Curse

Zinger314 · Aug 05, 2009, 12:36 AM // 00:36

$10 the update is delayed into September.

Again.

Arkantos · Aug 05, 2009, 12:37 AM // 00:37

Don't hold your breath for the big quarterly update to be this month. Regina stated that when they say quarterly, they don't mean every 3 months. They mean that if they have one of the big quarterly updates in January (Q1), the next one may not be until June (Q2).

SerenitySilverstar · Aug 05, 2009, 12:42 AM // 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jecht Scye

There is still plenty of the month left guys. The update isn't late until it's September 1st.

Incorrect. Regina explained their rationale was to attempt a major update each quarter. The quarters of a year are Jan-Mar, Apr-June, July-Sept, Oct-Dec. The update could happen at any time during those quarters. An update that happened at the start of a quarter (eg: The April one) has no bearing on when the next update happens in the next quarter (whether it's beginning, middle, end or any week in between).

I'd like you to also notice emphasis on the word attempt. I'd imagine that, yet again, in the cyclical nature of community discussions, it's been lost sight of that a) the Live Team is a 3 person team b) Anet is a company and can do whatever the hell they please, whenever the hell they please c) It is a company with financial and time restraints.

snaek · Aug 05, 2009, 12:42 AM // 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkantos

Don't hold your breath for the big quarterly update to be this month. Regina stated that when they say quarterly, they don't mean every 3 months. They mean that if they have one of the big quarterly updates in January (Q1), the next one may not be until June (Q2).

they said every 3-4 months...
april - may (1) - june (2) - july (3) - august (4)

so technically, we could have gotten the big update in july if anet was on top of their game. obviously they are not.

Ariena Najea · Aug 05, 2009, 12:50 AM // 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

So things like the utterly wretched state of every PvP meta (except maybe HA), SF making PvE just as degenerate as a PvP meta, overpowered PvE-only skills, Rit spirits and Imbagons don't bother you?

I don't recall saying these things don't bother me. In the past, hasty responses for skill changes have typically resulted in further problems, which means less productive work gets done in the end. The trick is to do it right the first time, which clearly takes more time than a month to hammer out. Remember that much of the balancing is done now on the employees' spare time, on top of the ridiculous hours they are being asked to work.

For PvE, I don't really care about skill balance so long as the following criteria are met:

New players have a realistic learning curve
Gimmick builds are not required in order to complete a task
Balanced teams should out-perform gimmick teams

Clearly, the last item is not currently being met. Speed Clears are the name of the game right now, and this in particular bothers me greatly. Do note that the Dev Team is reviewing Farming and Speed Clearing and will likely be making changes in the upcoming updates. Source: Official Wiki.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

THIS IS THE DEVELOPER'S FAULT. No one is saying that Linsey or the community reps should be held responsible. But any story that "they don't have enough resources" misses the point. The developer chooses the level of resources with which they maintain the game. NCSoft has very little debt and plenty of revenue. They turn a tidy profit every quarter. They could afford to pay for a sizable, competent team to maintain Guild Wars without breaking the bank.

Guild Wars is the only property that ArenaNet has. You would think that keeping the existing player base coming back occasionally would be a priority, because it's not as though they have a ton of cross-promotion opportunities. If they want to sell the sequel to existing players, demonstrating that they will quit taking care of the sequel once the revenue stream starts to dry up is not the way to do it.

Don't confuse the Developer with the Development Team. As little sense as that makes at first glance, it is a very important distinction. Allow me to clarify my statement; the Development Team during this period is small, does not have enough access to required Developers currently working on GW2, and has a lot on their plate. I agree that the team should be expanded somewhat so that full support can continue, at least until the release of GW2, however, my point is that at this time the team does not have the capacity to implement large-scale changes on a monthly basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giga_Gaia

Hey Ariena, where did you get information on the Live Krewe? I seem to have recalled hearing that somewhere. Do you have a source I can take a look at?

Also, I don't think there will be a quarterly update this month. Perhaps a skill update on the level of June, but most likely no quarterly update. Which is fine as long as SOMETHING happens this month...

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:...-_19_June_2009

There's some more info here and there, but nothing really concrete yet. They're currently working on the legal issues before they can start accepting applications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

skill balances are all i really care about anyways. since the new format change, we have missed 2 skill balance changes. this is not good. the quarterly updates should be additional on top of the standard skill monthly balances imo, not take priority over it.

Hence the purpose of rushing the Live Krewe program so that the Live Team can work on changes and rely more on Community input, and spend more time making use of their degrees. Until the Krewe gets moving though, we should expect minimal support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

Don't hold your breath for the big quarterly update to be this month. Regina stated that when they say quarterly, they don't mean every 3 months. They mean that if they have one of the big quarterly updates in January (Q1), the next one may not be until June (Q2).

Thank you. Unrelated, your new avatar is terrific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

they said every 3-4 months...
april - may (1) - june (2) - july (3) - august (4)

so technically, we could have gotten the big update in july if anet was on top of their game. obviously they are not.

No. Provide a source.

Arkantos · Aug 05, 2009, 12:51 AM // 00:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

they said every 3-4 months...
april - may (1) - june (2) - july (3) - august (4)

so technically, we could have gotten the big update in july if anet was on top of their game. obviously they are not.

No, they didn't. They said every quarter.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...&postcount=301

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

I think there is a misunderstanding about what "quarterly" actually means.

If you break the year up into four parts (quarters) this is what you have:

First Quarter of the year: January - March
Second Quarter of the year: April - June
Third Quarter of the year: July - September
Fourth Quarter of the year: October - December

Content updates every 3 - 4 months is not necessarily the same thing as quarterly.

The April content update actually arrived within the Second Quarter of the year. If we said we would do "quarterly" content updates, then we just missed the First Quarter.

We can get an update in January and not another until June, or we can get an update in September and one in October, with the next one being in March.

And no, it doesn't mean they aren't on top of their game. It means they want time to work on the updates so we don't get half assed updates full of bugs (even though we still do).

snaek · Aug 05, 2009, 12:59 AM // 00:59

here i'll do it for you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev update - 15 january 2009

Content updates will be done separately from the monthly maintenance and occur every three to four months. By spacing out our content releases, we gain the time to tackle larger and more difficult projects that, previously, would've been impossible. Some features that once seemed unattainable are now being explored as upcoming projects. We are even expanding the Live Team to offer more of the best quality support and content that we can for Guild Wars. With this new system, we release our new content in fewer yet more substantial updates. We want players to feel connected to what we are developing even though it may be months away from release, so during development we will be more open about our process and what we are working on.

^the original dev update

Quote:

Originally Posted by regina buenaobra

I think there is a misunderstanding about what "quarterly" actually means.

If you break the year up into four parts (quarters) this is what you have:

First Quarter of the year: January - March
Second Quarter of the year: April - June
Third Quarter of the year: July - September
Fourth Quarter of the year: October - December

Content updates every 3 - 4 months is not necessarily the same thing as quarterly.

The April content update actually arrived within the Second Quarter of the year. If we said we would do "quarterly" content updates, then we just missed the First Quarter.

^regina disapproving of people using the word "quarterly" on a thread on guru a while back

Arkantos · Aug 05, 2009, 01:00 AM // 01:00

snaek, you just proved yourself wrong. You said that ANet claimed there would be an update every 4 months, while the quote you took from Regina clearly states that content updates every 3 - 4 months is not necessarily the same thing as quarterly. As you can see, the first quote was from January, the second one was more recent. Things change, such as this.

Also, try actually reading the whole sentence in the second quote that you bolded.

Vazze · Aug 05, 2009, 01:01 AM // 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginger Hunter

Wasnt there something mentioned about sealed deck pvp in HB aswell?

..that would seriously damage the image of sealed deck play. Actually, I risk it would ruin the format for good.

fenix · Aug 05, 2009, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

here i'll do it for you:

^the original dev update

^regina disapproving of people using the word "quarterly" on a thread on guru a while back

Eep, misquoting a dev when it clearly says that they DON'T mean 3-4 months.

I'd work on finding a ladder, you're digging a pretty deep hole at the moment.

snaek · Aug 05, 2009, 01:14 AM // 01:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by regina buenaobra

If we said we would do "quarterly" content updates, then we just missed the First Quarter.

try reading again

oh, and heres another one for you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by regina buenabora

We actually didn't say that the content updates would be quarterly. The community just assumed that they would be...

fenix · Aug 05, 2009, 01:24 AM // 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

try reading again

oh, and heres another one for you:

What are you getting at? Are you just posting for the hell of it? If they aren't quarterly, then they're FURTHER APART than quarterly.

snaek · Aug 05, 2009, 01:29 AM // 01:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

then they're FURTHER APART than quarterly.

exactly...
"quarterly" means 4 updates a year...
"updates every 3-4 months" means 3-4 updates a year (we will no doubt only get 3 updates max this year)

however, at this speculated rate, it is possible to only get 2 updates this year. (i.e. if they push back the content update to september, they'll have a hell of a time meeting the december deadline, else just have a small-sized update)

my point is that they are not, i repeat, not quarterly updates--at least according to regina (her writing is never very clear, as if she never wants to confirm or deny anything in fear of being wrong). i'm only stating this because i called them "quarterly updates" in one thread, and regina replied directly to me sounding like she was upset at them being called "quarterly updates".

one last note: i am perfectly fine with only receiving 2 or 3 content updates a year, as long as we receive quality monthly skill balance updates on time.

Targren · Aug 05, 2009, 05:00 AM // 05:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ariena Najea

For PvE, I don't really care about skill balance so long as the following criteria are met:

New players have a realistic learning curve
Gimmick builds are not required in order to complete a task
Balanced teams should out-perform gimmick teams

You do realize that it's impossible to meet your criteria, right? Specifically the last one. By definition, gimmick teams do a small subset of things better than a balanced team, that's why they become a gimmick.

Ariena Najea · Aug 05, 2009, 05:14 AM // 05:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

You do realize that it's impossible to meet your criteria, right? Specifically the last one. By definition, gimmick teams do a small subset of things better than a balanced team, that's why they become a gimmick.

Since what I posted was apocalyptically vague, let me clarify.

I am of the opinion that a balanced (idyllically, not PvX nonsense) group of all human players should be able to be more effective than the alternatives. The best example I can give is for Permaform Underworld Speed Clears. A team of eight skilled players in a balanced team (geared to the area of course) should be able to complete the area more quickly than some nonsense team with seven permas and a Vale helper.

Players should use knowledge of the area to their advantage and work their builds around the expected obstacles, but there is a clear difference to me at least between Build Wars in PvE and overpowered gimmicky nonsense*.

*Disclaimer - not everything on this page is ridiculous.

Karate Jesus · Aug 05, 2009, 05:18 AM // 05:18

It wont be this month. And tbh, they were late on the first one....so why wouldn't they be late on this one?

(btw, Regina even said the first one was late)

Avarre · Aug 05, 2009, 05:37 AM // 05:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

You do realize that it's impossible to meet your criteria, right? Specifically the last one. By definition, gimmick teams do a small subset of things better than a balanced team, that's why they become a gimmick.

Not entirely impossible. Gimmicks roll through PvE because you can always specialize a build to knock out an area. Increasing spawn randomization, in terms of positioning/group composition would limit the effectiveness of exploiting aspects of the zone. There would always be weighted builds that can do better in certain areas, but there's no reason to punish good build design.

And yes, I am making a distinction between clever build design and gimmick builds.

Obviously it would take a heavy amount of game redesign, but so long as we're talking theoretically...

Martin Alvito · Aug 05, 2009, 05:44 AM // 05:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ariena Najea

I don't recall saying these things don't bother me. In the past, hasty responses for skill changes have typically resulted in further problems, which means less productive work gets done in the end. The trick is to do it right the first time, which clearly takes more time than a month to hammer out.

Simple decision matrix:

If you do nothing, we all have to tolerate this garbage meta for another month.
If you do something, there exists some probability greater than zero that the new meta will not suck.

Easy choice, right? I'm all for incremental change, but I completely disagree with the present policy of waiting six months to do anything substantive. If the skill is obviously broken, keep hammering at it incrementally until it isn't. Do what you did with Lingering Curse, but don't incrementally nerf and then HAMMER. Nerf the healing reduction and nerf the energy to 10, then nerf energy to 15 the next month, then hit the recharge if you still have to the next month. These are easy things to do that don't require thought, care and playtesting. All that's required is coding implementation.

The odd bug that lasts for a day is a small price to pay for playable metas. Hell, sometimes the bugs are even fun. EX: Decapitate is REALLY good when it only takes 1/2 second to activate. You can really hurt someone after a Bull's with that...

As far as PvE goes: make SF non-maintainable or make it impossible to kill anything with SF up, remove the PvE-only skills, remove EotN consumables. Fixed.

But realistically, hit SF. It's been overdue for a year. Really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ariena Najea

I agree that the team should be expanded somewhat so that full support can continue, at least until the release of GW2, however, my point is that at this time the team does not have the capacity to implement large-scale changes on a monthly basis.

While this is true and it is not the team's fault, ANet's management team clearly caused this problem. I'm not saying that they should build a time machine so that we can get an update this month. I'm saying that they should man up, write an open letter on the website, apologize, and fix the situation. As it stands, GW2 is competing with a lot of attractive titles on the horizon for players' entertainment dollars. Alienating what is left of the fan base by leaving their only product for dead isn't helping them win that competition.

Cacheelma · Aug 05, 2009, 06:47 AM // 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

$10 the update is delayed into September.

Again.

Zomgthisgamehasnomonthly-feewhatdoyouexpect?

...

It gets old, don't it?

I think we might get some kind of panic update once Blizzard reveals its big secret of the year later this month at Blizzcon.

If Anet is any good at this thing, that is.

Jecht Scye · Aug 05, 2009, 09:29 AM // 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by SerenitySilverstar

Incorrect...<content>

Thank you for the correction.