Jump to content
  • Sign Up

The Deadly Excuse That Stops sPvP From Evolving


Recommended Posts

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stand The Wall.6987 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

@"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.

ANet also doesn't even seem to be receptive to feedback, even from posts like this which are actually pretty constructive and hit the nail on the head. It also feels like they just take this approach of "Well too late now, time to work on this new shiny thing" rather than actually fix what is already there. I don't want to call it lazy, but its definitely dismissive and shows an excess of stubbornness. There was an article I read recently about that very thing, that the GW2 devs just seem far too stubborn when it comes to PvP in GW2, seeming to believe that what they had in GW1 "didn't work" or "didn't work as well" yet it is one of the exact things that the game is remembered most for. Its PvP. The variety of it and the depth, yet they have horribly shied away from it with GW2 and its honestly a tragedy.

https://massivelyop.com/2019/09/23/fight-or-kite-guild-wars-2-pvp-where-good-intentions-and-stubbornness-meet/

While ANet sometimes (I will give them that much) pays attention to feedback, it is very selective and not broad enough spanning and they seem very allergic to it. Sure not all "feedback" is constructive, but to just outright ignore the feedback that is constructive, and there is plenty of it, because of the overly loud "toxic feedback" (and I mean things like throwing insults and attacking devs personally, that kind of "toxic feedback"). Its like they can't discern between actual criticism and hate/insults. Just because its negative doesn't make it toxic. Negative criticism can be a good thing, but they don't seem to see it that way and prefer to live in an echochamber.

Also I hate their talk of metrics and data when it comes to making decisions about what to do with pieces of content or game modes. Your numbers don't show the entire picture...they show a piece of it. That is it. You cannot only look at numbers when you are accounting for the human element, especially in an MMORPG where the human element is probably the biggest part of it.

Look at Archeage. They are releasing their Unchained version this month and they have been very receptive to feedback about their cash shop and what should/shouldn't be in it and they have absolutely gutted the P2W out of the game. Disemboweled it. They even decided to delay the release of the Unchained version so that they can get a good two weeks of PTS time and address any bugs, populaton and queue concerns, stability issues and have people get a look at the new monetization method and give feedback on it (what they should change, what they might need to remove, etc) so that they can get it right for the actual launch of this version of the game. All in response to community feedback.

Compared to that, and some other games, ANet basically has no working "relationship" with its community for this game and it does not work to their benefit, it hasn't in the long term. People did vote to remove team que and such, in favor of solo and duo que thinking that it would be a benefit to sPvP. Well...several years later guess what? They were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...