In some ways it does seem that the meta evolves very slowly. It seems to take a long time between big changes, rather than frequent small changes. So the meta stays fairly stagnant for a long time, then suddenly one particular build gets nerfsmacked and the community drops it and runs off to something else.
Can someone explain why they do so much double dipping, so to speak, when they nerf stuff? They say they don't do big, reactive nerfs, but it seems pretty common for them to do things like this new might nerf.
I'd think, if might is a problem, that it'd be better to just start with reducing the amount of boost from 35 to 30, and see how that plays out. But they always seem to then go on and layer things like reducing the amount of might that skills produce. So it's a compounded hit, without any ability to weigh a change in isolation. If they overcompensate on a nerf, who's to say whether the might effect or the reduced might stacking that was the culprit? Or on the other side, if it still needs nerfing, which one would be more effective.
I remember the big ele nerf long ago functioning the same way. RtL was too strong, so they not only messed with distance but cooldown. And threw in some other mobility nerfs as well. Too many condition clears on ele? Hit all of them.
I'm not a mechanics person by any means, so I expect there's something I'm just not understanding. From the way they talk about their balancing goals, you'd think there'd be more frequent, isolated tweaks to skills, rather than these compounded, across-the-board changes.
El Duderino, on 17 December 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:
As such, it doesn't really address any of the core reasons why someone may not be logging in.
So far, most days since this was implemented I've logged in shortly after reset just to get the chest. I stayed to do the winter jumping puzzle one of those days. I stayed to have a game night with my wife on another. Both of those were preplanned. So far I've not once logged on, intending not to play, and changed my mind.
If the goal of the login reward was to get me to "play" for three minutes every day, then in my case it is working. If the goal was to get me over some sort of login inertia, however, where I log in to get the reward and decide, "Hey, since I'm here anyway, why not play a little" then curiously enough the rest of the daily revamp has undermined that.
The old dailies were so open to choice, that there have been times where I logged in to do something like pickup cash from the TP and list new items only to see that twenty minutes more investment could take care of dailies. Now I just look at the newer, more restrictive dailies that pop up after collecting the login chest and log out.
[quote name='Baron von Scrufflebutt' timestamp='1420189593' post='2345349']
It would be shocking if it's not an expansion: announce an expansion, release the next LS season to hype and tie it into the current world and then release it in the fall. The big question though is how they plan on delivering it: GW2's cash shop model really works best with a low entry barrier, so forcing the playerbase to buy the expansion, just so that they keep exposing themselves to the cash shop might not be the best idea.
I honestly wouldn't find it surprising if the expansion is simply a massive, free patch.
Release new zones and "story" as a massive free patch so that everyone who is still playing can keep playing, but drop some of the biggies that people want into the cash shop for the revenue to support the expansion. Things like a new playable race, new profession, new weapon unlocks for existing professions wouldn't lock non-payers out of continuing with the game, but would be tantalizing enough to get a lot of players to fork over some money.
B. I'm personally sad to see the new daily system go back to the way the old daily system was - in that to actually achieve the daily & get your 10 AP... your forced to go all over the place, and can NOT finish it just by playing the game normally anymore.
Yet another indicator that there is a lack of good leadership at ArenaNet. Since launch, they've revamped dailies a couple of times (including the first implementing of them), and they keep bouncing back and forth between a more transparent, immersive design and a heavy handed, checklist design. IMO, the #1 problem with GW2 is the lack of a clear design vision against which they judge their "iterations" before implementing them. Everything smacks of a reactive, rather than proactive development process.
Instead of leaders with a vision and direction for the game, they design around problems that pop up by throwing ideas at it in hopes that something will stick. It should be "how could dailies fit into what we want this game to be?" Instead it seems to be "login numbers are down, maybe we can patch that hole with a revamp of the dailies."
It's not that unusual for any of us to get stuck putting out fires instead of spending our time setting and working toward clear goals. ArenaNet seemed, however, to be more vision-driven in the past, so it's hard to swallow that they've moved so far into reactionary development.