The Fundamental Problem with GW2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Guild Wars 2 Discussion

The Fundamental Problem with GW2

Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited January 28, 2020 in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

This isn't a complaint about something new - it's something that's been an issue from day one and, IMO, is likely a major reason why the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives.

This is it in a nutshell: Class design more closely mirrors an on-rails RPG experience while overall game design more closely mirrors a sandbox RPG experience.

I've long felt they over-compensated for "too much imbalance" in GW1 by over-engineering classes in GW2 when the game isn't really designed with that in mind - utilizing an end-game of horizontal growth and fashion wars. While everyone seems to love elite specs (probably just because they've been to date the only significant offering for class expansions), my opinion is this was conceptually the wrong way to tackle ongoing class development - it maintained and even reinforced the on-rails approach while the game was simultaneously moving in even more of a "do whatever you want!" direction. This is a bad dichotomy. A sandbox RPG experience that focuses on horizontal growth needs to unshackle these kinds of constraints and allow players to experiment in all kinds of ways. This is a big part of the reason why, in my view, Path of Exile ended up spiking in popularity after Diablo 3 was sort of a letdown.

So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that it's time for a system refresh - can the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much broader mechanism to continue expanding classes. There are really all kinds of ways they could do this to expanding weapon types, expanding weapon skills within weapon types, having loadout packages that resemble elite specs but are more balanced with core abilities so they can be mixed-and-matched, and allowing players to level multiple classes on the same toon.

<1

Comments

  • KeoLegend.5132KeoLegend.5132 Member ✭✭✭

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn't really the sort of decision you make 7 years into a game with thousands of players fully invested in their characters.

    I like the system as it is and find it works just fine, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want to see a major overhaul like this at such a stage of the games life.

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    I agree with this

    Yep, exactly!. What ppl need to see is that everytime something new appears, something else gets irrelevant.
    If a new class or elite spec is released and is weaker or just the same as the current, nobody gives a kitten about getting it
    If a new class or elite spec is released and is stronger than the current, everyone needs to get it and guess what, millions of posts in the forums about how unbalanced they are, about how dead the other specs are, etc. etc.

    The issue is that ppl want to play the meta and thats it. Im one of the few that chooses a class and a spec for their appeal to my tastes and character, not if its meta or not. And we already have 27 different classes in the game. If you can't find one that appeals to you, well. Go play Albion because it doesnt have classes, maybe thats the type of game for you.

    Thats why balancing what we have is the best thing ever. Instead of making old content DIE with the constant release of new ones, work on making everything relevant and then you have a sandbox that everyone will love to play differently.

    Check the example of a GREAT game that just died because of greedy and urge to release new content: NEVERWINTER ONLINE. Anybody that played from mod 1 to 3 will tell how nice that game was. And then, they are in mod 16 or 17 by now.... nobody cares, game is pretty much dead. I dont want that to happen with GW2. Oldschool Runescape is the example of a game done right. GW2 should be more like Runescape and less than Neverwinter.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn't really the sort of decision you make 7 years into a game with thousands of players fully invested in their characters.

    I like the system as it is and find it works just fine, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want to see a major overhaul like this at such a stage of the games life.

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    I agree with this

    The "overhaul" I'm suggesting is not as significant as you seem to think it is. I don't think existing options need to be removed, rather, the system should be reworked to be more flexible.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.

    One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

    Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

    In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us too much of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

    (in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.

    One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

    Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

    In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us too much of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

    (in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

    I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things. The reason you see such a large gap between average and top players has little to do with class design and everything to do with combat mechanics and the various algorithms between damage, defense, boons, etc. Put simply, there's not enough rubber banding in the way the mechanics work. This isn't a class problem, it's an overall system problem.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.

    One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

    Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

    In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us too much of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

    (in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

    Good analysis

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn't really the sort of decision you make 7 years into a game with thousands of players fully invested in their characters.

    I like the system as it is and find it works just fine, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want to see a major overhaul like this at such a stage of the games life.

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    I agree with this

    The "overhaul" I'm suggesting is not as significant as you seem to think it is. I don't think existing options need to be removed, rather, the system should be reworked to be more flexible.

    Dropping the elite system is significant regardless as to whether it is merged into the core classes or not. You are basically starting from scratch and increasing balance problems as they start afresh. The Elite system is something I think has been a great boon to the game - it allows a wide customisation, but at the expense of sacrifice in some areas. Entreprenering players will adapt the lite specs to all sorts of cool things outside of the metas as well.

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Genesis.5169Genesis.5169 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    The top deficiency between average and good players is skill, pvp is not pve stop trying to equate skill with builds. When you get your kitten handed to you in pvp its a player behind the PC not a computer.

    This is the fundamental problem with GW2 Arenanet has been balancing the game around you people.
    Pvp is unfair its supposed to be you make up the unfairness with skill and numbers the more you try to make PvP "fair" the more you alienate the people who learned to play.

    Sports in the NBA just have a clear set of rules to not break (balance) and goals to attain (game mode) all other circumstances should be left to the player this includes builds team composition and partying.

    For those on the forums who advocate for the removal of duo queues in Spvp, realize your actions over the past 7 years has destroyed gw2 Spvp and thinking doing the same thing again is a good idea after several years of it not working crazy. Get better at pvp.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.

    One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

    Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

    In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us too much of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

    (in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

    I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.

    And that's the fundamental problem with your suggestion. Balance and class design go hand in hand. More choice/variety leads to less choice/variety

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.

    One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

    Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

    In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us too much of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

    (in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

    I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.

    And that's the fundamental problem with your suggestion. Balance and class design go hand in hand. More choice/variety leads to less choice/variety

    No, they don't. They overlap to some extent, but they are fundamentally different things. As an example, how the various attributes work to set things like damage floors and ceilings, and how boons create additive or multiplicative effects of that, is something that is in no way directly tied to specific classes and therefore has little to do with class design, which is largely conceptual in comparison. Yes, it helps to inform class design, but, fundamentally, the game mechanics are separate.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • @Astralporing.1957 said:

    The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

    I beg to differ. As someone who played GW1 I can attest to the fact that allowing a more "free-form" set up and greater skill/build choices did not cause the problem you suggest. in fact, it was rather easy to find/make effective builds and share them.
    What the OP suggests would be interesting but I doubt GW2 is able to offer that at this point.
    To be honest, I was never enamored of locking skills to weapons as I felt it was rather limiting in scope. However as a, ridiculously, long time fan of Anet and player of GW as a whole I make do and enjoy the game.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

    I don't really need to.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

    I don't really need to.

    Then you're only arguing hyperbole.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.

    The old, pre-elite spec design let you combine anything with anything, giving you a multitude of choices. Adding new things in that design increases the complexity with each addition, until you reach the point when noone can really control it anymore. Balancing such a system gets exponentially difficult with the number of options you have.

    (with 5 traitlines, 3 traitline slots, 3 choices per slot, each with 3 possible options, you end up with 196830 combinations)

    The new design limits that however - you can't combine two elite specs together, you can't use elite spec weapons with core buidls or other elite specs. Moreover, since the elite specs ar most of the time superior to core builds, they are actually culling a lot of options you had before - there's no need to check for all possible combinations of 3 core traitlines, for example, if you know that the last of the three traitlines picked will be an elite spec one. That makes things somewhat easier. It's still a mess, though.

    (adding two elite traitlines to the mix, and assuming we will be using them, even though the total number of traitlines jumped from 5 to 7, we only end up with twice the number of combinations - 393660. If we just added two normal traitlines, the total would be at 688905 combinations.

    Now, imagine how easier to balance it would be if you had only one traitline slot, with 5 (or 7) traitlines to pick from. 135 (or 189) combinations instead of 196830, 393660 or 688905.

    And that's only when considering traitlines alone. All that gets multiplied by the amount of choices we need to make for weapons, armor, runes, skills...

    In the end, if you end up with thousands of choices, there's no way they will all end up being equal. The more choices, the greater disparity between top, average and bottom. The more choices, the harder to balance all of them, and the harder to keep making sure some will not end up gamebreaking (especially in a way that may not be fun for anyone) or completely useless.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

    I don't really need to.

    Then you're only arguing hyperbole.

    Except that 9 in 10 of the people that I know bought the game at launch dropped it within 6 months and then never picked it up again, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.

    The old, pre-elite spec design let you combine anything with anything, giving you a multitude of choices. Adding new things in that design increases the complexity with each addition, until you reach the point when noone can really control it anymore. Balancing such a system gets exponentially difficult with the number of options you have.

    (with 5 traitlines, 3 traitline slots, 3 choices per slot, each with 3 possible options, you end up with 196830 combinations)

    The new design limits that however - you can't combine two elite specs together, you can't use elite spec weapons with core buidls or other elite specs. Moreover, since the elite specs ar most of the time superior to core builds, they are actually culling a lot of options you had before - there's no need to check for all possible combinations of 3 core traitlines, for example, if you know that the last of the three traitlines picked will be an elite spec one. That makes things somewhat easier. It's still a mess, though.

    (adding two elite traitlines to the mix, and assuming we will be using them, even though the total number of traitlines jumped from 5 to 7, we only end up with twice the number of combinations - 393660. If we just added two normal traitlines, the total would be at 688905 combinations.

    Now, imagine how easier to balance it would be if you had only one traitline slot, with 5 (or 7) traitlines to pick from. 135 (or 189) combinations instead of 196830, 393660 or 688905.

    And that's only when considering traitlines alone. All that gets multiplied by the amount of choices we need to make for weapons, armor, runes, skills...

    In the end, if you end up with thousands of choices, there's no way they will all end up being equal. The more choices, the greater disparity between top, average and bottom. The more choices, the harder to balance all of them, and the harder to keep making sure some will not end up gamebreaking (especially in a way that may not be fun for anyone) or completely useless.

    Again, the balance issues you and I commonly talk about revolve around combat mechanics that are largely independent of class design. Class design is basically used to fine tune them.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

    That part is definitely true. The game does have 11 million accounts, but i would be surprised if there was even a million (or half a million) of people still playing it. You definitely would need some data to support the thesis that even a significant portion of all those people that left did so due to the problem you outlined.
    In the meantime, i wonder, how many players left due to the bad balance the freeform build system caused, and how those two groups of players would compare.

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Again, the balance issues you and I commonly talk about revolve around combat mechanics that are largely independent of class design. Class design is basically used to fine tune them.

    A lot of stuff we've discussed in the past was strongly tied to the freeform building associated with gear (and multitude of stat sets existing), for example. Which, true, is not part of a class design, but is still very relevant to what we're discussing now, in this very thread.

    Although, in reality, the ability to pick any stat set you want, instead of having to pick from a limited number of class gear sets, can definitely be seen as part of class design. Most other MMORPGs do not give you as much freedom in that regard as GW2 does.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

    Actually it's not "intuitive". You're using anecdotes as proof.
    To provide hard evidence to support you assertion isn't a ridiculous request because it's up to you to prove your point, not us.
    Have people left the game? sure it's not uncommon and happens to all games but to say "the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives." based solely on 9 out 10 people you know and few others you've spoken with is hardly a solid foundation for your assertion.
    So yes, hyperbole is an apt description.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

    That part is definitely true. The game does have 11 million accounts, but i would be surprised if there was even a million (or half a million) of people still playing it. You definitely would need some data to support the thesis that even a significant portion of all those people that left did so due to the problem you outlined.
    In the meantime, i wonder, how many players left due to the bad balance the freeform build system caused, and how those two groups of players would compare.

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Again, the balance issues you and I commonly talk about revolve around combat mechanics that are largely independent of class design. Class design is basically used to fine tune them.

    A lot of stuff we've discussed in the past was strongly tied to the freeform building associated with gear (and multitude of stat sets existing), for example. Which, true, is not part of a class design, but is still part of the stuff you are talking in this thread.

    I'm not suggesting it's the only reason people left ( I doubt many of them would even be able to drum up a specific reason or list of reasons), but I definitely think this dichotomy contributed heavily to a general sense of confusion or a feeling that something was off - the class design was building toward an end game similar to WoW, but there is no end-game similar to WoW. Either the world needed to be more linear and contained, or the class design needed to be less so.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ShadowGryphon.6257 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

    Actually it's not "intuitive". You're using anecdotes as proof.
    To provide hard evidence to support you assertion isn't a ridiculous request because it's up to you to prove your point, not us.
    Have people left the game? sure it's not uncommon and happens to all games but to say "the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives." based solely on 9 out 10 people you know and few others you've spoken with is hardly a solid foundation for your assertion.
    So yes, hyperbole is an apt description.

    Only if you're living with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears.

  • Pirogen.9561Pirogen.9561 Member ✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

    I don't really need to.

    Then you're only arguing hyperbole.

    Except that 9 in 10 of the people that I know bought the game at launch dropped it within 6 months and then never picked it up again, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

    "droped within 6 months" is for any given game. Its not GW2 specific. Any and all games.

    There are 3 phases:
    1. if game does not "grab" you with first 1 hour, you leave.
    2. you are past phase 1, you play for an average of 6 months
    3. you you really, really like that game and you stick for longer then 6 month. Can be even forever.

    Most don't get past phase 1, download, try for a couple of minutes, then uninstall. Of those that don't uninstall on day 1, 9 out of 10 wont play for much longer then 6 months.

    You are not wrong with "6 month". But you are wrong with "it happens because of " and if we fix , will be in heaven.

    Thing is that most people just get bored and look for something else.

    By the way, expansions can bring those 9 ot of 10 people back. Big pack of new stuff. For like 3 to 6 month.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Changing the way character design works is likely to alienate some of those who -- according to you -- currently play the game, and at this late date it is likely not going to bring back very many players who've -- according to you -- left due to lack of build freedom. As much as I preferred build design in GW to that in GW2, I am afraid this ship sailed a long time ago, and returning to port for a refit is likely to be unwise.

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn't really the sort of decision you make 7 years into a game with thousands of players fully invested in their characters.

    I like the system as it is and find it works just fine, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want to see a major overhaul like this at such a stage of the games life.

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    I agree with this

    The "overhaul" I'm suggesting is not as significant as you seem to think it is. I don't think existing options need to be removed, rather, the system should be reworked to be more flexible.

    The problem is that such freedom is much more likely to result in a larger gulf between effectiveness and ineffectiveness. Very few players play GW2 in a vacuum where the effectiveness of others relative to them means nothing.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • Xenash.1245Xenash.1245 Member ✭✭✭

    While build variety might be lower now then it was in the past, it most certainly wasn't lacking near when the game started and a few years after that.

    The community has always been rather opinionated in what they believe to be broken or not and can be rather blind to see things right in front of them as the majority of them are following what's been established as the "best" builds. There's a serious lacking from the player base when it comes to testing out new builds that fit best and would work best for them as they instead generally choose to follow already established builds.

    There's certain areas where I'd say you could say there's a lack of actual choices like for example when it comes to ranger pet as most of them do kind of suck, and their pet skills if you happen to be using soulbeast don't really do them any favors. And there's of course other areas where classes do very much so lack options, but overall I'd say that at the very least in the past that the game had plenty of class diversity if the player in question was willing to try.

  • Sir Vincent III.1286Sir Vincent III.1286 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that it's time for a system refresh - can the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much broader mechanism to continue expanding classes. There are really all kinds of ways they could do this to expanding weapon types, expanding weapon skills within weapon types, having loadout packages that resemble elite specs but are more balanced with core abilities so they can be mixed-and-matched...

    I disagree. What needs to happen is to add a 4th Elite Traitline. This way, you can have your 3 Core traitlines plus 1 Elite trait line. This will expand the professions and create new build diversities.

    I do like the idea of expanding the weapon skills. Instead of locking the one-handed main hand to 3 skills, they can keep the skill slot to 3, but allow a wide variety of skills to choose from. For example, for a Thief's dual-wield skill #3, then choose either Death Blossom for bleed, Horns of the Ox (GW1) for knockdown, or Nine-tail Strike (GW1) for unblockable attack.

    ...and allowing players to level multiple classes on the same toon.

    Nah. Let other games have that, it doesn't belong in GW2. Although, a secondary profession, much like in GW1, would be nice to have back.

    In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @ShadowGryphon.6257 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

    Actually it's not "intuitive". You're using anecdotes as proof.
    To provide hard evidence to support you assertion isn't a ridiculous request because it's up to you to prove your point, not us.
    Have people left the game? sure it's not uncommon and happens to all games but to say "the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives." based solely on 9 out 10 people you know and few others you've spoken with is hardly a solid foundation for your assertion.
    So yes, hyperbole is an apt description.

    Only if you're living with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears.

    So you expect people to prove your point for you.
    Got it.
    done here.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with the premise of the thread that this is the game's "fundamental" problem.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @ShadowGryphon.6257 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @ShadowGryphon.6257 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

    Actually it's not "intuitive". You're using anecdotes as proof.
    To provide hard evidence to support you assertion isn't a ridiculous request because it's up to you to prove your point, not us.
    Have people left the game? sure it's not uncommon and happens to all games but to say "the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives." based solely on 9 out 10 people you know and few others you've spoken with is hardly a solid foundation for your assertion.
    So yes, hyperbole is an apt description.

    Only if you're living with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears.

    So you expect people to prove your point for you.
    Got it.
    done here.

    No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to contribute to the discussion instead of trying to derail the thread with illogical nonsense.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to actually provide counter-arguments instead of trying to derail the thread.

    I have never seen any official count of active players from launch until today.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to actually provide counter-arguments instead of trying to derail the thread.

    I have never seen any official count of active players from launch until today.

    Fine, here:
    https://inanage.com/2018/02/05/estimating-gw2s-population/

  • @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known.

    That claim is neither obvious nor universally known. That claim is so subjective that it can easily be debunked by another subjective observation. For instance, I can also make a claim that your claim is false because there were tons of players in Dragonfall participating in the event at the same time a large group of players doing the Maguuma HP runs. Without an official numbers from ArenaNet, we can only speculate.

    In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known.

    That claim is neither obvious nor universally known. That claim is so subjective that it can easily be debunked by another subjective observation. For instance, I can also make a claim that your claim is false because there were tons of players in Dragonfall participating in the event at the same time a large group of players doing the Maguuma HP runs. Without an official numbers from ArenaNet, we can only speculate.

    .......................................................................
    no.

    Apart from anecdotal evidence and common sense, there are also a ton of data points that can be referenced to piece together a reasonably accurate conclusion. That's how science works. It's called inference. Ugh I get so tired of this nonsense in these threads.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to actually provide counter-arguments instead of trying to derail the thread.

    I have never seen any official count of active players from launch until today.

    Fine, here:
    https://inanage.com/2018/02/05/estimating-gw2s-population/

    That's not official. It's an estimate. On tumblr. From a game developer. Not an Anet developer.

    Even the person who wrote that article says, "Look, the numbers and the quotes can be massaged to basically say whatever you want."

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known.

    That claim is neither obvious nor universally known. That claim is so subjective that it can easily be debunked by another subjective observation. For instance, I can also make a claim that your claim is false because there were tons of players in Dragonfall participating in the event at the same time a large group of players doing the Maguuma HP runs. Without an official numbers from ArenaNet, we can only speculate.

    .......................................................................
    no.

    Apart from anecdotal evidence and common sense, there are also a ton of data points that can be referenced to piece together a reasonably accurate conclusion. That's how science works. It's called inference. Ugh I get so tired of this nonsense in these threads.

    Care to share where are these "tons of data" so I can also use it as reference?

    The problem here is that you're making claims without evidence. If you've provided evidence to support your claim, I would personally review it and may even agree with you. As far as your posts go, it's all subjective.

    In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Ugh I get so tired of this nonsense in these threads.

    Some of us get tired of hyperbole and "game is dying" threads as well as ones that purport to know what the "fundamental" problem with the game has been from release. Granted, you have a point to make and an argument to support and that's fine, but when you start making claims with no basis of fact, then you should expect to be called out on them.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Ugh I get so tired of this nonsense in these threads.

    Some of us get tired of hyperbole and "game is dying" threads as well as ones that purport to know what the "fundamental" problem with the game has been from release. Granted, you have a point to make and an argument to support and that's fine, but when you start making claims with no basis of fact, then you should expect to be called out on them.

    "and, IMO, is likely a major reason why the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives."

    There are two parts to my original post - an observation of a fact that didn't really need to be supported but was anyway, and the clear expression of an opinion on something that might be behind that fact. I didn't say the game was dying. I didn't, in your words, "make a claim with no basis of fact". Nor am I attempting to write a new scientific theory for peer review here, meaning I'm under no obligation to prove squat to you or anyone else in this thread. I was just starting a discussion.

    You just read it into my post and then reacted emotionally with a diversionary argument. Interacting on forums is always the same. I don't know why I do it.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

    That part is definitely true. The game does have 11 million accounts, but i would be surprised if there was even a million (or half a million) of people still playing it. You definitely would need some data to support the thesis that even a significant portion of all those people that left did so due to the problem you outlined.
    In the meantime, i wonder, how many players left due to the bad balance the freeform build system caused, and how those two groups of players would compare.

    I'm not suggesting it's the only reason people left ( I doubt many of them would even be able to drum up a specific reason or list of reasons), but I definitely think this dichotomy contributed heavily to a general sense of confusion or a feeling that something was off - the class design was building toward an end game similar to WoW, but there is no end-game similar to WoW. Either the world needed to be more linear and contained, or the class design needed to be less so.

    One think i forgot to mention (and something i think you completely missed yourself). Notice, that the "9 in 10 of the people you know (that) bought the game at launch (and) dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months" did that before first elite spec even happened. They did that when the game was still doing exactly what you want now. There was no "dichotomy" then, so it's impossible for it to contribute (heavily or no) to "a general sense of confusion or a feeling that something was off". If people really felt like that at all, it was 100% due to something else.
    So, you might want to rethink your whole premise.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    I wasn't arguing against your original post. I did read it. Where I found fault was with this...

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

    EDIT: You used this argument to support your original premise.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to actually provide counter-arguments instead of trying to derail the thread.

    I have never seen any official count of active players from launch until today.

    Fine, here:
    https://inanage.com/2018/02/05/estimating-gw2s-population/

    Quote from that article: "Look, the numbers and the quotes can be massaged to basically say whatever you want. What is considerably more objective is what ArenaNet does."

    It begs the question; Does $44M means 44M players spending $1 each OR 44 players spending $1M each?

    Bottom line; the "data" you've provided doesn't support your claim.

    One fact is true, based solely in my observation; If the content is fun to play and very rewarding and it's not a complete waste of time (i.e. Dragonfall), players will stay and play that content. It really has nothing to do with the "fundamental problems" the main topic had specified. Despite the poor options in builds and the existence of Elite specs, players still play in Dragonfall, which means, those aren't "fundamental problems".

    In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Maybe or not ... the question is if they would come back if it was changed ... that's an experiment not worth the risk to perform.

    I actually don't see the dichotomy you present ... there are LOTS of builds that accomplish 'success' in the game without being put 'on-the-rail' so to speak. It's only metapushing players that enforce that philosophy that cause the actual game design to be challenged. The game itself is IMO, well designed to allow a wide range of 'do what you want' players to win doing what they want.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

    That part is definitely true. The game does have 11 million accounts, but i would be surprised if there was even a million (or half a million) of people still playing it. You definitely would need some data to support the thesis that even a significant portion of all those people that left did so due to the problem you outlined.
    In the meantime, i wonder, how many players left due to the bad balance the freeform build system caused, and how those two groups of players would compare.

    I'm not suggesting it's the only reason people left ( I doubt many of them would even be able to drum up a specific reason or list of reasons), but I definitely think this dichotomy contributed heavily to a general sense of confusion or a feeling that something was off - the class design was building toward an end game similar to WoW, but there is no end-game similar to WoW. Either the world needed to be more linear and contained, or the class design needed to be less so.

    One think i forgot to mention (and something i think you completely missed yourself). Notice, that the "9 in 10 of the people you know (that) bought the game at launch (and) dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months" did that before first elite spec even happened. They did that when the game was still doing exactly what you want now. There was no "dichotomy" then, so it's impossible for it to contribute (heavily or no) to "a general sense of confusion or a feeling that something was off". If people really felt like that at all, it was 100% due to something else.
    So, you might want to rethink your whole premise.

    I wasn't just including elite specs in my observation/analysis. I think it was an issue with the original class design that was noticeable by level 10. I was just making the point that elite specs helped crystalize it as a long-term issue when it could (and should IMO) have gone in the other direction.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:
    No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to actually provide counter-arguments instead of trying to derail the thread.

    I have never seen any official count of active players from launch until today.

    Fine, here:
    https://inanage.com/2018/02/05/estimating-gw2s-population/

    Quote from that article: "Look, the numbers and the quotes can be massaged to basically say whatever you want. What is considerably more objective is what ArenaNet does."

    It begs the question; Does $44M means 44M players spending $1 each OR 44 players spending $1M each?

    Bottom line; the "data" you've provided doesn't support your claim.

    One fact is true, based solely in my observation; If the content is fun to play and very rewarding and it's not a complete waste of time (i.e. Dragonfall), players will stay and play that content. It really has nothing to do with the "fundamental problems" the main topic had specified. Despite the poor options in builds and the existence of Elite specs, players still play in Dragonfall, which means, those aren't "fundamental problems".

    The context for that discussion was about trying to extrapolate the exact number of active players now based on current revenue, not trying to prove that there was a large falloff after launch, which there obviously and factually was. At any rate, just because some commenter said that doesn't mean it's true. Again, we can extrapolate reasonable conclusions from reasonable data points. Suggesting that a revenue dropoff that large is because of players continuing to play but spending that much less vs way fewer players playing and therefore not spending anything is an absurdist position.

    You people really like grasping at straws.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Maybe or not ... the question is if they would come back if it was changed ... that's an experiment not worth the risk to perform.

    I actually don't see the dichotomy you present ... there are LOTS of builds that accomplish 'success' in the game without being put 'on-the-rail' so to speak. It's only metapushing players that enforce that philosophy that cause the actual game design to be challenged. The game itself is IMO, well designed to allow a wide range of 'do what you want' players to win doing what they want.

    I disagree, because of things like not even being able to customize your weapon skills, or having no real opportunities for class "advancement" outside of just HP grinding out one of the two elite specs at your disposal. I think your first point is definitely salient - there's always risk with overhauling something that's been in place for years. But sometimes I think it's really important, especially since it's really starting to feel like GW2 doesn't have that much to lose.

  • Hashberry.4510Hashberry.4510 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You always have some interesting points, then get stuck in these minor arguments. Maybe let that one go?

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hashberry.4510 said:
    You always have some interesting points, then get stuck in these minor arguments. Maybe let that one go?

    Hahhah. That's true. I always feel dragged into them but clearly I derive some enjoyment from participating in them or else I wouldn't let myself get dragged into them.

  • KeoLegend.5132KeoLegend.5132 Member ✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Nah you are completely wrong.
    Your argument is senseless and your reasons are too personal to be accepted as a scientific evidence. You said 9 out of 10 friends of yours had dropped the game.
    Well, in my case, of 10 friends, 5 of them is playing GW2 because of me and love the system aswell. So your argument is a bit irrelevant on numbers.

    Sure, the numbers dropped. Its part of a natural process and sometimes part of a bad decision of a game design. You are simply putting everyone that quit the game on the same bag of (i didn't like the trait system), and seeing that everyone else in here disagrees with you only show how "alone" you are in your statements.

    Traits and specs are FINE as they are. We prefer balance over quantity. And im with the majority of the players here. If GW2 decides to do a 180ª and attend your demands , thats when the playerbase will really drop low.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 28, 2020

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    @KeoLegend.5132 said:
    Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

    Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

    Nah you are completely wrong.
    Your argument is senseless and your reasons are too personal to be accepted as a scientific evidence. You said 9 out of 10 friends of yours had dropped the game.
    Well, in my case, of 10 friends, 5 of them is playing GW2 because of me and love the system aswell. So your argument is a bit irrelevant on numbers.

    Sure, the numbers dropped. Its part of a natural process and sometimes part of a bad decision of a game design. You are simply putting everyone that quit the game on the same bag of (i didn't like the trait system), and seeing that everyone else in here disagrees with you only show how "alone" you are in your statements.

    Traits and specs are FINE as they are. We prefer balance over quantity. And im with the majority of the players here. If GW2 decides to do a 180ª and attend your demands , thats when the playerbase will really drop low.

    Man there about a dozen different levels of hyperbole & bad logic here.

    1. When did you and your friends start playing? I said 9 in 10. I didn't say literally 9 out of 10. I have a friends list of about 60 people, and am in 5 guilds going back to the beginning of the game. Fewer than 20% of the people in any of those buckets have logged in in the last several years. Refusing to believe there was a huge falloff after launch is akin to refusing to believe that we landed on the moon.

    2. I'm not putting everyone in the same bag. I'm stating an opinion on something I feel plays a large responsibility, even if people are unaware of it, of that retention failure.

    3. Posting on the board means you are an active player, which means you are part of the 1 and 10 that didn't lose interest in the game quickly, which means you are biased toward how the game works today, as are most of the other active posters on this board. Duh.

    4. Balance and quantity are two different things. Experienced game designers know you don't hamstring development over balance concerns because balance is never "good enough" - it's always in movement and always iterative. Being too conservative with player options due to balance concerns is a terrible status quo that leads to player disengagement.

    5. There was no demand here, only the start of a discussion.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Einlanzer.1627 said:

    1. Posting on the board means you are an active player....

    How can you even say this? There are several posters in the last few months who specifically stated that they aren't playing because of what Anet has done with templates. But that's fine; keep making things up.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.