Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Cube

Member Since 20 Dec 2010
Offline Last Active Nov 21 2014 10:28 PM

#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.


#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.


#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.


#2343023 Living Story.......One step closer.....to Exit

Posted Alex Dimitri on 19 November 2014 - 02:07 PM

Ok, i`m one of those uber persistant  guys who goes beyound 100% when he puts his mind into something.As long time GW player and fan i was in 7th heaven when i heard about GW2 being made, i followed development religiously, bought game in pre-order and started imagination/ego trippin here on Guru back in 2010 !

I played GW2 past 2+ years and i was in denial, i simply didn`t want to believe that company that made one of my favorite games ever (GW1) cannot make sequel at least "worthy".
Yeah game looks beautiful.....and that`s about it, it goes skin deep empty shell style.
When i first saw map of Tyria i said "awesome such a huge place to explore" but to my suprise 2+ years into game`s life and we still can`t go into any of those areas, we have like 2-3 lvl 80 maps and endleslly boring dungeons, that simply don`t pose any kind of challenge even to noobiest of new players (don`t even wanna mention seasoned MMO veterans).
PvP part of the game is also weak, WvW was good idea but people mentality on one side hideous low performance (lag) and no real improvements made it stale, predictable and farmable crap that makes little to no sense !
Competitive part sPvP has only single mode ?!? And that is set in stone, they never did spoke about different modes or anything to improve upon, so i guess that isn`t realy high on priority list !

And in the meantime Anet`s stuborn focus on LS continues.......first season, story, called it whatever you want sucked (Scarlet was awful antagonist/bad guy), i hated much more Thraehern then i ever put attention to Scarlet`s doing.....that says a lot about story imersion.
Second season is just same `ol same `ol....go there talk to this dude, ah he`s a bad guy, go there talk to this, see a vision.....bla,bla,bla.....zero !
And every single time new episode pop`s up it`s shorter and shorter !
Last night i played and finished entire new part in 20 min !!! So twenty minutes for expansion that you get for a MMO game, really ?

I`m sorry i tried really, really tried but this is going nowhere and i cannot force myself to look how people with limited imagination destroy a game that promised so much.With sadness in my heart i say goodbye to Tyria and nice people i met along the way this past few years.

Maybe somewhere along the road things change......who knows, until then goodbye from Alex !


#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.


#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.


#2342588 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted El Duderino on 14 November 2014 - 04:33 AM

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

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.

Thanks for the welcome back. It will be a bit less often and, hopefully, less confrontational.

As far as the rest of your post, I am generally an introverted kind of person, especially in games where I generally don't know anyone IRL. It took work for me to find players and guilds in GW1 when I started out. I had to get outside my comfort zone, but it was very rewarding. My guilds were always very small, PvP oriented, and very close knit. Thought there might have been some shakeups, I generally gamed with 3 groups of core people over my GW1 career.

I don't know if having to do cooperative missions in GW1 helped, but I feel that I never really felt like any of the GW2 guilds were for me. They seemed to be, by necessity of the game development, large guilds... something that is unattractive to me as I prefer smaller more intimate groups and chatting.

I do agree that I think it is disturbing that MMO's are becoming much more lenient towards players that want to have a single player experience in an MMO. Not to say that it shouldn't be present in all MMO's, but it shouldn't be something that is automatic either. Heroes were something that was a poor addition to GW1, in my opinion. Although, I can understand why they did it and how it benefited the game for a long time. But, creating content that is designed to be solo-able in GW2 has created an even larger chasm of problems, including the trouble we have with combat, balancing and overall team mechanics in the game - which is why I feel PvP will never work in GW2. The game is designed from the ground up, mostly as a solo-able game. That doesn't leave a lot of room for interesting team mechanics in regards to PvP.

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.

This is, of course, my single greater problem with the game and what made GW1 very interesting and different from it's competitors. It was a PvP game from the ground up and PvE was built on top of that idea - which actually made PvE VERY interesting because of how well even AI could mimic interesting team combinations and challenges.

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 mention this above, but at the very beginning of GW1, right through the PvP end game of Halls or GvG, you are being pushed together in teams. Not just that, but teamwork is required. In GW2, you can have a team get together and pretty mindlessly make their way through most of the game without needing to talk. In GW1, especially before YouTube, Wikis and Expansions created the way for more cookie-cutter builds, the game was so team-centric you either dealt with it or couldn't really play that far into the campaign or anything else.

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.

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

I kid, but I'm sure we've all noticed the same trend, and you're spot on in your analysis. The issue is definitely multi-faceted. To elaborate on what I was saying above in my earlier post, the act of sitting at the computer and logging into and playing an MMO usually involves you sitting alone in a room. It's a hurdle developers should be aiming to overcome when designing MMOs, but they've fallen into the trap of believing that they'll generate more revenue by taking a two-step approach of designing much of the game for solo questing, while slapping on some group-only content here and there; perhaps that's just a logical outcome of the casual v. hardcore debate.

Think of some of the great titles in MMO history, and how many of them absolutely required group game play, often for some relatively mundane stuff. Add in the growth of 3rd party voice chat, social media, and the proliferation of solo-friendly mechanics (ie companions/minions), and top if off with developers who just don't seem cognizant that you need to literally force people to interact, and it's no surprise that gaming has grown to be such a lonely experience.

I honestly think that had I found a good guild in GW2, I would have had a better experience. I never hated the game from the beginning, but it grew boring and monotonous very quickly. Now that I'm old and don't keep up with online games too much, is there anything out there that promoted team play that you can recommend? I would be interested in checking it out.


#2342609 GW2: Master of Salami Slicing

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 14 November 2014 - 08:34 AM

View PostEphraimGlass, on 13 November 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

I don't think that's quite what he's saying. Here's my interpretation.
Player buys 10 gems every month but only spends 9 of them. Is that 1 remaining gem wasted? Of course not. Eventually, you'll accumulate the 9 gems that make up your typical monthly spending and you can either choose not to buy that month or buy anyway and spend twice your normal expenditure. It's only if you quit the game with gems remaining that there's any actual "waste" going on.

I'm not saying that this new mechanism is more friendly. Just that it's not quite as unfriendly as it's being portrayed.

Except that there is nothing here that makes this system better than the previous one. You could do the EXACT same thing under the previous one, but you still had the option of dumping all your gems.
And let's not forget that this was implemented in the same patch as removing the price history graph and the (now reverted) limit on how you can buy/sell gems.
The whole patch was just one giant anti-consumer mess. And even after the stink consumers made, the result is still a net loss for consumers.


#2342477 Where did Blizzard go wrong with D3 and what A.Net could learn from it.

Posted Shayne Hawke on 13 November 2014 - 01:37 AM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 12 November 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

Honestly, I think a lot of the game's issues stem from the fact that A.Net is selling gold in the cash shop. (Which is very analogous to D3's AH.) Basically anything that requires gold to obtain (outside of legendaries) has been almost completely devalued and it feels quite meaningless as a reward. And since gold is the game's main currency of progression ...

Player skill as a measure of distributing/earning rewards is an area left mostly untapped by ANet in GW2, being done only in the cases of titles for being at high rungs of the PvP ladder during a season long ago.  Rewards for the WvW seasons hardly fall into this category since only minimal participation was necessary to get rewarded from that.  Everything else is a matter of throwing money at it to buy it or spin slots or logging in enough times over periods of days/weeks/months.


#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.


#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.


#2342219 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted draxynnic on 07 November 2014 - 11:03 AM

View PostEl Duderino, on 05 November 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

Many others, including myself, feel that (coming from business backgrounds) specializing in a few select things can often lead to higher retention rates and more profitability.
You don't need to have a business background to recognise that in a saturated market where one or two players have already established market dominance, it's often better to target consumers that are dissatisfied with the existing offerings rather than aiming for the same player base as the dominant player. I've been saying it for years.


#2342528 GW2: Master of Salami Slicing

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 13 November 2014 - 02:41 PM

View PostSatenia, on 13 November 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

Now all the kids who might actually care about this will have to ask their parents for a monthly increase of their pocket money by $0.1125 to deal with this great injustice. Clearly, another financial crisis is at our doorstep...

Next thread, thanks.

The first system had a certain level of consumer friendliness.
The new system is definitely less consumer friendly.  Heck, it was changed with the SOLE purpose to be less consumer friendly.
Clearly, consumers should support or at least not mind the change. Right?

What's so amazing about this system: a system that grants less options to a consumer than the previous one, that consumers feel the need to oppose its critique? What are the benefits of players not being allowed to sell their excess gems?