Curse

Xenomortis · Jun 17, 2009, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Haha, April 1st ^^

Otherwise, March 5th.

Does May not count?
Or am I delusional?

Karate Jesus · Jun 17, 2009, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenomortis

Does May not count?
Or am I delusional?

I was asking besides the May 14th update because, well....the May update was all reactionary. Nothing really changed in it.

upier · Jun 17, 2009, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

I really can't believe people think that completing the UW in 20 minutes is fine.

It seems Toxy misunderstood me also.
I am not arguing that what is happening is balanced. Balance is pretty irrelevant for this.
What I am saying is that if we strive to achieve a certain goal - there will be certain casualties. And if the goal is balance in the PvE game - multiplayer is probably going to end up being the casualty.
The same way that multiplayer is being pushed at the expense of balance. People partied with Ursan. People party with the current super dooper builds. And people just won't party if you remove the super dooper overpowered build which would require players not only to not fail, but rather demand of them to succeed.

People shouldn't kid themselves that nerfing options that pretty much prevent failure will open more options. (Unless of course NEW options that prevent failure are added!)

Arkantos · Jun 17, 2009, 08:56 PM // 20:56

Quote:

And these players can now already play for fun.
I do.
The problem here is that people seem to expect that the farmers will switch to running normal teams after the nerf.
They won't. They'll move onto their next farming ground.
Which means if people are unable to get a team to do FoW shouldn't kid themselves that they'll magically be able to do so after the nerf.
The only people left will be the people who are bad at this game. Otherwise they'd move to the new next best thing.

And do you really want to play with those?

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

It seems Toxy misunderstood me also.
I am not arguing that what is happening is balanced. Balance is pretty irrelevant for this.
What I am saying is that if we strive to achieve a certain goal - there will be certain casualties. And if the goal is balance in the PvE game - multiplayer is probably going to end up being the casualty.
The same way that multiplayer is being pushed at the expense of balance. People partied with Ursan. People party with the current super dooper builds. And people just won't party if you remove the super dooper overpowered build which would require players not only to not fail, but rather demand of them to succeed.

People shouldn't kid themselves that nerfing options that pretty much prevent failure will open more options. (Unless of course NEW options that prevent failure are added!)

Kind of contradicting yourself, don't you think?

If the current overpowered builds get nerfed, the farmers will move onto the next big thing. So if they move onto the next big thing, multiplayer won't be the casualty. If anything, multiplayer took a huge hit when these skills became popular. There's no room for warriors, rangers, dervishes, paragons, and to a lesser extent, necromancers, elementalists and ritualists. That's a casualty.

Akaraxle · Jul 15, 2009, 10:08 AM // 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

You want to feel like you are listened to? Try posting in a way conducive to a discussion, instead of building every post around an accusation. Work on the attitude if you want to change the situation, rather than keeping the attitude because the situation isn't changing.

But... even so, how many times has it ever worked, JR?

JR · Jul 15, 2009, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Kerstein

Let me put one thing straight: Guru is not The Community. Guru is one aspect of the whole Guild Wars Community. Guild Wars Community exists in many different places, many of them not forums, and is a diverse entity.

Guru is certainly a good cross section of the community, PvE and PvP, American and European. It's also the most active Guild Wars forum as far as I am aware, and the most well administrated and maintained. I'm not arguing that it categorically speaks for the community, but it is a strong and largely accurate representation.

Out of curiosity, what are the other sources you draw from for community feedback? I can assume the obvious few, GWO, Guru, the Wiki, IM chats, Wartower... etc, but it seems there are many that have escaped my notice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Kerstein

Agreed, it is a two way street: We provide you with information as soon as we are able to do so, and you provide us with constructive criticism and suggestions. Last time I looked up constructive criticism, personal insults and one liners saying that something "sucks" without actually giving context or an explanation why something sucks was not part of the definition.

I'm sorry but you don't get to draw that line.

If the feedback you are getting is on the level of "omfg it sucks", choosing to ignore that on the basis of being rude is simply burying your head in the sand.

The dismissive and rude attitude that many have developed is a reaction to ArenaNets current and past approaches to community management. You have continually dealt with players like they are little more than a whining annoyance, and certain groups have had it repeatedly pointed out that they are "a minority".

We as a community can keep trying to encourage helpful attitudes and thoughftfull criticism, and we do, but it's like trying to stop the rain from falling without the some kind of support from you.

Do you seriously expect people to make the effort to be constructive if you aren't even going to give them the impression that their opinion matters and makes a difference?

If you have a problem with the attitude of the community then do something about it. It is your bed, you made it, and you have to lie in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Kerstein

And even if you think that we just say this because we are supposed to say it: We really do understand that you are frustrated. We do. We are gamers as well next to our job as Community Manager. But it is sometimes simply not possible to talk about things which are work in progress because there is potential that things change or slip.

And history has proven that a simple "we are thinking about it" will be turned into "you promised", and that players then feel "betrayed" when we made changes or came up with something different.

The "we can't talk about things that might change, because it might just lead to disappointment and anger" mantra is seriously worn out, not to mention incredibly dismissive and hollow sounding.

Sure, it's a great rule of thumb when you are in alpha, beta or early post-release, when content updates are very up-in-the-air and your community is new and unstable. It gets ridiculous when you are talking to a five year old community that has followed you through highs and lows.

I'm not saying you should talk about every clever idea that Izzy comes up with, but you are allowed to talk in 'hypotheticals' or 'maybes' to get stronger early feedback. These days every post you make is logged and easily accessible, so nobody can get away with exaggerating or enhancing your implication. I know you are thinking "if only it were that simple", but it is. A better relationship with the community, with more trust and openness would do great things for the quality and quantity of your feedback.

You can and absolutely should be talking more about future developments, ease peoples minds and set a better tone for the future. At the moment you are cagey and cold-shouldered towards the community like no other developer I've experienced.

TLDR: You have a truly fantastic (though currently quite jaded) community, and you are dropping the ball with it big time.

A community like this is not easy to develop. In the past a hell of a lot of hard work has been put in to setting the right tone, generating content, setting up fansites and resources, and creating a constructive atmosphere.

If you have a problem with attitudes right now that is because you as a developer have frittered away that fantastic benefit with your lackluster and ice cold approach to the community. If that is an approach you plan on continuing into Guild Wars 2 I think you are going to struggle.

Stop treating the community as a peripheral resource that you can choose whether or not to pay attention to. It is YOUR community, and you have a responsibility to it.

Avarre · Jul 15, 2009, 10:56 AM // 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Kerstein

Agreed, it is a two way street: We provide you with information as soon as we are able to do so, and you provide us with constructive criticism and suggestions. Last time I looked up constructive criticism, personal insults and one liners saying that something "sucks" without actually giving context or an explanation why something sucks was not part of the definition.

Funny thing, that. I seem to see a lot of very well-worded, and well explained criticism too. It tends to get summarily ignored, and after that, those who provide it are more inclined to write one-liners out of apathy.

Bug John · Jul 15, 2009, 11:17 AM // 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toxic OnyX

Who cares? if the farmers leave they leave, if they move onto something else then hopefully a-net may get their heads out of their backsides quicker and keep re-balancing the skills to stop game breaking builds from "speed clearing" areas. If they leave the game completely then what loss is it exactly?

If you're only interested in playing the game "normally", what are you complaining about ? Let farmers farm, GW is a fully instanced game, you'll never ever see them in game.

Oh, and, as you seem to be a clever one, maybe you could highlight just one of the good things that came out of the ursan nerf. Come on, just one, maybe you should start with the vast choice of successful pugs you can find in DoA.

Akaraxle · Jul 15, 2009, 11:33 AM // 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bug John

Oh, and, as you seem to be a clever one, maybe you could highlight just one of the good things that came out of the ursan nerf. Come on, just one, maybe you should start with the vast choice of successful pugs you can find in DoA.

Isn't that more of a problem with how DoA is designed? How was Ursan (or any other gimmick build) a healthy way of playing the game?

MithranArkanere · Jul 15, 2009, 11:47 AM // 11:47

The problem with DoA is that monsters use almost no tactics at all and their builds rely in sheer strength. They are just a bunch of hammers all they do is hit stronger.

Eye of the North armies are more fun to fight against without having to rely in pure strenght. They have multitple professions and their builds are better.
EotN Stone Summit are not easy to beat, but any team with enough skill and preparation can beat them.
Elite areas in GW should have monsters with multiple professions and good builds, not just more strength and dealing hits of 300 damage just with normal attacks using no skills.

Xenomortis · Jul 15, 2009, 12:19 PM // 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

EotN Stone Summit are not easy to beat, but any team with enough skill and preparation can beat them.

They have some pretty unfair stat-pumping, especially in HM and for the Slaver's mobs. Not to mention the Dreamers can cast Res Chant in a second (that's reduced by a factor of 6).