Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

El Duderino

Member Since 25 Jan 2013
Offline Last Active Nov 25 2014 09:00 PM

#2343044 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Haggus on 20 November 2014 - 01:14 AM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 November 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

I think one reason is that the "forced" partying and the instancing were catalytes for each other when it came to forcing people to socialize. It makes it feel like it's the little team you formed before going on a mission or whatever against the entire rest of the world (or area, at least). Also, the feeling of loneliness made each decent other player that you met more valuable, making you want to make new friends. In GW2 players are everywhere, so it's not really worth it to start talking to them.

True enough, leading players around by the nose makes for a boring game. Quest trackers and checklists really do kill parts of the game that they seem totally unrelated to: when you are out killing boars for fun or for challenge, combat is exciting, but when you are out killing boars just to kill 5 of them (or to fill up a meter, which is the same damn thing), combat is just in the way of getting 5 kills (or a full meter). And that's just one example: QoL features end up killing the fun in so many ways. Not all of them, and sometimes it's worth killing what wasn't so fun to begin with, I'm not against these features as such, that's not what I'm saying. But when implemented wrong, they really do detract from a game more than they add to it, even though it seemingly is the other way around.

On the other hand, as an example: I've seen a complaint that Mass Effect was very confusing to players because they were just "thrown in" into the game, and an example of that was that the health bar turned green when the player was poisoned and there was never any explanation of why it was green. :unsure: Sometimes leading players around by the nose is important for sales and for player retention.

I disagree, at least regarding fractals and Teq. Now sure, yes, it sometimes requires some communication, to the level of "let's go" and "go over here". Admittedly, even the most difficult parts of GW1 could be done with almost as limited communication. But as for individual skill it's just that; the skill required in GW1 was not so much about individual performance as it was about team performance. You could play perfect and yet die because the monk stupidly aggroed some bad guy and had to run away instead of staying to heal you. In that case you could lower your own performance to preempt that bad guy so that the monk wouldn't be targeted. Or maybe the team had to split up and act in two different locations, and one sub-team had some difficulty so your team had to send one more guy over to the other side. Or maybe the entire team. And you'd have to decide, on the spot, what to do. I'm shit at explaining this. It wasn't about you, it was about how you fit in with the others.

Good monks prot.  Bad monks heal.  and good teams had a Domination mesmer.


#2342963 GW2: Master of Salami Slicing

Posted raspberry jam on 18 November 2014 - 09:08 AM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 17 November 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

You can recover that loss opening a couple champ bags.

Non-issue.
Yes and if you open a couple more champ bags you get all your gold back, but so what? You'd have even more gold if it wasn't for the disparity. Money is money, of course it's an issue.


#2342849 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted raspberry jam on 17 November 2014 - 11:15 AM

View PostFeathermoore, on 13 November 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

On the note of "everyone not having 7 friends;" I was never able to pin 100% the reason why, but making friends was easier in GW1 than in GW2. The "never party or talk needed" design of GW2 definitely contributes to this, and is likely the largest reason, but it doesn't really explain why it actually requires work to meet new people in GW2. I played GvG in GW1 for years in multiple different guilds. Groups would collapse and I would move on. Sometimes I would get pulled along with a teammate who had a network that had a guild looking for players. Sometimes I ended up being invited into guilds while I was PUGing in HoH. Twice I even met my GvG group in PvE areas. Heck, my first guild only had 4 people that actually played GvG and we filled in with henchmen.

GW2 just isn't a social game at the core. Just like how LoL or Starcraft aren't social games. The design doesn't require/push players together. This actually can increase any feeling that the game is losing players. Since you don't really interact with others, it already feels less alive than an MMO that actually encourages socializing.
I think one reason is that the "forced" partying and the instancing were catalytes for each other when it came to forcing people to socialize. It makes it feel like it's the little team you formed before going on a mission or whatever against the entire rest of the world (or area, at least). Also, the feeling of loneliness made each decent other player that you met more valuable, making you want to make new friends. In GW2 players are everywhere, so it's not really worth it to start talking to them.

View PostMillimidget, on 13 November 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

And that's moreso the scope I'm looking for them to approach it on; actually, your suggestion is somewhat grander, but along the same lines. Personally, I think a big part of the problem is QoL features such as quest trackers, which totally remove any thought involved in engaging in most content. That window where you're actually mentally engaging in the game in order to figure out where to go or whatever, is the best opportunity for a developer to also engage you with some well placed lore or easter egg or whatnot. Shallow or totally opaque dungeon encounters, something GW2 was extremely guilty of IMO, don't really help, but currently seem endemic to the genre.
True enough, leading players around by the nose makes for a boring game. Quest trackers and checklists really do kill parts of the game that they seem totally unrelated to: when you are out killing boars for fun or for challenge, combat is exciting, but when you are out killing boars just to kill 5 of them (or to fill up a meter, which is the same damn thing), combat is just in the way of getting 5 kills (or a full meter). And that's just one example: QoL features end up killing the fun in so many ways. Not all of them, and sometimes it's worth killing what wasn't so fun to begin with, I'm not against these features as such, that's not what I'm saying. But when implemented wrong, they really do detract from a game more than they add to it, even though it seemingly is the other way around.

On the other hand, as an example: I've seen a complaint that Mass Effect was very confusing to players because they were just "thrown in" into the game, and an example of that was that the health bar turned green when the player was poisoned and there was never any explanation of why it was green. :unsure: Sometimes leading players around by the nose is important for sales and for player retention.

View PostPhineas Poe, on 14 November 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

The "never talk" understanding of GW2 teamplay or "never having to think" argument of its combat may make sense if you're blowing through Ascalon Catacombs, but participating in anything meaningful end-game content like high-level fractals, Tequatl, Wurm, or successfully completing the later raids of LS1 like Marionette absolutely required both communication and individual player skill.

It's hilarious that the same people are still making the same arguments despite the fact that no one still kills Tequatl but a few select guilds/servers, and that now one but GW2C and TTS kill Wurm on any regular level. And since EG's leadership implosion no individual 500-man guild has killed it since. There are plenty of fights in this game that require high level thinking and organization to successfully complete, and it isn't relegated only to open-world raid bosses.
I disagree, at least regarding fractals and Teq. Now sure, yes, it sometimes requires some communication, to the level of "let's go" and "go over here". Admittedly, even the most difficult parts of GW1 could be done with almost as limited communication. But as for individual skill it's just that; the skill required in GW1 was not so much about individual performance as it was about team performance. You could play perfect and yet die because the monk stupidly aggroed some bad guy and had to run away instead of staying to heal you. In that case you could lower your own performance to preempt that bad guy so that the monk wouldn't be targeted. Or maybe the team had to split up and act in two different locations, and one sub-team had some difficulty so your team had to send one more guy over to the other side. Or maybe the entire team. And you'd have to decide, on the spot, what to do. I'm shit at explaining this. It wasn't about you, it was about how you fit in with the others.


#2342774 GW2: Master of Salami Slicing

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 15 November 2014 - 04:07 PM

View PostSatenia, on 15 November 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

Your bad indeed. I would call it an analogy myself.

In the interest of discussion, do you actually have anything meaningful to contribute to the OP's mathematical approach to the gem-store change? I would be most happy to hear it.

I am not particularly bothered by the OP's "analogy" or his hypothetical situation since I understand that they are not the point of his post. They are simply there to spice up the post.
With that in mind, I very much share the OP's outrage over this shitty system: especially since, as I said, it was part of a push to screw over the consumers and they even had the nerve to try to argue that the change was made to benefit the consumer! The system today is less favourable for consumers than it was before the change.


#2342735 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Shayne Hawke on 15 November 2014 - 05:59 AM

View PostEl Duderino, on 15 November 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

This is getting pretty far off-topic now...

Eh, I was going to try to tie it back with some remark about not being able to discuss anything meaningful on a forum if ANet can't design their game in a way that makes it obvious who it's for... but on second thought, ♥♥♥♥ it, I'm dropping it, it's not worth the hassle to try to continue to talk about this game.


#2342738 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Cutthroat on 15 November 2014 - 06:26 AM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 14 November 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

Then things must have changed a lot in the past two months.
People learned to play? :^) One of the most annoying aspect about the game (WvW) is that no matter how well a single player plays (in a group)... it isn't enough. Trying your best / playing "perfectly" isn't enough. That's why the game is "dead" for me.


#2342717 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Shayne Hawke on 15 November 2014 - 02:14 AM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 14 November 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

But "the whole of GW" doesn't cater to the individual. That's why I'm disagreeing with you.

We don't disagree when it comes to how GW2 caters to individuals.  We disagree on who the game is designed for.  You seem to think it's for teams.  I think it's for individuals, which it does a terrible job of by putting them into team situations, places where any given individual doesn't matter.

Quote

In relation to PvP, I don't think I need to contribute any more on that subject until you answer my previous question. But just to make a statement, tournament PvP is VERY communication and skill focused. Conquest is a team-based gametype, and the best TEAMS, not individuals, win.

The same goes for WvW. It's an RvR gametype. It's about the strength of a SERVER or GUILD, not the individual. Good servers beat bad servers. And there's a reason why certain guilds are respected in the GvG circuit and others aren't.

This type of content doesn't reward based on individual contribution because it's not about individual contributions. It's about who is the better team or the better server. And that requires having players that give a shit, put in the work/thought into getting the right gear or build, and play well.

Once someone recognizes that the outcome of whatever they're taking part in will be largely the same regardless of how much effort they put into it by themselves, and that they will receive a reward for the group's effort alone, there exists no further motivator within the design of the game for that person to put in any work towards that outcome past whatever they must do to let the system know that they are there.  Scenarios like 30v50 in WvW or which server wins in a given week or the enormous groups of people tackling a world boss dilute individual responsibility so much and provide little (if any) means to gauge one's own performance that it can even destroy any incentive by anyone introduced to these situations to do anything but contribute as little as is necessary.


#2342693 GW2: Master of Salami Slicing

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 14 November 2014 - 07:30 PM

View PostSatenia, on 14 November 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

Was the thread simply stating "this change is more consumer-unfriendly", I would certainly agree and had nothing further to add or even debate. To conclude, I'm simply stating my disapproval over blowing things out of proportion.

Ah, so you mockingly blew his post out of proportion because you disagree with blowing things out of proportion?
My bad. Please carry on with the discussion.


#2342555 GW2: Master of Salami Slicing

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 13 November 2014 - 07:20 PM

View PostSatenia, on 13 November 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

My comment wasn't in defence of the gem purchasing change. Personally I think it's fairly obvious that this didn't happen cause multiples of 10 are so nice to look at.

My comment was entirely aimed at the absurdity of this thread. Here are a few pointers:

1. If you bring maths into the deal, at least try to make the numbers work out in your favour. Arguing about a potentially lost $0.1125 per month in a MMO environment doesn't qualify.

2. You realize that no gems are lost till the day you quit for good? If you're a long-term player, converting "leftover" gems after a purchase is possibly the worst thing you could do. Coming to think of it, how come none opened a thread crying about how Anet let him do that prior to the change? :D

3. Are you familiar with the concept of gift cards? Do you rage at the giver suspecting him of having shares with the store in question and all he wants to do is trick you into losing money?

4. You are potentially being overcharged for all kind of things throughout your daily life. For some reason however, you choose to complain about it when it involves a computer game where you spend 10$ a month and waste a potential 0.1125$ (numbers based on OP).

:rolleyes:

So, since the amount that is being taken away from the user is small and since consumers encounter other consumer unfriendly practices throughout their daily life, this type of consumer unfriendly ideas aren't worth pointing out?
I am sorry, I don't see anything here that would negate what the OP is saying: on the contrary, you seem to agree with what he is saying and all you are saying is that you are not bothered if A.Net introduces certain solutions that negatively impact consumers.


Honestly, I am not bothered if you accept consumer unfriendly practices. But I am extremely bothered if you tell people that they should simply accept these consumer unfriendly practices because they do not bother you, which is what your "Next thread, please." statement implied.


#2342690 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted davadude on 14 November 2014 - 07:18 PM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 14 November 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

It's hilarious that the same people are still making the same arguments despite the fact that no one still kills Tequatl but a few select guilds/servers, and that now one but GW2C and TTS kill Wurm on any regular level. And since EG's leadership implosion no individual 500-man guild has killed it since.

I hate taking this out, but have to add this in for correctness' sake.  Tequatl is being killed daily, I just organized a run five minutes before the start of it, and we succeeded with 7 minutes to go.  The LFG tool explodes during world events, organized Silverwastes hours, and during LS events.  Wurm is more difficult to organize, but doing it 20 minutes ahead of time through the LFG makes it simple.  Just tag up yourself, wait for two others, and your shard will fill up quick.

My point being, these events are done by randoms in huge numbers each day.  That statement is simply wrong.


#2342681 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Shayne Hawke on 14 November 2014 - 05:20 PM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 14 November 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

Please cite one PvP team that has veered away from the meta and won a tourney.

Late Edit - And RE: WvW, there are plenty of zerg-busting guilds that wipe out other servers 30v50 all the ♥♥♥♥ing time. This is a game that gives safety in numbers, but if someone knows that they're doing they can win 1v2s all the time. This game rewards players who think and who build correctly.

This game has its issues, but let's not be absurd about it. Competitiveness is what drives PvP, not rewards.

Please explain to me how PvP tourneys and 1v2s in WvW are representative of how the whole of GW2 caters to the individual.  Please explain to me which individual in the 30v50 is responsible for the fundamental outcome of one side wiping in that engagement, how removing them from either side or adding one player to either side will change the outcome, and how that player is rewarded or punished for that responsibility compared to others in the group.


#2342660 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Shayne Hawke on 14 November 2014 - 04:11 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 14 November 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

It really goes to the design of the game. GW1 is a team game from the ground up and GW2 is a solo game from the ground up.

Which sounds silly when you consider how many things exist in the game that urge you to partner up and play with others - dungeons, fractals, world bosses, group events, zone farms (like Pavilion), anything bigger than a supply camp in WvW, sPvP, and at least one activity each holiday.  Thanks to the homogenization of the professions so that any profession can fit any role (with exception to a few unique traits/skills) and the reward structures being set up to reward teams rather than individuals for the most part, there is very little feedback for a player to understand whether they, or any other individual, are being effective or ineffective in a team setting.  In many cases, there is little to no demand of the player to actually understand how they are interacting with the game and to find better ways to interact, because as long as their team stands on the appropriate side of the binary question of if they won or not, how much they contributed to that goal is neither recognized nor rewarded/punished.

A game that is designed to have a great single player experience is not going to get that by asking the player to put themselves into situations where they, as an individual, don't matter.


#2342522 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Feathermoore on 13 November 2014 - 02:28 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 13 November 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:


I think that GW1 had great PvP (the GvG), to me it resembled a mix between what Americans call "football" and a MOBA (hmm, that's not a very good description). Of course, not everyone have 7 friends. But it still worked and GW1 had thousands of guilds playing GvG. GW1, even the PvE part, was built entirely around it, and IMO it was a very big mistake to not build GW2 around a similar game mode.

On the note of "everyone not having 7 friends;" I was never able to pin 100% the reason why, but making friends was easier in GW1 than in GW2. The "never party or talk needed" design of GW2 definitely contributes to this, and is likely the largest reason, but it doesn't really explain why it actually requires work to meet new people in GW2. I played GvG in GW1 for years in multiple different guilds. Groups would collapse and I would move on. Sometimes I would get pulled along with a teammate who had a network that had a guild looking for players. Sometimes I ended up being invited into guilds while I was PUGing in HoH. Twice I even met my GvG group in PvE areas. Heck, my first guild only had 4 people that actually played GvG and we filled in with henchmen.

GW2 just isn't a social game at the core. Just like how LoL or Starcraft aren't social games. The design doesn't require/push players together. This actually can increase any feeling that the game is losing players. Since you don't really interact with others, it already feels less alive than an MMO that actually encourages socializing.


#2342504 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted raspberry jam on 13 November 2014 - 11:13 AM

View PostMillimidget, on 08 November 2014 - 01:41 AM, said:

You can, but Anet didn't think big enough, at all. And by big I don't mean scripted events involving dozens of players, or covering the bulk of a zone map. Thinking big in this case means having multiple versions of a single scripted event, cycling through the different versions based on the previous outcome of the event. To achieve even more immersion, remove the quest tracking elements associated with any such scripted event.
Well, you can, but there is no realistic way to make scripts large enough for players not to spot the scripting during the lifetime of an MMO - or actually, way before that. I mean, we're talking about the genre where devs release updates that are planned to last for 6 months, and then players complete the content in one week, it's completely explored and on three different wikis in two weeks, and everyone is tired of it in three weeks.
I sometimes (cough) complain about GW2, but I have to admit that making an MMO is no easy task. MMO players devour content at an amazing rate.

What I meant was that instead of scripting, ANet should have aimed at a more emergent style of world. It's been known for a long time that many simple scripts interacting with each other can create huge complexity and appear lifelike. Yet because of a single event that occurred a long time ago (the UO fiasco, search for "virtual ecosystem") no MMO dev team dare do it. But of course it would work given that the devs stay away from pointless things such as making random critters actually count in the ecosystem. Imagine actual evil armies or dragon bosses or what not travelling across Tyria, and us fighting them, instead of having a script that says "respawn X bad guys at this location every 20 minutes".

View Postdraxynnic, on 08 November 2014 - 11:56 PM, said:

Credit where credit's due - the LS update is a huge step up from a story and gameplay perspective. It has its problems, of course, but we're finally seeing stuff of GW1-esque quality again. Possibly more importantly (as one good update could simply be a fluke), there are clear signs in the update that the LS team have taken feedback on board and responded to it. If GW2 recovers, then I suspect this will prove to be the beard-growing moment. It's perhaps a little sad that hitting the stride we were expecting from the beginning is worthy of celebration, but I think the LS team do deserve a pat on the back.
I have to say that I completely disagree. After all, the lore was not what made GW1. The gameplay was. I could easily take GW2 lore with unimaginative "races" (species) and even the gem store if the game also gave me team-oriented, role-oriented gameplay which forced you to stop and think about what you needed to bring and what you needed to do with what you brought, instead of the DPS-spam-dodge-roll-no-need-to-think gameplay that is GW2.



View PostMillimidget, on 13 November 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

If I recall, you were a big fan of GW1. I never played it, so I can't speak for it's PvP. Off-topic, though I'm sure you've been back for quite awhile (I stopped playing GW2 or visiting this forum not long after you initially seemed to take a hiatus), it's good to see you posting here again.

I have to say that the idea that ANet only paid lip service to wanting GW2 to be an esport has some merit to it.

MOBAs are not good inspiration for MMO PvP.
(...)
I think that GW1 had great PvP (the GvG), to me it resembled a mix between what Americans call "football" and a MOBA (hmm, that's not a very good description). Of course, not everyone have 7 friends. But it still worked and GW1 had thousands of guilds playing GvG. GW1, even the PvE part, was built entirely around it, and IMO it was a very big mistake to not build GW2 around a similar game mode.


#2342492 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Millimidget on 13 November 2014 - 06:45 AM

View PostEl Duderino, on 11 November 2014 - 10:51 PM, said:

They apparently spent a lot of time looking at, and studying, LoL for help with their eSports efforts. Furthermore, it's not like their previous game wasn't known for some great PvP. Between GvG (which still isn't available, right?) and Heroes Ascent, there was so much fun to GW1's PvP that it is mind-numbingly baffling GW2 didn't ship with good PvP or have it available soon afterwards.
If I recall, you were a big fan of GW1. I never played it, so I can't speak for it's PvP. Off-topic, though I'm sure you've been back for quite awhile (I stopped playing GW2 or visiting this forum not long after you initially seemed to take a hiatus), it's good to see you posting here again.

I have to say that the idea that ANet only paid lip service to wanting GW2 to be an esport has some merit to it.

MOBAs are not good inspiration for MMO PvP. It seems like every new MMO I've played over the last few years has made the same mistake of assuming that slapping on some half-baked arena system (ie a MOBA) would be sufficient to maintain the interests of the PvP population. The one exception is SWTOR, but it has Mythic pedigree, and its PvP seems heavily influenced by its predecessor, WAR, which was also carried heavily by its PvP.

I can understand that, at least in GW2, they may have felt WvWvW would suffice. That's already 100x more than most developers are attempting these days. However, they fail to appreciate that the vast majority of gamers approach a game individually. That's not to say they aren't interested in engaging in group content, or joining a guild, even despite the disturbing trend I've witnessed across multiple games in which players keep their head down and are only interested in themselves.

It's merely an acknowledgment that not every MMO gamer has a half-dozen friends, IRL or otherwise, who can join them at any given moment. Indeed, even if you have access to that kind of social group, it's still overwhelmingly likely that you spend at least some if not much of your in-game time as an individual, effectively. Which is why more than any other recent mechanic/feature in MMO development, group finders have been clamored for the most.

They would have done themselves a tremendous favor, and made greater inroads towards making GW2 an esport, if they had developed a more robust sPvP system, patterned off of WoW or WAR or SWTOR or really any non-arena boxed PvP. Then again, this is a good place to quote myself from above.

View PostMillimidget, on 08 November 2014 - 01:41 AM, said:

Esports qualification is like 90% based on the size of the expected interest base, and maybe 10% based on gameplay. Blizzard could release The Sims: World of Warcraft Edition, and it would be an esport.

Ironically, the one MOBA which could actually serve as good inspiration for MMO PvP is HotS, because its primarily oriented around PvP combat, rather than the PvE farmfest which underpins all or almost all other MOBAs.