Does the community know what they want?

[Avarre]

Originally Posted by Stockholm

What people enjoy is whats good for the game, after all most people bought the game for recreation and enjoyment, those who bought the game for any other reason is whats bad for the game. After all it is a GAME, not an occupation.

In a game as large and complex as an MMO, simply giving players what they want is usually not good for the game. This is because what one person wants isn't what everyone else might want, and changing one thing can have innumerable negative effects on other areas.

[upier]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's not about catering exclusively to one group or another. It's being able to cater to both. I'm saying that ANet should listen to the feedback of the "elite players" while still keeping the casual populous in mind.

This just hit me - but don't we actually HAVE this system?
In PvP the best players are catered - and in PvE the not-so-good ones are.
The problem appears when the good swimmers refuse to leave the kiddy pool.

[RotteN]

a community will always have over 9000 different oppinions. It's completely normal and impossible to leave everyone satisfied. Therefor it's indeed stupid to adjust your game design to please (part of) your fanbase cause you're just as likely to piss off even more people with that exact same change.

Just like direct democracy doesn't work, catering to an entire gaming community doesn't work either.

[Esan]

Originally Posted by upier

The problem appears when the good swimmers refuse to leave the kiddy pool.

Almost. The problem is when your choices are limited to the kiddy pool or the shark-infested spumes.

[Stockholm]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Show me when Guild Wars was doing so bad that Anet had to implement these changes and revert the "skill>time" ideology that made their game unique in the first place. Also, so me how the changes that many here have labeled "bad" (PvE skills, UB, PvE/P seperation) help the casual majority. If you can then I fully and entirely agree with you. But until then...

And most here are what I label "freeloaders", we have all (99% at least) finished the game. And PvE/P separation is labeld good by just as many here as bad, as I said it's evolution, live with it

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And that right there is the problem: You never know what most people prefer. The majority is labeled "silent" for a very good reason.

Too us the majority might be silent but to A-Net that can look at the statistics of the game the majority is never silent, never make assumptions because you can't hear the majority.

Originally Posted by Avarre

In a game as large and complex as an MMO, simply giving players what they want is usually not good for the game. This is because what one person wants isn't what everyone else might want, and changing one thing can have innumerable negative effects on other areas.

And perhaps that's the reason the PvP is almost dead. I mean the whole game had to evolve every 2 weeks for over 2 years because they gave players what they wanted regardless of the consequences to the game as a whole.



Back then the answer was all ways " change is good for the game" "game would get stale without change" "PvE noobs, it's our game, Pvp rules, get out or change".



Now it seams like they actually look at what the majority is using (skills) and like to use when playing, sure seams like the majority is happy.

And no one is handed anything for free (not counting festivals)

[upier]

Originally Posted by Esan

Almost. The problem is when your choices are limited to the kiddy pool or the shark-infested spumes.

Hey - you can always take the boat to WoW.

[Bowstring Badass]

Originally Posted by upier

Hey - you can always take the boat to WoW.

And he can play gear battles all day long... Anyway you can't balance a game around 1 person. You have to balance it around millions of people.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by upier

This just hit me - but don't we actually HAVE this system?
In PvP the best players are catered - and in PvE the not-so-good ones are.

There are smart players in PvE as well. Being able to cater to both the inexperienced and the knowledged is what adds more stars to your games, which is something ANet has done in the past (and have stated of doing in the next patch). But now it doesn't matter how good you are.

I hope you're not using the "go to PvP for a challenge" to excuse all of what's happened in PvE, though...

Originally Posted by Stockholm

And most here are what I label "freeloaders", we have all (99% at least) finished the game. And PvE/P separation is labeld good by just as many here as bad, as I said it's evolution, live with it

So it's "evolution" to cater to bad, impatient, and unlearning grinders? It's video game progress to eliminate the depth of a game just for a minority who don't want GW to be unique? I'll keep that in mind.

Interesting that you use the word "evolution", though. That would have to imply that the game had to "evolve" (make changes) in order to survive (be successful). As such it was already surviving very effectively, so why the need to (d)evolve?

Originally Posted by Stockholm

Too us the majority might be silent but to A-Net that can look at the statistics of the game the majority is never silent, never make assumptions because you can't hear the majority.

Numbers don't talk. They don't give opinions or feedback on the game, they either show "hey we're liking this" or "hey we're not liking this" - but they don't say why which is essential. Hence community feedback.

Originally Posted by Stockholm

And perhaps that's the reason the PvP is almost dead. I mean the whole game had to evolve every 2 weeks for over 2 years because they gave players what they wanted regardless of the consequences to the game as a whole.

I highly doubt the players asked for imbalanced mechanics and classes.

[Solange]

every person has an opinion on whats best for them and thats what most of the threads are for

people expressing what they want, what brings them most "joy" out of the guild wars but that usually tends to be really unnecessary and greed type things like more superficial stuff catered to giving them more and more

[Fril Estelin]

MMOs are somewhat a revolution as no one would ask such a question in a game. It's a as if the game becomes a bit more, something almost serious as a society, a group. It reminds us that we, humans, are social beings.

Is it good for game design? Yes and no, depending on how "social" (or e-social?) you are Of course, there are various levels, some players will consider the whole GW community as something they don't want to be part of, while they'll be very active in their guild or alliance (or fansite).

Globally, such generic questions will fail to find an answer, because there's no "community" in the sense that there are only fansites which fail to capture the concept (trolls, drama, +1's FTL). It'd be good to have an organised community, a huge task in a game as varied as GW...

[upier]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

There are smart players in PvE as well. Being able to cater to both the inexperienced and the knowledged is what adds more stars to your games, which is something ANet has done in the past (and have stated of doing in the next patch). But now it doesn't matter how good you are.

No, no, no.
I am not saying there aren't.
PvE has good and bad players.
PvP has good and bad players.

But in PvP - you don't go around and trash skills because they are seem godly in RA. You trash skills because they cause problems in places that are played by better players.
Where as in PvE - they cater the worst players. The better players will never be challenged to the extent that they can be in PvP - so there is little point in making the game more difficult for them - and much more (or impossible) for the worst ones.
The best players can always move to the real hard mode of GW - PvP.
Where as the shitty ones can't exactly move to anything that is easier then PvE.

[Stockholm]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

So it's "evolution" to cater to bad, impatient, and unlearning grinders? It's video game progress to eliminate the depth of a game just for a minority who don't want GW to be unique? I'll keep that in mind.

Interesting that you use the word "evolution", though. That would have to imply that the game had to "evolve" (make changes) in order to survive (be successful). As such it was already surviving very effectively, so why the need to (d)evolve?

If you mean that GW was keeping a few "Power Traders" happy, then yes GW was doing great, you seam to still think that the forum click is the majority of the player base and they are the once that needs to be kept happy. WRONG.

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Numbers don't talk. They don't give opinions or feedback on the game, they either show "hey we're liking this" or "hey we're not liking this" - but they don't say why which is essential. Hence community feedback.



I highly doubt the players asked for imbalanced mechanics and classes.

If you don't think that the "high end PvP" players asked for nerfs/buffs that would help them win you are delusional

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by bhavv

I want 7 heroes for fun with making builds. Henchmen bore me (no im never going to group with others anymore).

And HOM achievemts and grind titles to be made account wide so I can enjoy playing multiple classes. There is only so much fun that an elly can have after 3 years, and since I wouldnt gain anything for from playing an alt, there isnt much incentive for playing multiple characters.

I thought the incentive in a game was to have fun.

[Master Fuhon]

Game developers want all kinds of people to play their games, because it gives them a confidence boost knowing that they made a great and popular game, and they can make more money off it to do what they want to do in their free time.

This conflicts with why we play multiplayer games. We buy them to play with the people who play for the same reasons we do.

[dark_prince2023]

I know what I want!!! ME = GOD of PVE FTW.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by upier

Where as in PvE - they cater the worst players. The better players will never be challenged to the extent that they can be in PvP - so there is little point in making the game more difficult for them - and much more (or impossible) for the worst ones.

Then if it's so easy, why make it easier? Why make a Hard mode and then continue to make it as simple as the Normal mode when players can just stay in the Normal mode?

And if they only catered to the "worst" players in PvE, we wouldn't have seen a nerf to SF, and we definitely wouldn't be seeing an upcoming change to Ursan Blessing.

Originally Posted by Stockholm

...you seam to still think that the forum click is the majority of the player base and they are the once that needs to be kept happy.

Nope. I've been saying the knowledgeable players provide worthwhile feedback. ANet should take their opinions while keeping in mind the interest of the majority. They should not cater exclusively to one or the other. The only problem is that the casual majority is a bit more easier to please. It's not that I'm calling them "stupid", in fact far from it. I'm saying that they're intensely casual. They just log in for a few hours a day or week, just to mess around and have fun. Everything that's been discussed on these forums has never concerned itself with the casual majority. It's all been about the deeper level of the game, a place where the casuals don't care about.

What I'm saying is that it's utterly ignorant and frankly stupid to completely toss-aside valuable player feedback. It's not elitist, it's a fact: Players who know the game from so many separate angles and have a long time run of experience know a lot about the game. That's why so many were displeased with Gaile; as nice as she was, she never understood many of the concerns that were laidout by some of the most valuable players.

Originally Posted by Stockholm

If you don't think that the "high end PvP" players asked for nerfs/buffs that would help them win you are delusional

They asked for balance and variety, not a bunch of overpowered crap. They didn't want mechanics introduced that completely negated long-time tactics and strategies, or professions that couldn't exist in a balanced game. New skills would always keep things a bit fresh in addition to the constantly changing meta, but mechanics that completely negate positioning (shadow stepping, which they've finally fixed) and other effective gimmicks (dervish forms, Paragons, etc.) were definitely not on the list.

More than anything, though, is that they wanted understanding. They wanted Izzy to pay attention and address outstanding issues. They wanted ANet to show the same concern and care that they had held for PvP in the past. But things degraded, the game got more stale and broken. The people who offered so much insight into the game haven't left because it's "no longer the old days" but because of the nearly complete disregard from ANet for PvP.

[glacialphoenix]

Originally Posted by upier

The best players can always move to the real hard mode of GW - PvP.
Where as the shitty ones can't exactly move to anything that is easier then PvE.

The best players may not always want to PvP or may feel like they do not have ideal conditions for PvP, especially re the internet connection: I know people who have the occasional drop to 1k+ ping or more - this is OK if you're in PvE, but heaven forbid you're in anything remotely PvP, even AB.

Hall of Monuments made it vital that people get as many titles as possible, so of course more inexperienced/less skilled players are going to use the cheapest, easiest ways possible to get their titles, since that's the flashiest thing a PvE player can display (aside from armor and weapons, etc.). Of course, the fact that it's linked to GW2 makes it even more essential for everyone to rush off and grab as many titles as possible. If you're one of the more skilled players, you can probably create strong builds on your own to get through these titles. If you're not, you might very well end up over-relying on things like consumables and PvE skills, which means you're going to complain if and when they get nerfed.

Both sides are part of the community, and I'm quite sure both sides know what they want. Sometimes, at the end of the day, the voice that shouts the loudest is the one that gets heard. If the people you consider inept and shitty players complain more than the supposedly skilled players do, then they are more likely to be heard and catered to.

Just my rather long two cents, I guess.

[Stockholm]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Nope. I've been saying the knowledgeable players provide worthwhile feedback. Anet should take their opinions while keeping in mind the interest of the majority. They should not cater exclusively to one or the other. The only problem is that the casual majority is a bit more easier to please. It's not that I'm calling them "stupid", in fact far from it. I'm saying that they're intensely casual. They just log in for a few hours a day or week, just to mess around and have fun. Everything that's been discussed on these forums has never concerned itself with the casual majority. It's all been about the deeper level of the game, a place where the casuals don't care about.

That is who GW is aimed at, the casual players, hence the business model they came up with, no monthly fee's. You play when and if you feel like it.
It was never meant to be a permanent home for strays.

And then you have to go and start that shit about deeper levels only being for certain people, there is no such place even if some want it to be.
Get over your self if you think there should be places where only certain players should be able to go.

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

What I'm saying is that it's utterly ignorant and frankly stupid to completely toss-aside valuable player feedback. It's not elitist, it's a fact: Players who know the game from so many separate angles and have a long time run of experience know a lot about the game. That's why so many were displeased with Gaile; as nice as she was, she never understood many of the concerns that were laid out by some of the most valuable players.

BS. Some people where displeased with Gail because she couldn't care less for PvP and that rubbed the "power full" players the wrong way when they thought that PvP was all GW was about.

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

They asked for balance and variety, not a bunch of overpowered crap. They didn't want mechanics introduced that completely negated long-time tactics and strategies, or professions that couldn't exist in a balanced game. New skills would always keep things a bit fresh in addition to the constantly changing meta, but mechanics that completely negate positioning (shadow stepping, which they've finally fixed) and other effective gimmicks (dervish forms, Paragons, etc.) were definitely not on the list.

More than anything, though, is that they wanted understanding. They wanted Izzy to pay attention and address outstanding issues. They wanted Anet to show the same concern and care that they had held for PvP in the past. But things degraded, the game got more stale and broken. The people who offered so much insight into the game haven't left because it's "no longer the old days" but because of the nearly complete disregard from Anet for PvP.

They asked and they got for 2 years at the cost of the rest of the game.

A-Net gave them 2 1/2 years of undivided attention, what more can you expect for $150-200? They had all the power to make Pvp the part that A-Net wanted it to be, but their "elitism" spoiled that chance.

[RavagerOfDreams]

Originally Posted by Stockholm

BS. Some people where displeased with Gail because she couldn't care less for PvP and that rubbed the "power full" players the wrong way when they thought that PvP was all GW was about.

She is was in charge of community relations and so she should have taken care of ALL of the community not just the parts she liked best/cared about more. So no shit the PvP'ers dont like her she never did anything for PvP. If she had done everything for PvP and nothing for PvE you would be the one bitching right now.

Originally Posted by Stockholm

They asked and they got for 2 years at the cost of the rest of the game.

A-Net gave them 2 1/2 years of undivided attention, what more can you expect for $150-200? They had all the power to make Pvp the part that A-Net wanted it to be, but their "elitism" spoiled that chance.

When something is broken in PvE you want it fixed, same goes for PvP. Not only that but changes in PvP very rarely affect changes in PvE (today they don't at all). Everytime Anet nerfed something for PvP in PvE you always found a way around the nerf so it didn't matter anyways. TBH the only skill i can think of off the top of my head that has been nerfed beyond use as a result of PvP is EW.

Rest of the game didn't suffer at the hands of PvP you can say it all you want its not true.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Stockholm

That is who GW is aimed at, the casual players, hence the business model they came up with, no monthly fee's. You play when and if you feel like it.
It was never meant to be a permanent home for strays.

I wanted to emphasize on the bold, since nearly everything being debated about here on the forums - all the changes and likewise - have never been for the casual player. They're for an entirely different minority, as seen below.

Originally Posted by Stockholm

And then you have to go and start that shit about deeper levels only being for certain people, there is no such place even if some want it to be.
Get over your self if you think there should be places where only certain players should be able to go.

Sooo...who're harder difficulties aimed at? Never for people who just picked up the game. Why do you think a person who's just been playing for 2 minutes be able to experience the hardest content in the game?

This is why many are displeased: making the Hard mode difficulty as accessible as the Normal one. That doesn't make sense and in practice is just a pointless and bad move, since if a player is having a hard time in HM they're just supposed to stay in NM.

I don't mind it when a game is catered entirely for the "newbies". But none of these changes have even been for them. If they were, that would be the only satisfaction I could get from these additions. But instead, they're catered towards an entirely separate community of players, one that's no larger than the "elitists" you see here.

It especially makes no sense when GW was one it's way to reaching the four million copies mark. Why did ANet have to revert the "skill>time" principle when their game was a large success?

In regards to the rest, Ravager's pretty much stated what needed to be said.