Time to get rid of Score system — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Time to get rid of Score system

Limodriver.4106Limodriver.4106 Member ✭✭✭

Back to daoc style no score system ppl just play for fun and fight for relics and pride.

Comments

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    No tiers, completely random matchups...

    Would love it. 'Tanking' wouldn't need to be a thing, and for servers that are convinced they NEED to be in first in T-1 wouldn't have to worry about that.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Keep the relics, I fight for the women!

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    How's that working for DAOC?

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    When even EA hands off your IP to a fan site....

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • ToPNoP.2493ToPNoP.2493 Member ✭✭✭

    just make kills a bigger part of the score pie chart. That way servers would be better matched.

    Yes I like comms, but sadly I'm allergic to them.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    So we'd turn WvW into EotM?

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:
    How's that working for DAOC?

    It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 19, 2018

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:
    How's that working for DAOC?

    It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

    That's great that it worked at one point in time.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:
    How's that working for DAOC?

    It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

    That's great that it worked at one point in time.

    Don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but it could work now as well. There are a lot of things this game is doing that other MMOs aren't doing and against all conventional logic those things work, at least for a percentage of people (which is all anything really works for). I can't think of many MMOs that don't raise the level cap or introduce new tiers of gear with each expansion but that's what this game does. Just because no one else is doing something doesn't mean it won't work. Guild Wars 2 is proof of that.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 19, 2018

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:
    How's that working for DAOC?

    It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

    That's great that it worked at one point in time.

    Don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but it could work now as well. There are a lot of things this game is doing that other MMOs aren't doing and against all conventional logic those things work, at least for a percentage of people (which is all anything really works for). I can't think of many MMOs that don't raise the level cap or introduce new tiers of gear with each expansion but that's what this game does. Just because no one else is doing something doesn't mean it won't work. Guild Wars 2 is proof of that.

    That's true but there's no reason to think getting rid of the scoring would change anything for the better. If you want to play just for "fun and pride" you can already do that. The scoring system isn't preventing anyone from doing that so why talk about getting rid of the score? Makes no sense.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:
    How's that working for DAOC?

    It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

    That's great that it worked at one point in time.

    Don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but it could work now as well. There are a lot of things this game is doing that other MMOs aren't doing and against all conventional logic those things work, at least for a percentage of people (which is all anything really works for). I can't think of many MMOs that don't raise the level cap or introduce new tiers of gear with each expansion but that's what this game does. Just because no one else is doing something doesn't mean it won't work. Guild Wars 2 is proof of that.

    That's true but there's no reason to think getting rid of the scoring would change anything for the better. If you want to play just for "fun and pride" you can already do that. The scoring system isn't preventing anyone from doing that so why talk about getting rid of the score? Makes no sense.

    The problem is, to some people the scoring system is preventing them from having fun. For the record, I'm not in favor of getting rid of it. I have no horse in this race. But there are a lot of people who are focused on numbers so long as numbers are present. I don't think the scoring system will be an issue if the changes to WvW make the sides more even though. I think this problem may well work itself out over time.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The problem is, to some people the scoring system is preventing them from having fun. There are a lot of people who are focused on numbers so long as numbers are present.

    Then they can just ignore the numbers.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The problem is, to some people the scoring system is preventing them from having fun. There are a lot of people who are focused on numbers so long as numbers are present.

    Then they can just ignore the numbers.

    If only human nature worked that way. Unfortunately it doesn't. If you put a top tier of gear in a game, people will want it whether they need it or not, even if they hate the method of getting it. If you're not doing fractals, raids or WvW, you don't need ascended armor. That doesn't stop people from feeling like they need ascended armor, even though they don't. They can't ignore those numbers, because the numbers are there. Maybe you can. A fair percentage of people can't. I run into this all the time. Casual players who insist they need BIS gear, even though they never intend to do any content that requires it.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The problem is, to some people the scoring system is preventing them from having fun. There are a lot of people who are focused on numbers so long as numbers are present.

    Then they can just ignore the numbers.

    If only human nature worked that way. Unfortunately it doesn't. If you put a top tier of gear in a game, people will want it whether they need it or not, even if they hate the method of getting it. If you're not doing fractals, raids or WvW, you don't need ascended armor. That doesn't stop people from feeling like they need ascended armor, even though they don't. They can't ignore those numbers, because the numbers are there. Maybe you can. A fair percentage of people can't. I run into this all the time. Casual players who insist they need BIS gear, even though they never intend to do any content that requires it.

    Well then the issue isn't with the game but with the players themselves and their apparent lack of self control. If there are players who genuinely struggle to ignore the score then that's something they need to work on in themselves not something the game can or should attempt to fix. I don't see why the devs should remove features in an effort to cater to the mental fragility of this hypothetical obsessive compulsive subsection of their playerbase.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The problem is, to some people the scoring system is preventing them from having fun. There are a lot of people who are focused on numbers so long as numbers are present.

    Then they can just ignore the numbers.

    If only human nature worked that way. Unfortunately it doesn't. If you put a top tier of gear in a game, people will want it whether they need it or not, even if they hate the method of getting it. If you're not doing fractals, raids or WvW, you don't need ascended armor. That doesn't stop people from feeling like they need ascended armor, even though they don't. They can't ignore those numbers, because the numbers are there. Maybe you can. A fair percentage of people can't. I run into this all the time. Casual players who insist they need BIS gear, even though they never intend to do any content that requires it.

    Well then the issue isn't with the game but with the players themselves and their apparent lack of self control. If there are players who genuinely struggle to ignore the score then that's something they need to work on in themselves not something the game can or should attempt to fix. I don't see why the devs should remove features in an effort to cater to the mental fragility of this hypothetical obsessive compulsive subsection of their playerbase.

    Business doesn't work like that nor should it. If there is something that bothers a large percentage of people, whether it's their own limitations or not, you can't as a business ignore it. Not if you want to stay in business.

    It's like saying people who insist on soloing a multiplayer game are making a decision. But there are enough people soloing multiplayer games that no developer can afford to ignore them, nor do they. It's the same with this. Sure everyone should be able to do what needs to be done to enjoy the game. But if they can't, that's not their problem....it's Anet's problem.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The problem is, to some people the scoring system is preventing them from having fun. There are a lot of people who are focused on numbers so long as numbers are present.

    Then they can just ignore the numbers.

    If only human nature worked that way. Unfortunately it doesn't. If you put a top tier of gear in a game, people will want it whether they need it or not, even if they hate the method of getting it. If you're not doing fractals, raids or WvW, you don't need ascended armor. That doesn't stop people from feeling like they need ascended armor, even though they don't. They can't ignore those numbers, because the numbers are there. Maybe you can. A fair percentage of people can't. I run into this all the time. Casual players who insist they need BIS gear, even though they never intend to do any content that requires it.

    Well then the issue isn't with the game but with the players themselves and their apparent lack of self control. If there are players who genuinely struggle to ignore the score then that's something they need to work on in themselves not something the game can or should attempt to fix. I don't see why the devs should remove features in an effort to cater to the mental fragility of this hypothetical obsessive compulsive subsection of their playerbase.

    Business doesn't work like that nor should it. If there is something that bothers a large percentage of people, whether it's their own limitations or not, you can't as a business ignore it. Not if you want to stay in business.

    It's like saying people who insist on soloing a multiplayer game are making a decision. But there are enough people soloing multiplayer games that no developer can afford to ignore them, nor do they. It's the same with this. Sure everyone should be able to do what needs to be done to enjoy the game. But if they can't, that's not their problem....it's Anet's problem.

    I suppose from a purely pragmatic perspective that makes sense in principle assuming one is willing to accept the logical implications of such a principle.

    But even thinking along those lines I don't take it as a given that a large enough percentage of players are turned off by the presence of a scoring system to warrant its deletion in order to do better business. I think they're most likely a loud minority with mental health issues.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    no scores.

    servers go up or down based on activity. would be fun

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Vova.2640Vova.2640 Member ✭✭✭

    I would say the opposite is the better way to go.
    I would suggest adding more metrics to measure stuff like guild's performances in wvw. Promote more competition.
    Wvw is a competitive mode. If you want to "have fun and chill" the whole time then go to PVE (or EotM I guess).

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    no scores.

    servers go up or down based on activity. would be fun

    Random matchups week to week. No one has to worry about tanking.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The problem is, to some people the scoring system is preventing them from having fun. There are a lot of people who are focused on numbers so long as numbers are present.

    Then they can just ignore the numbers.

    If only human nature worked that way. Unfortunately it doesn't. If you put a top tier of gear in a game, people will want it whether they need it or not, even if they hate the method of getting it. If you're not doing fractals, raids or WvW, you don't need ascended armor. That doesn't stop people from feeling like they need ascended armor, even though they don't. They can't ignore those numbers, because the numbers are there. Maybe you can. A fair percentage of people can't. I run into this all the time. Casual players who insist they need BIS gear, even though they never intend to do any content that requires it.

    Well then the issue isn't with the game but with the players themselves and their apparent lack of self control. If there are players who genuinely struggle to ignore the score then that's something they need to work on in themselves not something the game can or should attempt to fix. I don't see why the devs should remove features in an effort to cater to the mental fragility of this hypothetical obsessive compulsive subsection of their playerbase.

    Business doesn't work like that nor should it. If there is something that bothers a large percentage of people, whether it's their own limitations or not, you can't as a business ignore it. Not if you want to stay in business.

    It's like saying people who insist on soloing a multiplayer game are making a decision. But there are enough people soloing multiplayer games that no developer can afford to ignore them, nor do they. It's the same with this. Sure everyone should be able to do what needs to be done to enjoy the game. But if they can't, that's not their problem....it's Anet's problem.

    I suppose from a purely pragmatic perspective that makes sense in principle assuming one is willing to accept the logical implications of such a principle.

    But even thinking along those lines I don't take it as a given that a large enough percentage of players are turned off by the presence of a scoring system to warrant its deletion in order to do better business. I think they're most likely a loud minority with mental health issues.

    Never really a way to tell with this stuff, because a lot of people don't really know what they want, even if they say it. That goes in both directions. We had a very vocal anti mount campaign going on these forums yet mounts are one of the best received features this game has ever had. There's simply no way to tell how this would affect the game. As I said, I'm not for it, but I did speak out because I felt DAOC was a good enough game to defend (in its day).

  • I'm on a tier 2 server, Fort Aspenwood, and we go out of our way to stay in tier 2. Guilds are actually coordinating to stay in tier 2 because we don't want to get into tier 1 because we know full well we will get obliterated. There needs to be more incentive for climbing.

  • Sarrs.4831Sarrs.4831 Member ✭✭✭

    Does score even do anything? Score for the current skirmish decides your pips which is nice.

    Maybe do something when they do the big server rejiggering.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Be careful what you wish for. Making winning 'matter' created the mess in T-1.

    Don't say it can't happen. Tweak rewards, but don't tie it to 'winning'

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    winning should matter. wvw isnt that fun by itself alone.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Jumpin Lumpix.6108Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm fine with removing scoring as long as they don't break up servers.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    try this 1 day before reset is all that matters.

    everything becomes paper and then the team who captures the most in proportion to kills wins.

    this way everyone can set their day of last push and try to win.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Sylosi.6503Sylosi.6503 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 25, 2018

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:
    How's that working for DAOC?

    It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

    That's great that it worked at one point in time.

    It worked longer and better than WvW did...

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sylosi.6503 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:
    How's that working for DAOC?

    It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

    That's great that it worked at one point in time.

    It worked longer and better than WvW did...

    At a time when there was much less competition. And there are still people to this day that play and enjoy WvW. It's not over yet. Not saying it's not without it's problems, but you know, times have changed. We don't know if it would have been as successful in today's environment. Nothing about this situation is that cut and dried.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    i actually would prefer that WvW would work more similiar to WOE (war of emperium from ragnarok online)

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    or like ran or perfrct world

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    winning should matter. wvw isnt that fun by itself alone.

    Which created the mess that is T1 in EU and NA.

    People don't think the new system will allow it. I hope (though doubt) they are right.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 25, 2018

    @Sylosi.6503 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:
    How's that working for DAOC?

    It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

    That's great that it worked at one point in time.

    It worked longer and better than WvW did...

    Did it though?

    DAoC apparently came out in 2001, three years before WoW and it apparently tanked very very hard once WoW hit in 2004 and has limped on in terms of actual numbers of players ever since. So while people are still playing DAoC it was really only a thing worth mentioning for about 3 years in an environment where it didn't have any serious competition. GW2, despite having maybe the most incompetent development team I've ever seen in any game I've ever played, has still managed to carve a substantial niche for itself despite having to constantly compete with many other triple A MMOs including WoW and its multiple expansions through the entirety of its existence.

    WvW is still quite active though certainly not as active as it once was despite having almost no substantive changes made to it since launch. Almost everything they've added has simply been fluff to dress things up but it's essentially the same game mode it was at launch and people are still playing it.

    I really don't think the issue is scoring and I really don't think DAoC should be a working model for any game considering how poorly it's done in the aftermath of WoW.

  • starlinvf.1358starlinvf.1358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sarrs.4831 said:
    Does score even do anything? Score for the current skirmish decides your pips which is nice.

    Maybe do something when they do the big server rejiggering.

    The servers are currently organized in a type of tournament tree, with the scoring system driving a GLICKO ranking. The tree is divided up into Tiers, with a more or less fixed number of Match ups in each tier. The higher your tier, the more narrow your match ups end up being, until you reach T1 which has only 3 servers at any given time. However this game's WVW population simply isn't big enough to support a branching tournament ladder. So, in conjunction with server linking, this has been reduced to a 4 tier ladder with 1 match up in each rank.

    The scoring system comes into play with GLICKO to determine a server's "Skill level", and tries to match up servers (or server groups) in as close to an average GLICKO as possible. However..... there is a big problem with population balance directly influencing how match outcomes and scoring occur; and this directly affects how good GLICKO can work for matching servers. Theres also a major distinction between tiers and effective strategy, and has developed into a system where the original top 4 Tiers had server regulars based on preferred playstyles. Before linking, I spent most of my WVW career on T3 servers, which enjoy fighting (and zerg clashes), but are not well organized. T2 Servers were notable for a heavy split between Roamers and Cheesy Objective defense tactics. T1 servers were known for being highly organized, but the limited number of match up options usually resulted in 3rd place being a series of sacrificial offerings that the top 2 servers would toy with, then crush back to T2 if they were not entertaining enough. Now T1 and T2 are mostly political in nature. And T3 and T4 manipulate the rankings to stay there, because those match ups are favorable toward less organized zerg fights, and is less prone to Guild politics.

    Now one of the big problems with the current system is GLICKO's difficulty to find match ups based on too few options, and the absurdly high uncertainty in each server's ranking score. Part of that IS due to the behavioral trends of guilds moving servers on a regular basis, combined with a tendency for PUG players to abandon a match up if its not going well in the first 2 days. If the match up is going really badly, entire guilds may give up for the rest of the week. If its really bad for long periods, they may even throw the match to move to a different tier, or move to different server to join a more stable match up. If you've ever heard Commanders in your server complain about PPT, this is why.

    This is where the proposed change to get rid of the Server flags comes in. Ironically, the extra abstraction layer of the Servers screw up the Rating system more then it helps, due to the level of uncertainty in player behavior. Especially in the low ranks, where players would rather quit then suffer repeated losses. This flaw is also how Guilds have been manipulating their server rank to keep certain match up between cycles. By eliminating the server grouping, the GLICKO rating now applies to Guilds and Players on a more granular level, giving the system more options to construct match ups, and better data on the groups to determine those match ups. The best part about this is, in theory, alliances being variable in size, eliminating a lot of uncertainty created in the existing system by PUGs participating based solely on week to week server performance.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @starlinvf.1358 said:

    @Sarrs.4831 said:

    snip GLICKO snip

    Matchups are determined based on 1 up 1 down. Glicko hasn't been involved in over a year. You win, you move up. You come in third, you move down. In second, you stay in the same tier.

    It's why people can effectively tank.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Ubi.4136Ubi.4136 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The new alliance system could easily allow the removal of the scoring system. Since they could just keep using the same metrics used to set up the new system, to reorganize at the end of the 8 weeks. At that point, there is no longer a need to rank server performance. Players log in, fight, take what they can or want, and log out. No more PPT, no more scoring.

    Lost in the Maguuma (TC)
    For the geographically challenged, yes, Tarnished Coast is located IN the Maguuma Jungle.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ubi.4136 said:
    The new alliance system could easily allow the removal of the scoring system. Since they could just keep using the same metrics used to set up the new system, to reorganize at the end of the 8 weeks. At that point, there is no longer a need to rank server performance. Players log in, fight, take what they can or want, and log out. No more PPT, no more scoring.

    With purely random matchups, works for me.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 25, 2018

    @Ubi.4136 said:
    The new alliance system could easily allow the removal of the scoring system. Since they could just keep using the same metrics used to set up the new system, to reorganize at the end of the 8 weeks. At that point, there is no longer a need to rank server performance. Players log in, fight, take what they can or want, and log out. No more PPT, no more scoring.

    Take away the scoring system and it essentially could lead to one big karma farm like EotM was. Those who enjoyed the competitive play from WvW would likely just leave the game at that point.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Sylosi.6503 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:
    How's that working for DAOC?

    It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

    That's great that it worked at one point in time.

    It worked longer and better than WvW did...

    Did it though?

    DAoC apparently came out in 2001, three years before WoW and it apparently tanked very very hard once WoW hit in 2004 and has limped on in terms of actual numbers of players ever since. So while people are still playing DAoC it was really only a thing worth mentioning for about 3 years in an environment where it didn't have any serious competition. GW2, despite having maybe the most incompetent development team I've ever seen in any game I've ever played, has still managed to carve a substantial niche for itself despite having to constantly compete with many other triple A MMOs including WoW and its multiple expansions through the entirety of its existence.

    WvW is still quite active though certainly not as active as it once was despite having almost no substantive changes made to it since launch. Almost everything they've added has simply been fluff to dress things up but it's essentially the same game mode it was at launch and people are still playing it.

    I really don't think the issue is scoring and I really don't think DAoC should be a working model for any game considering how poorly it's done in the aftermath of WoW.

    This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

    On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

    The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

    On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

    The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

    Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

    We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

    The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

    This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

    On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

    The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

    Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

    We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

    The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

    This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

    Their incompetence is your opinion. They have made mistakes but so has every single MMO publisher out there. The rest of what you said, I disagree with.

    If you have a game that's a bit older and a new game comes out, very often people will go to that new game and that's expected. I've worked in the publishing industry and it's the same thing. A game does most of it's success most of the time in the first 3 months that it's out. Guild Wars 2 was no exception to that. And it's still a successful MMO.

    You don't judge a game by how many people are lost over time, because that happens to just about all games, including WOW. You judge the success of the game by long term viability, and whether it met expectations of the business plan and the stockholders. Their expectations are always going to go down from launch, unless they're being unrealistic. The entertainment industry anticipates a slide in sales, which is why I laugh when people say this game used to make so much and now it makes less...but that's pretty much true of all games.

    At the end of the day, the way success is measure is in longevity and profit. DAOC had both.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2018

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

    On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

    The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

    Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

    We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

    The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

    This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

    Their incompetence is your opinion. They have made mistakes but so has every single MMO publisher out there. The rest of what you said, I disagree with.

    If you have a game that's a bit older and a new game comes out, very often people will go to that new game and that's expected. I've worked in the publishing industry and it's the same thing. A game does most of it's success most of the time in the first 3 months that it's out. Guild Wars 2 was no exception to that. And it's still a successful MMO.

    You don't judge a game by how many people are lost over time, because that happens to just about all games, including WOW. You judge the success of the game by long term viability, and whether it met expectations of the business plan and the stockholders. Their expectations are always going to go down from launch, unless they're being unrealistic. The entertainment industry anticipates a slide in sales, which is why I laugh when people say this game used to make so much and now it makes less...but that's pretty much true of all games.

    At the end of the day, the way success is measure is in longevity and profit. DAOC had both.

    Is that honestly how you evaluate a video game?

    I suspect you're just trying to win an online argument I can't imagine anyone playing a game and actually saying to themselves "well it's ugly and the gameplay is atrocious and it doesn't have any modern features but it's been around a while and it turned a profit for its investors so it's a good game I really like it."

  • Torolan.5816Torolan.5816 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2018

    @Limodriver.4106 said:
    Back to daoc style no score system ppl just play for fun and fight for relics and pride.

    If you played DAOC you will probably remember that there were much more statistics to gorge yourself at, including guild statistics and alliances with places and other statitics like the top paladins of a given server for example.

    I still agree that a server ranking is something what I find rather uninteresting as it is of absolutly no consequence if you are a silver general on Server 1 or on server 15, you stay a silver general and if you quit tomorrow, nobody will ever notice it if you are not in the top 1000 APs of your given server.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Torolan.5816 said:

    if you quit tomorrow, nobody will ever notice it if you are not in the top 1000 APs of your given server.

    If you're actually an important player/commander on your server people will absolutely care if you quit or transfer. If you're some scrub nobody who just pugs around and one pushes half your fights then yeah nobody cares but why would they?

  • Torolan.5816Torolan.5816 Member ✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Torolan.5816 said:

    if you quit tomorrow, nobody will ever notice it if you are not in the top 1000 APs of your given server.

    If you're actually an important player/commander on your server people will absolutely care if you quit or transfer. If you're some scrub nobody who just pugs around and one pushes half your fights then yeah nobody cares but why would they?

    True, but it stays mouth propaganda which is very fleeting. I can only talk for myself, but I can´t remember the name of any guild group or capable commander that entered or left my own server, I mainly remember the controversial ones. If i would have written it down, I would remember better and more.
    And an experienced player who doesn´t act as commander doesn´t have to be a nobody, he could have been a high profile roamer, a second in command or versatile zerg supporter. If he is not a loudmouth or a flammer and most of the time only listens on VC, you will loose a valuable player without actually noticing it at the current setup.

    When you have a board of who is who, you may one day look at it and say:
    "Hey, Player X was/is a mithril knight! The guy never spoke much on TS, and I only though of him as so so, but look how well he performed."

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Structures need to be more meaningfull, same for towers... being "fake strategic" places where zerg spams 10 trebs while they ktrain other side.

    IMO we need more deathmatch map design with structures that give decent importance to what guilds needs, rahter than one that search to create content trough cap ktrain trait and cap it back redundancy.

    WvW needs to become a enrolling and strong game mode.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

    On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

    The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

    Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

    We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

    The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

    This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

    Their incompetence is your opinion. They have made mistakes but so has every single MMO publisher out there. The rest of what you said, I disagree with.

    If you have a game that's a bit older and a new game comes out, very often people will go to that new game and that's expected. I've worked in the publishing industry and it's the same thing. A game does most of it's success most of the time in the first 3 months that it's out. Guild Wars 2 was no exception to that. And it's still a successful MMO.

    You don't judge a game by how many people are lost over time, because that happens to just about all games, including WOW. You judge the success of the game by long term viability, and whether it met expectations of the business plan and the stockholders. Their expectations are always going to go down from launch, unless they're being unrealistic. The entertainment industry anticipates a slide in sales, which is why I laugh when people say this game used to make so much and now it makes less...but that's pretty much true of all games.

    At the end of the day, the way success is measure is in longevity and profit. DAOC had both.

    Is that honestly how you evaluate a video game?

    I suspect you're just trying to win an online argument I can't imagine anyone playing a game and actually saying to themselves "well it's ugly and the gameplay is atrocious and it doesn't have any modern features but it's been around a while and it turned a profit for its investors so it's a good game I really like it."

    Wow, you really aren't getting what I'm saying at all.

    No, it's not how I judge a video game. It's how I judge the success of a business. The problem you have is you think your opinion is universally shared by everyone. But everyone plays games for different reasons.

    So I do think this is a good game. I don't PvP, so I don't care as much about balance per se, but all the parts of the game I'm interested work just fine. I have little to no problems with WvW, except for latency from Australia, which you can hardly blame the company for.

    If the game were as bad as you say it wouldn't be successful. You not liking something doesn't make it bad. It could simply mean the stuff you care about isn't the focus of the company.

    I'm sure WoW is a good game. I don't like it. I'm sure they make mistakes, but some things people see as mistakes are just then not getting what's going on.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.