The Deadly Excuse That Stops sPvP From Evolving — Guild Wars 2 Forums

The Deadly Excuse That Stops sPvP From Evolving

Multicolorhipster.9751Multicolorhipster.9751 Member ✭✭✭
edited October 1, 2019 in PVP

"The Population is too low"

Raising awareness for developer and player alike. I see this excuse used all the time to shoot down feedback and ideas from the community, and judging by some of Arenanet's posts, I think it's had a really toxic impact on pretty much all parties, and PVP in general as a sort of median.

To write off every potential change or addition to PvP as "The population is too low" seems pretty hypocritical, and only makes the problem a self-perpetuating one.

Almost everyone seems to be able to agree that Gw2 PvP; Ranked especially, isn't in a great spot, or at the very least has some qualm with it. Everyone who does think that way, has their own reasons for doing so; whether it be balance, neglect, poor changes, or just a general lack of interest. No matter what you happen to dislike about the game, I can assure you that blaming it on a low player-count doesn't solve a thing. If you refuse to encourage innovation on the premise that the player-count is too low, you're just giving yourself more of the same content and material you've become frustrated and/or bored with in the first place, and the population is only doomed to drop further as a result, and the excuse only gets used more and more after that.

If you live by this excuse, then the same excuse should apply to all changes rather than cherry-picking when it's considered reasonable and unreasonable. I personally find it kind of weird that it hasn't been fully committed to, yet it has been used as justification for changes in the past. DuoQ for example. It was restricted for; quote, the reason:

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
Because we have so few legendary players, it’s very difficult to get legendary players into an appropriate match.

Yet; that specific feature was selectively reinstated without anything changing about it or the circumstance that saw it restricted in the first place. Upon asking to split the queues allowing players to play both separately; the same excuse that got DuoQ removed to begin with apparently doesn't work when suggesting changes to DuoQ.

The problem with splitting the queue is that our data doesn't show that 2 separate queues for ranked would work. To put things in perspective, 92% someone queues it's queuing solo. The team queue would have horrendous wait times. And when a match finally popped, difference in team skill would likely be rage inducing.

That also applies to new arenas and new potential ways to play ranked, or so i'd assume, since split queue methods are essentially two different ways to play Ranked. It's a very confusing rationalization to say the least. To put it in perspective: Population is too low for DuoQ, DuoQ Restricted, DuoQ Unrestricted, Population is too low for split queues. The excuse only seems to work when Arenanet or anyone else wants it to. When it fits their agenda, their preference, and it's a terrible excuse that perpetuates itself without solving anything in the process.

I still believe that sPvP; like any other institution, can only grow with innovation, and that's the overall point of this post. To encourage people to be more creative and innovative, and to discourage people to shoot down other people's ideas with this excuse in particular. If you find a fault with someone's idea, pointing it out is one thing, but saying "the population is too low" really doesn't seem very constructive. I hope the use of this excuse starts to fade in the future.

Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

Comments

  • Leonidrex.5649Leonidrex.5649 Member ✭✭✭

    @Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

    "The Population is too low"

    Raising awareness for developer and player alike. I see this excuse used all the time to shoot down feedback and ideas from the community, and judging by some of Arenanet's posts, I think it's had a really toxic impact on pretty much all parties, and PVP in general as a sort of median.

    To write off every potential change or addition to PvP as "The population is too low" seems pretty hypocritical, and only makes the problem a self-perpetuating one.

    Almost everyone seems to be able to agree that Gw2 PvP; Ranked especially, isn't in a great spot, or at the very least has some qualm with it. Everyone who does think that way, has their own reasons for doing so; whether it be balance, neglect, poor changes, or just a general lack of interest. No matter what you happen to dislike about the game, I can assure you that blaming it on a low player-count doesn't solve a thing. If you refuse to encourage innovation on the premise that the player-count is too low, you're just giving yourself more of the same content and material you've become frustrated and/or bored with in the first place, and the population is only doomed to drop further as a result, and the excuse only gets used more and more after that.

    If you live by this excuse, then the same excuse should apply to all changes rather than cherry-picking when it's considered reasonable and unreasonable. I personally find it kind of weird that it hasn't been fully committed to, yet it has been used as justification for changes in the past. DuoQ for example. It was restricted for; quote, the reason:

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    Because we have so few legendary players, it’s very difficult to get legendary players into an appropriate match.

    Yet; that specific feature was selectively reinstated without anything changing about it or the circumstance that saw it restricted in the first place. Upon asking to split the queues allowing players to play both separately; the same excuse that got DuoQ removed to begin with apparently doesn't work when suggesting changes to DuoQ.

    The problem with splitting the queue is that our data doesn't show that 2 separate queues for ranked would work. To put things in perspective, 92% someone queues it's queuing solo. The team queue would have horrendous wait times. And when a match finally popped, difference in team skill would likely be rage inducing.

    That also applies to new arenas and new potential ways to play ranked, or so i'd assume, since split queue methods are essentially two different ways to play Ranked. It's a very confusing rationalization to say the least. To put it in perspective: Population is too low for DuoQ, DuoQ Restricted, DuoQ Unrestricted, Population is too low for split queues. The excuse only seems to work when Arenanet or anyone else wants it to. When it fits their agenda, their preference, and it's a terrible excuse that perpetuates itself without solving anything in the process.

    I still believe that sPvP; like any other institution, can only grow with innovation, and that's the overall point of this post. To encourage people to be more creative and innovative, and to discourage people to shoot down other people's ideas with this excuse in particular. If you find a fault with someone's idea, pointing it out is one thing, but saying "the population is too low" really doesn't seem very constructive. I hope the use of this excuse starts to fade in the future.

    noticed it in other mmos too, too little players play pvp so we cant put developement time into it. and becouse we cant put developement time into pvp, nobody plays it.
    rip nvo pvp, had fun while it lasted. I bet same thing will happen here.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    frequent ATs in swiss format (maybe have tiers so they can be done quicker)
    multiple modes that players can vote for like map (fix current modes with logic)
    balance patches every week that at the very least fix whats overperforming (really not that hard)

    bam. those are my top 3. rant done.

    Te lazla otstra.

  • SexyMofo.8923SexyMofo.8923 Member ✭✭✭

    it’s not an excuse, it just one of the many reasons.

  • Durzlla.6295Durzlla.6295 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    frequent ATs in swiss format (maybe have tiers so they can be done quicker)
    multiple modes that players can vote for like map (fix current modes with logic)
    balance patches every week that at the very least fix whats overperforming (really not that hard)

    bam. those are my top 3. rant done.

    every week is a tad excessive for balance patches, but every 1-2 months is perfectly reasonable compared to the current like twice a year balance patching they've been doing.

    "But my children sing to me. Listen. They sing dark, delicious notes about power and family. As their mother, I have to grant them their wish."

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 1, 2019

    @Durzlla.6295 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    frequent ATs in swiss format (maybe have tiers so they can be done quicker)
    multiple modes that players can vote for like map (fix current modes with logic)
    balance patches every week that at the very least fix whats overperforming (really not that hard)

    bam. those are my top 3. rant done.

    every week is a tad excessive for balance patches, but every 1-2 months is perfectly reasonable compared to the current like twice a year balance patching they've been doing.

    not when its addressing broken things. that's what I meant, not huge patches like they've been doing.

    Te lazla otstra.

  • Durzlla.6295Durzlla.6295 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Durzlla.6295 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    frequent ATs in swiss format (maybe have tiers so they can be done quicker)
    multiple modes that players can vote for like map (fix current modes with logic)
    balance patches every week that at the very least fix whats overperforming (really not that hard)

    bam. those are my top 3. rant done.

    every week is a tad excessive for balance patches, but every 1-2 months is perfectly reasonable compared to the current like twice a year balance patching they've been doing.

    not when its addressing broken things. that's what I meant, not huge patches like they've been doing.

    I’m not game dev, but I feel like even for that a week is too short for anything but a quick bug fix or a bandaid fix.

    "But my children sing to me. Listen. They sing dark, delicious notes about power and family. As their mother, I have to grant them their wish."

  • @Leonidrex.5649 said:
    noticed it in other mmos too, too little players play pvp so we cant put developement time into it. and becouse we cant put developement time into pvp, nobody plays it.
    rip nvo pvp, had fun while it lasted. I bet same thing will happen here.

    Nailed it. That's all i'm trying to say. It happens to a lot of games unfortunately, like with Anthem abandoning its roadmap recently. It's deadly and a pretty meaningless way to kill off games.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • @sephiroth.4217 said:
    those quotes basically read "since we removed team queue format from team players, the left over players of the remaining population chose to play solo queue.. Therefor bringing back team queue format for team players is bad"....

    Yeah, it was pretty odd reasoning to say the least.

    That's like banning surfers from surfing in the ocean and claiming shark bites are down 92% then using that statistic to shut down any chance of repeal.

    "We just wanna catch some waves brah."
    "Sorry, the population of surfers is too low now to justify bringing it back."

    Go figure.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • 1 thing that I hate about duo q is it makes players think they will win by staying next to each other and bursting opponents. This just isn’t true and is actually a degradation of skill even a thief can play entirely by themselves all match and win it, but apparently that’s not meta just cuz ppl don’t do it when with friends. Also duo q kind of messes up as for average players who don’t know that they have to deal with that toxic kind of play

  • @SexyMofo.8923 said:
    it’s not an excuse, it just one of the many reasons.

    An excuse is a self-justification. A reason is an explanation.

    "The population is too low" doesn't typically explain something with how it's used, because it's used to contradict and second guess ever suggestion made by the community even if it's totally out of place.

    It can never really be reason. It can only be used informatively in the context of an explanation, and I wouldn't even suggest doing that. When you tell someone that nobody is playing their game; whether they be a developer or player for that game, it's really discouraging to their motivation to keep working on or playing that game. Again, self-perpetuating.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • Swagg.9236Swagg.9236 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You will definitely have problems if you force an automated ranking system onto an anemic population within an even-numbers and (supposedly) team-based PvP environment. However, in GW2's case, it's mostly just more tinder on the pyre when you consider how jank the game is at its fundamental core.

  • Ysmir.4986Ysmir.4986 Member ✭✭

    Read the title, expected QQ about DuoQ. Was not disappointed.

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭

    The population is the reason, not an excuse.

    You should tell us a reason why Anet should work on PvP if they can't sufficiently monetize it.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fueki.4753 said:
    The population is the reason, not an excuse.

    You should tell us a reason why Anet should work on PvP if they can't sufficiently monetize it.

    cuz if its fun and enjoyable, more ppl will play it?

    Te lazla otstra.

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 2, 2019

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    if its fun and enjoyable, more ppl will play it?

    PvP failed though and of the current player base almost noone, who doesn't already does PvP, is interested in it.
    The majority of players doesn't even care for the PvE rewards from the PvP reward tracks.
    That aside, the current imbalance makes it hardly possible to enjoy PvP, even for the few of us who still do PvP.

  • SeikeNz.3526SeikeNz.3526 Member ✭✭✭

    @Durzlla.6295 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Durzlla.6295 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    frequent ATs in swiss format (maybe have tiers so they can be done quicker)
    multiple modes that players can vote for like map (fix current modes with logic)
    balance patches every week that at the very least fix whats overperforming (really not that hard)

    bam. those are my top 3. rant done.

    every week is a tad excessive for balance patches, but every 1-2 months is perfectly reasonable compared to the current like twice a year balance patching they've been doing.

    not when its addressing broken things. that's what I meant, not huge patches like they've been doing.

    I’m not game dev, but I feel like even for that a week is too short for anything but a quick bug fix or a bandaid fix.

    i doubt that changing skills dmg/radious/time is hard, they just need to change the numbers they dont even need to code all the skill again, to tell the truth they can just change it in 5 minutes if they want

  • Full Solo queue or Team queue needs to happen.

  • BadMed.3846BadMed.3846 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 2, 2019

    @bluri.2653 said:
    Was waiting for this one 😂 soloq will fix matchmaking!

    Simple fact too hard to understand? Duo queue is bad for matchmaking. The only reason duo queue exists is because Anet decided to prioritise ability to play with friends over balance. That was stated very clearly in the post.

  • @Fueki.4753 said:
    The population is the reason, not an excuse.

    You should tell us a reason why Anet should work on PvP if they can't sufficiently monetize it.

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said it best. PvP will never improve if everyone is trapped by some expectation that it can never grow. They could have a larger playerbase to monetize if they actually took the time to address feedback and criticism, rather than popping in for a brief post beyond occasionally just to say they don't intend to do anything about X because the population is too low, or intend to remove or change X because the population is too low.

    It is an excuse. It's overused as a rationalization, a self-justification as the why there's no content and change coming. There is absolutely no benefit to limiting yourself as a developer or a player in saying the population is too low. It's off-putting to other people seeing it, it halts development, and it's terribly nonconstructive in terms of creativity and feedback. You can tell it's an excuse because it perpetuates itself the more people buy into it, and it's easy for people to buy into seeing how overused it is. People shy away from reason because reason is more communicative, whereas an excuse is intended just to appeal, and that's what makes them so appealing. I'm not going to be pretend I don't even use them myself; i'm human, and there's a ton of things I haven't done/will never do because of a metaphorical ocean of various anxieties, insecurities, and general lack of responsibility. The way I see it, you can either waste time wading in the metaphorical water, stuck on the what ifs, or you can stop making excuses and start swimming. So long as you keep moving forward, you will grow and progress, you will find land. Mobility is the only solution to immobility, and PvP has been stuck for a looooong time.

    @Ysmir.4986 said:
    Read the title, expected QQ about DuoQ. Was not disappointed.

    I'm glad you see DuoQ as regressing rather than evolving, but this post is only about the excuse.

    DuoQ just so happens to be the only example where Arenanet used the excuse to remove a feature once, then use the same excuse to refute any changes to it such as splitting the queues, or being able to play with any more than 1 friend at a time, and I only included that to show how hypocritical this excuse can be.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • I don't play pvp because it is not fun. That simple. Soulbeasts, all kinds of thieves, mirages. No fun at all.

    And no soloq or duoq will change that.

    Maybe instead of some queue discussions that the vast majority of players who do not touch pvp because of it inherent joyless state, do not care about, the way forward would be to:

    nuke PoF specs. Maybe even HoT specs as well.

  • @KryTiKaL.3125

    I was actually pretty inspired by your post and that article in that last comment I made. I'm also pretty shocked any media outlet picked up on what goes on in sPvP, let alone accurately.

    I hope Arenanet and other players take that as encouragement that they've built something really fun and enjoyable, they just need to work with eachother to maximize its potential. When they bounce negativity like "the population is too low" off of one and other, then to the surprise of no one, nothing ever changes.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • Ziggityzog.7389Ziggityzog.7389 Member ✭✭✭✭

    As of now I'll wait for guild wars 3 may it be a few years or what not. I'm never coming back for another circlequest game. I'll play my occasional stronghold match but for now my new game.

    Ashes of creation apocalypse.

    The pvp battle royals mode is just epic fun and it's just the beta version. It will stay free and only get better from here on out.

    Not worth trying in gw2 ranked. A wintrader will come along and cheat to top spot.

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    need a 30 vs 30 queued SPvP game mode with objectives

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    if its fun and enjoyable, more ppl will play it?

    PvP failed though and of the current player base almost noone, who doesn't already does PvP, is interested in it.
    The majority of players doesn't even care for the PvE rewards from the PvP reward tracks.
    That aside, the current imbalance makes it hardly possible to enjoy PvP, even for the few of us who still do PvP.

    riiight, so... can't improve pvp cuz balance and population. basically anets attitude towards pvp these past years (excluding swiss). a few pve players would dip in more, I think a decent amount of wvw'ers, and a lot of the people that left would come back to try it out. all a river needs to start is a trickle.

    Te lazla otstra.

  • Mikali.9651Mikali.9651 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 3, 2019

    I don't play PvP because I refuse to play the contest mode. I will never ever play it. GW1 had so many modes, such great implementations, and in GW2 we got the capture and hold points until 500. There is no fun for me there, and even if they create even more maps for some variation, I will still not play it.

    I've never seen a population problem in PvP in GW1 as Anet described it - never, maybe for hero battles mode lol. RA was alive, AB was alive, GvG was alive, HA was alive. TA did have some problems, but with current technology and matchmaking, even that could have worked again.

    I do not ask to have dozens of modes, but not having a mode such as RA - where you fight until the enemy team is annihilated, is just baffling. Even RA had variations, annihilation, modes with priests which resurrected players, death count, flags for AoE dmg pressure...and they were on rotation. If you won, you played the next match with the same team, thus creating a bit more everlasting experience and sense of community.

    And don't let me start on GvG. Dozens of maps, each with their own layout which enabled different strategies. Observe mode, ranking mode, a way to shove your status in the shape of wearing the cape with a color that matched it, and thus being recognizable in a public sphere. No one in GW2 cares about your ranking or skill level, no one, there is no awe.

    But Anet is still stubborn with this mode, and they will never create a new one because they think this mode is the best mode and should be the only one. The mode which is hard to observe and follow, the mode which does not have voice chat implemented and it is 100% team-oriented, the mode which is very abusable with certain builds because of the nature of needing to hold the point in a small circle.

    And trait system is just a laughable addition to the game, with all the passive proc effects and power boosts.
    They said GW1 was hard to balance? It is a child play compared to GW2 so I will never accept that argument.

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    1-5 queue, bring it back...do do do do

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 3, 2019

    while you are at it rework the score and ranking system to score a person based on their role and various other things they do in a match win or lose your total skill ranking should not be based on if you get a good or decent team or an oblivious one.
    some one new to the game landing in plat because he had alot of good matches vs a actual semi vet player landing in bronze because his teams were oblivious multiple games in a row.

    Whats the point of having a ranking system that does not actually score you based on how well "you" perform it scores you based on how well your team does over a fixed set of matches... ontop of this you will not get the same team every time.

    PvP in general has alot of issues that need to be fixed
    soloq or duoq is but a small part of the problem simply forcing or allowing one or the other wont make much difference.

    Why are players not ranked by individual skill?
    I do understand that in alot of cases the current ranking system can relate to proper skill level of an individual player but this is not always the case. It just needs to be better.

    In general the current is outdated and a big root of the problem. Its often more pushing than rewarding overall which leads to people quitting, trading wins, etc.
    Then as someone else said these game modes are stale and out played. Capture and hold for 7 years. The maps dont focus enough on secondary objectives which arguably should be the main objectives with capturing points being the secondary. In some maps secondary objectives are completely ignored unless the win or loss is already a land slide.

    At this point anet needs to put some serious work behind other modes even if the game is not balanced for them completely.
    1v1 (best of 3)
    2v2 (best of 3)
    3v3 turn/tag style
    5v5 death match best of 3 or 5

    The time of not having skill splits is over a patch needs to roll through that fully splits everything from pve, wvw, and pvp then do balance accordingly
    I know anet didnt want to do skill functionality splits but its time to do it. Its clear people would rather learn how to compensate with skills working differently in different game modes vs one game mode breaking the others (the scourge change being a prime example)

    When all of the above is done pvp in this game can actually start to make a name for itself.

  • Ziggityzog.7389Ziggityzog.7389 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 3, 2019

    I had the best time ever in all of guild wars pvp and now I've moved on for the most part now. Played Gw1, started gw2 at launch, played seasons 1-4 (only legit seasons), then when the wintrade wars started in ranked with duo I just went to only stronghold and didnt bother with the cesspool.

    Now as a dedicated guild wars fan I found a new source of pvp that will only get better and not worse like this spam wars circlequest crud.

    Ashes of creation apocalypse is a free game. Just battle royal for now with more pvp layer and pve.

    Time to move on to new pvp since this has been left to rot for about 4 years now.

  • Gw1 and Gw2 same scenario ....arena does not have the ability to stay on course.

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The "population is too low" is not the cause. It is the result.

    The game is old.
    The balance went sideways with PoF and is somehow getting worse since the end of last year.
    Much of the game systems (like HP pools) need fundamental updates, which devs probably incapable of doing.
    Most of the devs side remake projects, like most recent chrono changes, have been absolute failure. Just look at Scrapper changes across this year. Major up and down shakes ups, that 90% of them were not needed to begin with.
    Little content being added. One map in the last 2 years.

    And yes, match making right now is terrible, cuz the population is so small, that having the match making work correctly will require 10 mins + of waiting.

    Is it going to get better? When there are new elite lines and weapons let me know. Other than that, it is a trend downward, and from how things going, on a fast track.

  • Firebeard.1746Firebeard.1746 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 3, 2019

    I'm sorry, what's wrong about OP stating duo is garbage? Anet had already openly admitted they refuse to balance teams with duos because queue times. Yay sanctioned match manipulation!

    In all seriousness in light of their queue time decisions duo was the worst compromise: people can't play with a full set of friends, but it still lends itself to match manipulation. They should allow zoning while in pvp queues and split the queues into soloq and full party queues in addition to other matchmaking improvements. Also reduce ranked pip requirements based on queue time increases.

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I think the deadly word is Soon.

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • @otto.5684 said:
    The "population is too low" is not the cause. It is the result.

    The game is old.
    The balance went sideways with PoF and is somehow getting worse since the end of last year.
    Much of the game systems (like HP pools) need fundamental updates, which devs probably incapable of doing.
    Most of the devs side remake projects, like most recent chrono changes, have been absolute failure. Just look at Scrapper changes across this year. Major up and down shakes ups, that 90% of them were not needed to begin with.
    Little content being added. One map in the last 2 years.

    And yes, match making right now is terrible, cuz the population is so small, that having the match making work correctly will require 10 mins + of waiting.

    Is it going to get better? When there are new elite lines and weapons let me know. Other than that, it is a trend downward, and from how things going, on a fast track.

    What if I were to say all your suggested changes are irrelevant because the population is too low? Would that be causation or effect? That the often meh or outright bad and uncalled for balance updates, and new content has to be drip fed to the people still playing because everyone thinks the game is dead and feels the need to use this excuse to justify to themselves why they're not playing... openly for some reason.

    I can't tell you how many times i've seen someone put out some idea for change, and there's almost always that one person who has to say that the game is dead and nobody is playing it. To say that has no impact on the people advocating those ideas for change is a little disingenuous. Being constantly reminded that you're wasting your time only makes people more inclined to be apathetic. That's what makes this particular excuse so deadly. That coupled with the fact that players aren't the only ones using it.

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:
    I think the deadly word is Soon.

    If this is the deadly excuse, then that's the deadly lie.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

    @otto.5684 said:
    The "population is too low" is not the cause. It is the result.

    The game is old.
    The balance went sideways with PoF and is somehow getting worse since the end of last year.
    Much of the game systems (like HP pools) need fundamental updates, which devs probably incapable of doing.
    Most of the devs side remake projects, like most recent chrono changes, have been absolute failure. Just look at Scrapper changes across this year. Major up and down shakes ups, that 90% of them were not needed to begin with.
    Little content being added. One map in the last 2 years.

    And yes, match making right now is terrible, cuz the population is so small, that having the match making work correctly will require 10 mins + of waiting.

    Is it going to get better? When there are new elite lines and weapons let me know. Other than that, it is a trend downward, and from how things going, on a fast track.

    What if I were to say all your suggested changes are irrelevant because the population is too low? Would that be causation or effect? That the often meh or outright bad and uncalled for balance updates, and new content has to be drip fed to the people still playing because everyone thinks the game is dead and feels the need to use this excuse to justify to themselves why they're not playing... openly for some reason.

    I can't tell you how many times i've seen someone put out some idea for change, and there's almost always that one person who has to say that the game is dead and nobody is playing it. To say that has no impact on the people advocating those ideas for change is a little disingenuous. Being constantly reminded that you're wasting your time only makes people more inclined to be apathetic. That's what makes this particular excuse so deadly. That coupled with the fact that players aren't the only ones using it.

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:
    I think the deadly word is Soon.

    If this is the deadly excuse, then that's the deadly lie.

    Not sure what is there to suggest. It is not just we do not have enough PvP population, there many other issues. Anet has been dragging their feet on class balance and adding content. Without any major incoming content (and there is none) the path is sealed. If you have good suggestions go ahead. Nothing is stopping you.

    My suggestion is we need 9 new elite lines and 9 new weapons, with some major fundamental changes to some class balance systems including: hp pools, boon spam, rip spam, CC spam and condi damage. Is it going to happen? kitten no.

    I am a realistic guy. I know Anet is not willing to invest in the game. It is running on a step above maintenance mode and will continue to sink due decreasing player count. Unless Anet is willing to invest in the game, nothing will change.

  • Dante.1508Dante.1508 Member ✭✭✭

    Nobody does it because of the population already there..

  • @otto.5684 said:
    Not sure what is there to suggest. It is not just we do not have enough PvP population, there many other issues. Anet has been dragging their feet on class balance and adding content. Without any major incoming content (and there is none) the path is sealed. If you have good suggestions go ahead. Nothing is stopping you.

    I am a realistic guy. I know Anet is not willing to invest in the game. It is running on a step above maintenance mode and will continue to sink due decreasing player count. Unless Anet is willing to invest in the game, nothing will change.

    I think it depends on the scope of the change really. There's realistic and unrealistic, but either way requires some degree of effort on Arenanet's behalf. Whether you don't agree with the suggestion or the lack of effort currently going into the game, I just think that saying change is impossible because the population is too low is a toxic and terrible excuse to use that's just going to wound up giving everyone more of the same that got us here to begin with.

    If someone had a really far-fetched idea that nobody agreed with, i'm not saying it's not within anyone's right to disagree, but the excuse as to why you don't agree should never be "the population is too low." Subverting that excuse to allow even the smallest changes(Like the DuoQ example I used) have had a substantial impact on how the game is played for better or for worse.

    My suggestion is we need 9 new elite lines and 9 new weapons, with some major fundamental changes to some class balance systems including: hp pools, boon spam, rip spam, CC spam and condi damage. Is it going to happen? kitten no.

    In terms of what's feasible I think your suggestion is reasonable. An update of that magnitude would only come with a new expansion though, or so i'd assume. I actually think another expansion is very likely given the new LW story.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • @Dante.1508 said:
    Nobody does it because of the population already there..

    Trust me, people are using it. Arenanet itself uses the excuse like I quoted in my OP if that's any proof.

    The population was too low for DuoQ by their own words, so they removed it. Then they added it back and in the time it was banned they rationalized that the population was too low to consider a 1-5 TeamQ and/or split queues.

    There's a bias in those two examples because they fit an agenda. When they gave us SoloQ only, a lot of people were upset, then they 'solved' the issue they created with the deadly excuse by using the same deadly excuse that got us there. "92% of players SoloQ." Well of course they do when that and DuoQ are the only options and you literally can't play either way without running into the other. That's their response to complaints and suggestions relating to DuoQ after they used the same response just 2 months prior as justification to restrict it. It just seems like a huge contradiction to me. Very unfair, only working when they want it to.

    I think that's what makes it such an appealing excuse, and that appeal is what makes it so widely used. Right now, it's truly the perfect excuse if you want nothing to change about the game, yet still don't have the decency to say anything positive about it. Pretty much a small handful of top players that thrive there. i'd say that's who's most likely to use it.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

©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.