the problem.  (In the case of RIFT, it was that speccing a character was extremely complex (counterpoint to WoW) and dynamic world events (again counterpoint to WoW): so RIFT tracked players into cookie cutter specs and gutted the world events.)  The problem is that this reversal of direction alienates the other million people, the ones who stayed, the ones the game was designed for.

In fairy tales, this is called killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.  I don't know what it's called in the game world.

As a business person, i see it as a total and complete failure of the marketing process, and of the corporate management's stewardship of the asset.  Failure to understand who your customers are, and how they will react to what you are doing, is an utter failure at Marketing 101.  Even if you have no clue, there are these things called "focus groups" you use to ask a cross section of customers how they will feel about proposed changes to the game.  And you run the focus groups after you have the concept for the expansion, but before spending all the development.  Or even after spending the development but before release...and have the courage to cancel a patch or x-pac which will alienate most of your customers.