Playable Skritt

Is this too much to ask?

technically it would work (like most races, skritt are fully modelled and have most player animations) but making the existing armour sets and some weapons work on the generic skritt seleton/frame would be a lot of work -- this goes mostly for any of the existing non-playable races, maybe less so for kodans (assuming kodan male == female for playermodels&armour if they became playable)

EDIT: then there's voice acting... and a starter city... some race specific gear, etc etc. it's possible but a lot of work really

No.(Body is 7 characters too short)

It's unlikely to happen.If a new race were ever introduced, it probably would not be Skritt, but a different, more-requested, race, such as Tengu.

Yes please.

A transformation tonic is een enough for me tbh... holding exordium with skritt sounds cool... or deadeye with DE rifle

I wish, but if it was done, it would probably be a combat tonic due to lacking all past existing armors. Sign me up still.

That would right up there with playable tengu and quagans... Nope, a bit nope..

Hm skritt are stupid alone and only intelligent in groups. Only skill 1 & 6 are available solo. 1-3 & 6-8 in a 5 skritt group, all only in a 10 Skritt Group :)

@Dayra.7405 said:Hm skritt are stupid alone and only intelligent in groups. Only skill 1 & 6 are available solo. 1-3 & 6-8 in a 5 skritt group, all only in a 10 Skritt Group :)

So what you're saying is, they're already Skritt?

@Trise.2865 said:

@"Dayra.7405" said:Hm skritt are stupid alone and only intelligent in groups. Only skill 1 & 6 are available solo. 1-3 & 6-8 in a 5 skritt group, all only in a 10 Skritt Group :)

I am just wondering how it could be to play skritt :)

and:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Skritt_Tonichttps://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Endless_Skritt_Burglar_Tonic

to fight only:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_transformations_with_combat_skillsare available

Unless you RP, a new playable race doesn't really offer all that much.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Everyone acts like new races are impossible

It's not impossible in the sense that it's too technically advanced for the game.

It's impossible because of the sheer amount of work it would require to implement to the same standard as the existing playable races.

Such a massive task is not cost effective for ANet to work on. Just like it's not cost effective for them to work on armour skins because they take too much effort and resources to develop, despite these also being directly monetized.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:It's my favorite when people say "it would be too hard" as if games like GW2 are going to do well by being lazy and not tackling new dev that is wanted by a large % of players, or as if they don't spend months working on a single new small map with content that you play through in a couple of hours.

Actually, games like GW2 are only going to do well by being efficient with their resource allocation.

Putting in the ginormous amount of work to introduce a new playable race, which means making male and female models of every single piece of armour and outfit in the entire game as well as developing a level 10-30 Personal Story for the race at the very least.

This is without even talking about the "Extra" stuff that would make the race seem complete, such as a main city, several zones based off their location (Including various thematic Hearts), additional 40-80 story tie in to make the whole personal story actually make any sense at all (Bearing in mind a lot of the PS revolves around following the guidance of a member of Destiny's Edge)

All this... And exactly how many people would even care about a new race? Especially when the vast majority of people play Human characters.

THEN you have to consider which race to actually add. People have asked for Skritt, Quaggan, Kodan, Tengu, Largo, Ogre etc.

I'm gonna throw this out there. I would buy a new character slot just for this.

@Taril.8619 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Everyone acts like new races are impossible

@Einlanzer.1627 said:It's my favorite when people say "it would be too hard" as if games like GW2 are going to do well by being lazy and not tackling new dev that is wanted by a large % of players, or as if they don't spend months working on a single new small map with content that you play through in a couple of hours.

So, is the solution to just never add anything new to the game other than flashy skins and charge $20 for them? Winning strategy!

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Everyone acts like new races are impossible

@Einlanzer.1627 said:It's my favorite when people say "it would be too hard" as if games like GW2 are going to do well by being lazy and not tackling new dev that is wanted by a large % of players, or as if they don't spend months working on a single new small map with content that you play through in a couple of hours.

Tell me where I said that.

The solution is to add things that are efficient uses of resources.

Adding new features that lead to additional monetization (Such as Gliders and Mounts), adding content that is monetized (Living World/Expansions) or implementing things that promote an expansion (Such as E-Specs)

Adding new races can be a draw to purchasing a particular expansion. But the resource cost is extremely high and metrics show that the popularity of such a thing is low. Low enough that simply having Combat Tonics should satisfy the few people who don't prefer playing Human characters.

It is the same for many things that could be worked on. Such as buffing all the trash tier core weapons, reworking core specializations so they aren't full of garbage, adding literally anything to PvP/WvW, creating more Raids etc. These things are not worth the resource costs either because they require too much work or because their popularity/capacity to be monetized is low.

@Taril.8619 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Everyone acts like new races are impossible

@Einlanzer.1627 said:It's my favorite when people say "it would be too hard" as if games like GW2 are going to do well by being lazy and not tackling new dev that is wanted by a large % of players, or as if they don't spend months working on a single new small map with content that you play through in a couple of hours.

I really don't think people making this argument are thinking all the way through it. Suggesting they should only work on things that are an "efficient use of resources" is basically suggesting they never do anything outside the box or expand the game's various systems into new directions. Also, how exactly are you quantifying what is efficient and what is not? Do you think designing a new LW map with multiple metas efficient? Is it substantially easier to do than adding a new playable race? Let's try to break that down.

Regardless- are new maps and new skins and maybe an occasional new elite spec all you want out of this game long term? I disagree vehemently that that's the right way to handle a game like GW2. While there's no way for me to prove it, I'd stake a fortune that GW2 would hang on to players better if they put more resources into things that folks like you call "inefficient" - new animations, new weapons, new skills, new races, new systems like henchment, etc. The list goes on.

I rather tengu

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Everyone acts like new races are impossible

@Einlanzer.1627 said:It's my favorite when people say "it would be too hard" as if games like GW2 are going to do well by being lazy and not tackling new dev that is wanted by a large % of players, or as if they don't spend months working on a single new small map with content that you play through in a couple of hours.

I'm not suggesting they do anything.

Also, I literally mentioned things that expand on the games systems (Gliders and Mounts)

Finally, a new playable race is not "Outside the box". It's standard MMO practice (At least, for MMO's where the playerbase actually plays more than 1 race and there are monetized race change services)

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Also, how exactly are you quantifying what is efficient and what is not?

I'm not. ANet is.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Do you think designing a new LW map with multiple metas efficient?

Given that all it needs is some new assets (Even then, they've been reusing some by making us fight the Shatterer and Claw of Jormag again in LW metas) and anyone who isn't around for when it is the most recent content has to pay for it.

Yes, it is quite efficient.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Is it substantially easier to do than adding a new playable race?

Yes. Considerably so.

Even if you take just the bare minimum of work needed to add a single new playable race. Which is:

• Every single piece of armour, including duplicate items that have the same look but are for the 3 different armour types, having a model created from scratch for both genders of the new race.
• A suitable number of customization options for character creation (Possibly also some premium hairstyles)
• Unique personal story quests from levels 10-30, including multiple options on the multiple paths based on the starter selection.
• Constant need to create models for armour and outfits for the race for the rest of GW2's lifespan.

That is a massive amount of work. Even for the bare minimum of introducing a new playable race. Not even the full implementation that people would get angry about if they didn't get, such as:

• New City for the race
• 6 new Zones for the race, including a plethora of Hearts, Events, Metas etc. for each of them.
• Cultural Armour and Weapons for the race.
• Personal Story through levels 40-80 that makes sense for the race.
• Racial Skills
• New Dungeon that ties them into the personal story as well as allows for obtaining gear themed around their war with the local enemies (As with the other Dungeons that exist in the game)

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Regardless- are new maps and new skins and maybe an occasional new elite spec all you want out of this game long term?

No. Absolutely not.

I want them to:

• Improve existing systems.
• Enhance the crappy weapons.
• Overhaul the Specalization system to better fit the E-Spec system (I.e. So E-Specs don't continue to be massive powercreep over Core builds due to Core builds having a ton of garbage).
• Finish off adding skills from each of the classes core utility lines.
• Add more content types to the game beyond "Farm Meta" and the occasional "Strike/Fractal".
• Add more PvP modes.
• Overhaul WvW.
• Overhaul Crafting
• Retune Stats and Stat Combinations on gear (I.e. I'd personally like Condi builds to move away from stacking Power/Precision and instead use their own 3 unique stats Condi Damage/Expertise/New 3rd option)
• Rethink how Conditions function in PvE (Both damaging Condi's vs bosses phase changes that wipe all debuffs as well as the uselessness that is non-damaging Condi's and as a result 90% of Necromancer's kit)

@Einlanzer.1627 said:I disagree vehemently that that's the right way to handle a game like GW2. While there's no way for me to prove it, I'd stake a fortune that GW2 would hang on to players better if they put more resources into things that folks like you call "inefficient" - new animations, new weapons, new skills, new races, new systems like henchment, etc. The list goes on.

It's not entirely about "Hanging on to players" though. It's about making a profit.

They need to work on things that can be monetized, so that they can sell it and earn money to pay their staff that are working on these features.

Thus, in a sense, gaining new players is worth more than keeping existing ones, due to the fact that veteran players can have piles of gold to turn into gems to get items off the gem store for free as well as new players purchasing the game, the expansions and often buying the gems required to get the LW episodes as well as being enticed to purchase gems to get all the QoL features off the Gem Store.

Keeping players around is still important, as it keeps the game populated and people do stupid things like buy BLC keys. But it's not so important that it's worth spending resources updating existing features that can't be monetized. Not when people seem to be happy enough just doing the new metas that come out with each LW patch and whatever gimmick that comes with an Expansion (Mounts have proven to be hugely successful in that regard)

Especially when ANet aren't a particularly massive company and are relying entirely on the 2 Guild Wars games as their sole income. If they had other avenues of income such as other IP's then they could more easily afford to spend resources on some of these things as an investment that could pay off later down the line. But as it stands right now, they're entirely reliant on keeping the cash flow going.

aren't they called asura?

@"Taril.8619" said:snip

Focusing so much on things that can provide direct monetization is probably the main area Anet has gone wrong. Build templates are perhaps the best example of what a fiasco that can cause. That isn't how it works for a large number of reasons. The gem store needs to support the game, not the other way around. You focus on making a quality game with lots to offer everyone who buys it, and people will spend money it provided there are opportunities for them to do so - and there are plenty. Perhaps too many at this point. Ever heard of analysis paralysis, or too much choice?

Otherwise, what this whole post amounts to is "I want them to work on things I want them to work on and not on things I don't". I won't fault you for that because that's what literally everyone including myself does, but at least own up to it instead of hiding behind the "efficiency" argument. I'm also not sure what sort of poll you conducted to determine that players would be angry if they didn't fully build out a playable race to match the original 5 perfectly. I would suspect many people would be happy to have new races to play as whether or not they were forcefully retrofitted to be as complete as the existing 5 are.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Taril.8619 said:snip

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"Taril.8619" said:snip

Kharmin, you love to cite Anet's "metrics" to rationalize whatever status quo, and this is little more than an appeal to authority. For one, you don't know what metrics Anet uses or whether or not they are any good. Marketing people and CEOs alike are just people - they make mistakes constantly, they have weak baselines, ignore confounding variables, etc., and commonly undermine themselves without ever realizing it. Many people said to defend the lack of mounts before Anet eventually determined they were worth adding to the game.

Your comment on shareholders vs players doesn't make sense - in particular because trying excessively to please shareholders with shortsighted "visions" surrounding profit is precisely what sinks a lot of companies. In truth, their focus should be neither players nor shareholders - it should be the product they've invested in and creatively thinking through all the ways in which they can make better and more accessible.

I think 8 years ago if they had had a more solid vision for the game and the direction they were going and spent the first two years building toward that vision, it would have been much more successful. Instead they made all kinds of mistakes like propping up a ton of temporary content, overemphasizing the most poorly received part of the game (story), ignoring systems that were delivered but left unrefined, and pivoting directions repeatedly - something the game has never and likely will never full recover from.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Taril.8619 said:snip

Build Templates are a fiasco because they were monetized egregiously and are complete shit in their implementation (See: Revenants getting disconnect bugs after basically every patch)

@Einlanzer.1627 said:That isn't how it works for a large number of reasons. The gem store needs to support the game, not the other way around. You focus on making a quality game with lots to offer everyone who buys it, and people will spend money it provided there are opportunities for them to do so

That's not how games work these days. They're almost all focused on $$$$ above all else. Especially "Free to Play" games which tend to be really bad about monetization because of the existence of players that spend nothing on the game.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Otherwise, what this whole post amounts to is "I want them to work on things I want them to work on and not on things I don't". I won't fault you for that because that's what literally everyone including myself does, but at least own up to it instead of hiding behind the "efficiency" argument.

Except... I'd actually like additional playable races. I think it would be cool to have as well as provide more opportunity to expand the lore for races that aren't Human.

If my only gripe was having other things I'd prefer them to work on, I'd have stated as such.

However, my only stance upon entering this thread has been pointing out that it is highly unlikely for new races to be implemented due to the excessive resource cost. At no point have I made any inclination about personally not wanting new playable races.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:I'm also not sure what sort of poll you conducted to determine that players would be angry if they didn't fully build out a playable race to match the original 5 perfectly. I would suspect many people would be happy to have new races to play as whether or not they were forcefully retrofitted to be as complete as the existing 5 are.

My "Poll" was from experience of other games implementing new races that weren't up to the same standard as already existing races.

There are many reasons why people want new races, from just having different looking characters to play, to lore expansions for the race through racial quests and areas.

If you cut out certain aspects of what a race provides, it's inevitable that some people who specifically wanted that feature would be upset.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"Taril.8619" said:snip