Jump to content
  • Sign Up

The Fundamental Problem with GW2


Recommended Posts

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Einlanzer.1627 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Einlanzer.1627 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:

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Einlanzer.1627 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Einlanzer.1627 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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

@kharmin.7683 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Einlanzer.1627 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:

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sir Vincent III.1286 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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@KeoLegend.5132 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.

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...