Anet needs to move away from Open World design and make new dungeons.

[AliamRationem.5172]

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Here is my problem with what some people are saying.

People are claiming the game is 'doomed' if it doesn't develop instanced endgame content. If that's actually true, GW2 does not proof of that claim because of all the abandoned instance content developments. If anything, this game shows that we can have sporadic and short lived group content with all kinds of different implementations ... and STILL be successful. The ONLY constant of this game in PVE is the OW content. 

Sure Fractals COULD be sustainable IF ... but what is the reality of the game? Again, we can't put the cart before the horse here. Assuming some category of content, like fractals,  being adequately patronized by players to be sustainable IF some condition were met is just speculation. Speculation does not prove or even reasonably indicate we NEED this kind of content for the game to not be doomed. 

I even agree with your speculation about Fractals ... it could totally be sustainable content for endgame. i don't know why it's not be developed as such. But the sensational statements people are making here do NOT align with the reality of this game. 

The claims that game would be healthier by increasing  PVE content to more instanced groups  is based on the fundamental assumption that the demographic of the game will shift to accept whatever content Anet provides. This has NOT been the case in the past.

I don't think it requires that big of a shift to push out an extra fractal or two now and then.  I also don't think it's alarmist to observe that if they were willing to pull the plug on future expansions once, there's a very real chance EoD could be the last expansion we see.  We've seen what the "less is more" approach looks like and for me (and only me), while IBS had some great stuff, it wasn't delivering the way HoT and PoF (or even LS3/LS4) did for me.

As I said previously, I am primarily an open world/story player, but I still feel this game neglects its instanced PvE content.  This matters even to players like me.  I'm not going to grind fractals all the time or spend every week raiding.  I pop in when I'm feeling it and usually that'll keep me interested for days or weeks, but then I'll fall off again.  For me, it fills the gaps between those story and expansion releases and keeps me playing (and paying!).  WvW serves a similar purpose for me (and you can add special events like festivals to that list, too!).

Neither fractals/raids, etc. nor WvW/PvP are the main event for me, but they matter enough that I've played for years with few breaks.  Without them I probably would have found another place to spend my time (and by extension, my money!).  GW2 is like a buffet where I've learned to appreciate picking out a little bit of everything to try.  I believe open world/story is the main event for most players in GW2 as it is for me, but the game is less for the other game modes it neglects.

Edited December 26, 2021 by AliamRationem.5172

[Obtena.7952]

38 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

I don't think it requires that big of a shift to push out an extra fractal or two now and then.  I also don't think it's alarmist to observe that if they were willing to pull the plug on future expansions once, there's a very real chance EoD could be the last expansion we see.  We've seen what the "less is more" approach looks like and for me (and only me), while IBS had some great stuff, it wasn't delivering the way HoT and PoF (or even LS3/LS4) did for me.

That's true ... it probably doesn't require a big shift for Anet to push out more fractals. Somewhere in there is a good discussion about how what we see happening (or not) in the game is an indicator of what the game ACTUALLY DOES (and doesn't) need to be successful. Again, I'm of the belief that is Anet is running this game as part of a business, they do things (or not do them) because of business reasons. If we aren't getting fractals ... there is a business reason in there that explains why. 

Quote

As I said previously, I am primarily an open world/story player, but I still feel this game neglects its instanced PvE content. 

I don't think it's neglect. I think it's Anet not understanding that instanced PVE content needs to appeal to enough of the demographic that exists in the game so they can justify creating that content over the lifetime of the game. The idea that the demographic will shift to accommodate the content so it can be successful is a fantasy.

I'm not unlike you based on what you say and the threads you make about content. I also recognize there is some biodiversity that is needed through other game modes for a healthy game. I just don't think we can get that without the individual game modes being properly considered for the game population. There is no proper discussion to have about the right balance of OW and instance group PVE content until both those thing are appropriately implemented for the whole PVE population. 

Edited December 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[LucianDK.8615]

Anet is doing just fine with instanced content with fractals, you just have to accept its not your traditional dungeons.

 

Fractals is much more approachable due to them being much smaller than dungeons.

[Hume.2876]

17 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Seems to me we have 9 years of game experience that says otherwise. 

I can't fathom why you think GW2 is some kind of runaway success in the MMO space. It's not. 

 

Looking at just the number of players that play in game mode is one metric. Player retention and the success or failure of other games in the MMO space are important metrics as well.

 

When you see other games thriving with tons of instanced content - its clear that open world cosmetic grinds are not the holy grail.  It might be part of a successful business model but it has not worked as well as other models.

 

This is why they caved some on the no holy trinity bit. Now strikes and raids have healers..  You have to change with the market..  This is why they brought in raids and added fractals and such..

 

You have to find the right balance and the right content.  I think Arenanet would admit they haven't really achieved this.

 

So nah the 9 years don't say that much.  It says its not dead yet like Carbine. That's about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Hume.2876

[Astralporing.1957]

10 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Again, I'm of the belief that is Anet is running this game as part of a business, they do things (or not do them) because of business reasons. If we aren't getting fractals ... there is a business reason in there that explains why. 

Oh, i agree. The problem here is that Anet has been known to make some very bad business decisions. All the stuff that led to expansion cancellation, layoffs, and heavy drop of player interest in the game (which caused a reversal of said expansion cancellation decision) was also business-based.

basically, anet making decisions based on business reasons does not mean those reasons are sound ones.

10 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I don't think it's neglect. I think it's Anet not understanding that instanced PVE content needs to appeal to enough of the demographic that exists in the game so they can justify creating that content over the lifetime of the game. The idea that the demographic will shift to accommodate the content so it can be successful is a fantasy.

Precisely. And that's exactly an example of what i mentioned above - a business decision that is based on very faulty premises.

 

10 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I'm not unlike you based on what you say and the threads you make about content. I also recognize there is some biodiversity that is needed through other game modes for a healthy game. I just don't think we can get that without the individual game modes being properly considered for the game population. There is no proper discussion to have about the right balance of OW and instance group PVE content until both those thing are appropriately implemented for the whole PVE population. 

This. Unfortunately, i'm afraid that some of the decisions that were made in the early design stages of this game were actually not made with thinking about business consequences. At this point, the game itself makes it very hard to create any kind of content that would be interesting to a large player population.

OW is generally accessible to all, but eventually many players will find it boring. At the same time, more demanding content is generally interesting only to a relatively narrow band of players. It ultimately ends up being too hard for some, but too easy for others. And the absolutely massive difficulty and player effectiveness gaps (*) make it next to impossible to work around that issue. Not even multiple difficulty tiers would solve that, because, while it would allow for better player group targeting of content according to their skill and preferred playstyles, it would also massively fragment the playerbase, with heavy negative impact on PUG group availability.

 

(*)Notice, btw, that Anet has never actually ever tried to make full use of mob AI and combat engine to create truly challenging encounters. More difficult mobs are always heavily dumbed down, stationary and predictable - all in a game with highly mobile action combat. Notice, how the difficulty (or as some would say "annoyance factor") massively spikes when the opponent gets any kind of higher mobility and/or active defences that are not on predictable timer. Notice also, that mobs are no longer capable of dodging, kiting and moving out of AoEs (which as we heard they were capable of originally), because devs in early stages of the pre-launch testing realized it would make them way too difficult to deal with.

Basically, the game engine is not only cabable of creating much more challenging encounters than everything we've seen so far, but is actually designed for this. Practically all the current high-tier instanced fights are done according to concepts that run contrary to the original designs for the combat system - and they do that in order to make the encounters easier, not harder.

 

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

53 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Oh, i agree. The problem here is that Anet has been known to make some very bad business decisions. All the stuff that led to expansion cancellation, layoffs, and heavy drop of player interest in the game (which caused a reversal of said expansion cancellation decision) was also business-based.


Notice, btw, that Anet has never actually ever tried to make full use of mob AI and combat engine to create truly challenging encounters. More difficult mobs are always heavily dumbed down, stationary and predictable - all in a game with highly mobile action combat. Notice, how the difficulty (or as some would say "annoyance factor") massively spikes when the opponent gets any kind of higher mobility and/or active defences that are not on predictable timer. Notice also, that mobs are no longer capable of dodging, kiting and moving out of AoEs (which as we heard they were capable of originally), because devs in early stages of the pre-launch testing realized it would make them way too difficult to deal with.

Basically, the game engine is not only cabable of creating much more challenging encounters than everything we've seen so far, but is actually designed for this. Practically all the current high-tier instanced fights are done according to concepts that run contrary to the original designs for the combat system - and they do that in order to make the encounters easier, not harder.

 

This is what has me skeptical but hopeful.  I know what the combat system is capable of (Let's face it, you play long enough and figure out how to do all sorts of things in pvp, wvw, and PvE, you pray for enemies to be as smart as the better players you find in PvP & WvW.  In my case, WvW).  ANet says that they're going to deliver on something better.  More mechanical difficulty over just bonus HP & Damage from CMs.  I love the idea of it all, but they also said this about Fractals, IBS Strikes, Bounties, Raids, DRMs  I don't want to get on the hype train and find out that it ends short after about 6 strikes and  the difficulty is no different than the structure in raids.

I just don't want to deal with ANet finding yet another excuse to cancel instanced content when there's literally  three MMOs on the market that put out instanced content with their releases  rather regularly and don't suffer for it.

[robertthebard.8150]

14 hours ago, Tails.9372 said:

Should be apparent if you look at the context. Just ask yourself ""the main issue" in regards to what?". That the content isn't designed to be enjoyed by the average player exactly because of the design philosophy they choose to adopt.

Your "it exists to provide challenge for those that are looking for it" doesn't really hold up here because "providing a challenge" does not require all non-story instanced content to be more difficult.

When it comes down to it the actual conceptual difference between "OW" and "instanced" content is fundamentally just the content structure with difficulty being a non factor so there could easily be more variety here but they, for some reason, don't seem to want that and thus most people are stuck with one type of content.

Let's look at the actual context of the game.  We can finish the main storyline w/out ever setting foot in a dungeon, and it plays out just like it would if we had done them all.  So, it's not required.  Dungeons are, most likely, the easiest of the instanced content.  Fractals have tiers, why?  So that you can learn them and progress in them, just like a lot of the operations in swtor.  This doesn't change that they exist for people that are looking for more challenging gameplay.  I'd feel differently about it if they were required to complete the personal stories, but they're not.

[Tails.9372]

9 minutes ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

We can finish the main storyline w/out ever setting foot in a dungeon, and it plays out just like it would if we had done them all.  So, it's not required.

You're still not addressing anything I said. Dungeons being optional is absolutely meaningless for what you were responding to.

10 minutes ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

This doesn't change that they exist for people that are looking for more challenging gameplay.

Which is, like I said, the problem here. The content structure itself doesn't necessitate this and content variety for people who are not "looking for more challenging gameplay" suffers for it.

[Teratus.2859]

21 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

This sounds great in theory, but in practice I have found that this simply doesn't work. That's not even a technical problem, but a people problem. If the "easy mode" requires the exact same mechanics as the normal (or hard) mode, then it isn't really any easier, since the challenge in most if not all fights is directly tied to proper execution of mechanics.

You need to put in safeguards that allow you to succeed even if you fail the mechanics if you want an easy mode that is actually easier than the regular encounter. This does however take away the feedback of "you failed because you didn't do xyz", which is crucial to learn how to properly do the mechanics and succeed in the regular encounter.

That's why I think the fail buffs or death counter instead of perma death might be a valid alternative..

I actually agree with raiders that nerfing down the bosses or removing mechanics completely for an easy mode isn't a good idea, I don't believe it will prepare players for the actual raid experience if Anet did that which defeats the point.
We want to keep these bosses as close as possible to the normal bosses but create a better learning environment for people to learn in and get that crucial hands on experience.

I've said this many times and I still stand by it, most players especially casual players which this is mostly aimed at do not learn anything when they spend most of their time dead.. in fact they are far more likely to give up very quickly if they die quickly and repeatedly to something they don't understand.
I don't think it's the death itself that actually drives them to this most of the time, I believe it's got more to do with the amount of time they spend waiting around unable to do anything.

Removing that element by having the player auto res after a death so they can continue fighting, learning through doing, experiencing the content but having the freedom to make mistake after mistake without taking away their ability to learn by keeping them in a death state for sometimes minutes at a time.. I think that will help a lot of people learn how these raid boss mechanics work and how to overcome them, and much faster than they would otherwise learn in what exists in Gw2 as "Raid training" runs.

The only "people problem" I've ever seen with raiding, at least when it specifically comes to learning how to raid.. is that there is nothing in this game that caters to the multitude of different ways various people learn.
That's why I'd say this is definitely more of a technical problem because the tools don't exist, at least not in the game itself.
To be more specific about it, it's probably more accurate to say that the existing tools don't work for a lot of people.. and i'm including the player made tools in that as well such as Raid Training Guilds and Walkthroughs etc that many players have put a lot of time into getting up and running to help raids grow.
A lot of people are turned away by the very notion of having to use a 3rd party tool or piece of software like ArcDPS or Discord to learn something in Gw2 they believe (and rightly so imo) should be taught in the game by the game.
And this in particular is something a huge amount of people have criticized Gw2 for over time and something that Anet has finally started to remedy in End of Dragons with those PvE training areas to teach people how to use CC's etc.
Something that I and many others believe they should be adapting into every single early game Vanilla map as well, and I really hope they do.. but I won't hold my breath lol.

21 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

More importantly though, it leads players to totally ignore the mechanics, in which case it fails at teaching simply because you never do it properly anyway. You can see this in fractals where players that have played through all tiers still arrive in the upper tiers totally clueless since they never noticed the mechanic as lower tiers allowed them to stack and heal through anything the fractal might've thrown at them. Other fractals that require key mechanics on all tiers (most notably the newer ones) rarely get played at lower tiers because "too hard".

It's not only a fractal problem or even a GW2 specific problem. I remember a raid group I was in in LotRO some ten years ago, where the raid lead insisted on "skip mechanics" tactics on the entry level of a raid, then was totally thrown off when his raid group was unable to do the mechanics once they switched to the higher difficulty. It's human nature to go the path of least resistance, and there's no real way to technically counter this.

That's exactly why I don't want to remove mechanics or nerf the bosses, why I want to keep them as close to the original as possible and instead change the learning environment to allow for more mistake making freedom. 

People would still die in the easy training modes, they just wouldn't stay dead for long and sit around wasting time and not learning anything.
Everyone would know that in the real raid they can't simply die spam to win, and having no rewards in the easy/training modes would discourage people abusing it for raid rewards.
The only 3 reasons I see for anyone using this mode would be:
1: To learn how raid boss mechanics work to prepare them for the real thing.
2: To experience the raid storylines which some admittedly only care about doing anyway, but this removes them from the pool of players that may/would sneak into normal raid groups, helping reduce this "toxic casual" problem that raiders really hate and complain about which is totally understandable.
3: To meet other players of a similar skill level and mindset they can make groups with and beat the content with further down the road, creating a more casual community free from the "toxic raider" players that many of them currently avoid the content for, be that based on genuinely bad experiences with genuine elitist players or on more exaggerated conclusions come to via years of reading about Gw2 raids being toxic online.

As far as taking the path of least resistance though.. yeah it is true which is why this mode cannot be victim to mechanics removal and boss nerfs, this is very important.

I don't care for cheating and cheesing content, not when it comes to high end rewards and challenging content, it bugs me immensely when people try to exploit something and then get annoyed at me for refusing to partake in the same behaviour.
Many raid groups have in the past (and I believe some still do) cheese some raids by avoiding some mechanics through heal spam etc.
Same thing happens in other group content like the Boneskinner Strike Mission which I haven't beaten since it got upgraded because I refuse!! to use the stack and heal cheese tactic which has/had become the main way every group played the content.
Dungeons back in the day had people breaking out of maps and skipping entire sections of the dungeons etc.
I always hated stuff like this and I won't partake it, even if it means I have to give up playing some content entirely, such as the Boneskinner strike.

21 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

If you have a full raid of people willing to do the mechanics, then of course you can also do them in easy mode raids (or fractals or whatever), but honestly in that case you can just do it on the regular mode, too, since the vast majority of wipes happens not because of low dps but because of failing to properly do the mechanics.

That's exactly what I want easy mode raids to do, provide a better and more attractive raid environment to get players so familiar with the boss and it's mechanics that they know they can beat the normal boss.
A deathless win in easy mode would be certifiable proof that you and your group can beat the real thing and are ready to do so.
That's also why it's important the easy mode bosses cannot be nerfed nor have their mechanics drastically changed or removed.. it will not work if they are.

The only big change easy/training mode should provide would be to the learning environment.

21 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

Personally I would actually like a story mode, since I haven't seen all of the raid stories yet either, but simply to experience the story. I have no illusion that it would have any impact on getting people into raiding or training them to beat the regular encounters.

The easy/training mode would provide that ability if that's all you wanted.
There are many people out there who just want to experience the story as well, I also want to experience these stories as story/lore is the main thing I play not just Gw2 but every RPG/MMO for in the first place.

I don't think focusing on a specific story mode would be worth the effort though and if it was simply a raid mode with diminished bosses etc it would also fail to serve as a training mode.

Raids desperately needs players.. this is the main thing any new mode added to raids needs to cater to.
It must draw in new players and convince them to give raiding a go.
The problem is the only valid market it has to promote itself to is the massive casual community and currently raids is not catering to them in any way what so ever.
And that's only made worse by the years of fighting and arguing between casual and raider and the commonly held attitude that "raids are toxic".
As I said above there are very good and legitimate reasons but also some exaggerated reasons for why the casual community feels that way as well.

The problem we have now is that there is a respectable community of raiders that feel jaded and burnt out on raiding, so they have left the content.. some even the game.
And there is also a very large community of casuals, a number of which feel excluded and bullied out of raids by the raiding community that they have given up on trying and have walked away from it.

The first group is easy, new raid content will bring many of them back, but raids simply isn't popular enough to warrant the time and resources to produce this new content.
The Devs have basically confirmed this themselves.

So the only way raids can be saved really is by getting that casual community interested in playing raids again.
The question is how can they do that?
Well Anet has opted to go for pushing a new Strike model with End of Dragons which I do hope pays off for them, but im not fully convinced yet it will.

Personally I think raids will always need an easy/training mode environment to entice players back.
A lot of what is still keeping casuals away from raiding isn't the content, it's not the difficulty of it either.
It's the players, the raid community that the casuals believe is so toxic and elitist... and that's contributed greatly to their diminished interest in the content or even trying to get into it again.
Another factor is the pitiful amount of people still trying to get into raids with in game tools, which makes it so difficult for inexperienced players to even find a casual group anymore.

If Anet provided a new mode that caters specifically to the causals to help them learn and get into raiding on their terms and has no appeal or benefit what so ever to the "toxic raider" that many causals avoid the content for, then this is something I think will draw a number of casuals back and rekindle some of that lost interest in raiding and make them want to give it another go.

I can't say whether or not it will work.. whether we are long past that point of no return for raids already.
I can say personally that I have given up on the content and at this moment in time I have no intention of trying to get into it again.
But I do believe there is very little the player community can do at this point to save raiding, both casual and raider alike.
I know there are admirable efforts being made to do that, some content creators like Mighty Teapot etc are trying to do something about this..
But I honestly don't think anyone besides Anet can do anything at this point.. the tools have to be added into the game which only they can do and the casual community must be enticed back by those tools.

That's why I think an easy/training mode environment is one of the only ways I can see raids attracting enough casual players to save itself and warrant the development of new wings.
But I could be wrong, maybe strikes will do what Anet intend them to do and please everyone..
Maybe content creators will rekindle lost interest in raids and popularise it again..
Maybe raids will die and Anet will just say screw it.. solo story mode for those who want the story..

Guess we'll see in the future eh?
But that's how I feel about this subject anyway, and have done for a long time.
Apologies for how long this got.. I swear I tried to make this short >.< 
Hope you had a great Christmas/Holiday if you celebrate this time of year.

[robertthebard.8150]

2 hours ago, Tails.9372 said:

You're still not addressing anything I said. Dungeons being optional is absolutely meaningless for what you were responding to.

Which is, like I said, the problem here. The content structure itself doesn't necessitate this and content variety for people who are not "looking for more challenging gameplay" suffers for it.

The game doesn't exist in a vacuum.   All of the content is part of it, whether it's a dungeon, or one of 200+ hearts you can run on the assorted maps.  I was a progression raider for years, but I no longer do it.  I'm not suffering because I don't play the dungeons, fractals, or raids, any more than I suffer because I don't do PvP or WvW.  I can do my dailies everyday w/out setting foot in any of that content.

"But what about legendary gear?" means nothing, since all of the content I do run can be run w/out them.  I don't need ascended gear for it either, so I'm not being denied anything I need to play the game, just because I choose to not do dungeons, fractals or raids.  So, where's the "suffering"?  Because I'm not seeing it, unless it's tied to gear that someone wants, but can't get because they don't do the content where it drops.  Even with that, nobody is locked out by the game itself.  Even the people that insist you run x build for y class with z gear started w/out any of that.  The LFG tool will allow you to form a learning group, so you're not locked out that way either.  It does, however, require that one is willing to learn it, because this content should be harder to run, because despite your negative opinion of that, it's why it exists.  It's why this thread exists, even if I don't agree with the basic premise.

[Rasimir.6239]

2 hours ago, Teratus.2859 said:

And there is also a very large community of casuals, a number of which feel excluded and bullied out of raids by the raiding community that they have given up on trying and have walked away from it.

For the most part I suspect these are the same people that have given up on and walked away from fractals. What makes you think a training mode for 10-people raiding will lure them back when even the tierd difficulty of 5-people fractals can't?

 

I get it, you're very passionate on the subject and have high hopes that a technical solution can be found to get people to give this kind of content another chance. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but in decades of online gaming I've seen way too many "people problems" and have seen technical attempts fail to make up for them too often, to have any hope that a technical solution, even if it came without any implementation cost, would make a difference.

 

The main challenge of any instanced group content isn't mechanical. It's adapting to 4 or 9 or however many other people to work together. No technical solution can solve this.

[voltaicbore.8012]

7 hours ago, Hume.2876 said:

I can't fathom why you think GW2 is some kind of runaway success in the MMO space. It's not. 

And I can't fathom why you think GW2 is on the brink of death, or at the very least 

7 hours ago, Hume.2876 said:

So nah the 9 years don't say that much.  It says its not dead yet like Carbine. That's about it.

This makes it pretty clear you me you've probably never read any of the NCSoft quarterly reports, but managed to magically become a forecasting expert on the subject.

What you (and many others) fail to account for is that GW2 has performed quite well over those 9 years, in terms of revenue efficiency and stability. I've said it before, and I'll say it again every time I need to - the revenue from this game was funneled into several large side projects, ALL of which failed. The vast majority of businesses simply cannot survive that level of investment failure, especially if at least one of those side projects was meant to replace their current flagship revenue generator.

But what did we see with ANet? Big, mean, greedy, moneygrubbing NCSoft is not above shuttering a game if it's not performing. Instead of that, NCSoft just closed down the side projects, laid off side project employees, and told ANet to stick with GW2. As a result, GW2 actually outperformed the rest of NCSoft's portfolio for several quarters.

This game does well, for what it is. It doesn't have the exposure or massive login numbers of FFXIV, and never had anything close to what WoW did in its heyday. But has it ever needed either of those things to be quite successful? The numbers strongly suggest the answer is no.

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by voltaicbore.8012

[AliamRationem.5172]

31 minutes ago, voltaicbore.8012 said:

And I can't fathom why you think GW2 is on the brink of death, or at the very least 

This makes it pretty clear you me you've probably never read any of the NCSoft quarterly reports, but managed to magically become a forecasting expert on the subject.

What you (and many others) fail to account for is that GW2 has performed quite well over those 9 years, in terms of revenue efficiency and stability. I've said it before, and I'll say it again every time I need to - the revenue from this game was funneled into several large side projects, ALL of which failed. The vast majority of businesses simply cannot survive that level of investment failure, especially if at least one of those side projects was meant to replace their current flagship revenue generator.

But what did we see with ANet? Big, mean, greedy, moneygrubbing NCSoft is not above shuttering a game if it's not performing. Instead of that, NCSoft just closed down the side projects, laid off side project employees, and told ANet to stick with GW2. As a result, GW2 actually outperformed the rest of NCSoft's portfolio for several quarters.

This game does well, for what it is. It doesn't have the exposure or massive login numbers of FFXIV, and never had anything close to what WoW did in its heyday. But has it ever needed either of those things to be quite successful? The numbers strongly suggest the answer is no.

 

I hate to be the one to introduce some semblance of reality to you, but they did not just close down some side projects.  That's what they told you and of course you can make it look like a win on a balance sheet any time the company "saves money" this way.  Only a fool would take this as a sign of positive change, however.  It's more likely GW2 was on the chopping block and they decided to give it another go.  How confident are you that EoD can miss and GW2 still gets another chance?

[Obtena.7952]

7 hours ago, Hume.2876 said:

I can't fathom why you think GW2 is some kind of runaway success in the MMO space. It's not. 

Well, THAT is not what I said so 🤷‍♂️. I'm simply not believing the claim that the game is doomed if it appeals mainly (or even only) to people that want to chill in OW. That's not just based speculation either. That's based on the poor showing of instanced content in this game. 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

If dungeons were fun, I'd be in them.

If fractals were fun, I'd be in them.

WvW is fun - that's where I am.

 

Therefore; WvW development should be a top priority and not instanced content.   

 

There, is that how this works? 

[LucianDK.8615]

I think the issue with raids is simply that they are absolutely not approachable for the general player.

Looking in lfg, almost everything is demands and proof of skill. If you dont have it you dont get to raid.

 

Compared to fractals, the exclusiveness happens only in t4. Whereas the lower tiers allows players to grow in skill as they collect AR gear due to a forgiving steadilly rising difficulty curve.

Fractals is how a good learning curve should be.

 

Raids have none of the sort, and you have to get lucky to find a competent guild that does training runs.

[Tails.9372]

6 hours ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

So, where's the "suffering"?  Because I'm not seeing it

What exactly are you trying to respond to here? I said the content variety suffers for it, why you're trying to spin it into "the players are suffering" is beyond me. You yourself admitted multiple times that non-story instanced content in this game is designed for a specific subgroup of the player base. You're agreeing with the premise and are not even trying to argue with the conclusion instead you're constantly going on and on about unrelated stuff and things you make up like ""But what about legendary gear?" means nothing", let me remind you of your own words:

On 12/25/2021 at 1:22 PM, robertthebard.8150 said:

It's really easy to defeat arguments that you make up in a post, but let's talk about what I said, instead of what you want me to have said.  Sound fair?  Excellent.

so yeah, you're really not the one to talk.

 

6 hours ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

because this content should be harder to run

And there we go, for once you made a statement that's actually relevant to the post you're responding to but the issue here is that you haven't made a single argument as for why that is. I don't see any reason as for why the game can't have both: non-story instenced content that is designed for the enjoyment of the average player and non-story instanced content designed for players which are "looking for more challenging gameplay". All you're ultimately saying with "this content should be harder to run" is that you don't want people who are not looking for more challenging gameplay to enjoy non-story instanced content.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Tails.9372

[Walle.6045]

The open world is GW2 best part. 
Each map for the most part has a reason to play it for some achievement, resources of something. It loops around to where you need to get something from it funneling players in, its amazing design. 

It makes the world feel alive. 

Games like ff14 are fun, but I always wonder why do they even bother with their open areas? I like after a few weeks they're dead and everyone sits in towns and spams dungeons and raids in small instances 

At least GW2 offers Fractals, Strikes, Raids, and puts a lot of focus on open world where the majority of the players will be and it is such a great experience. 

[Ashantara.8731]

19 minutes ago, Walle.6045 said:

At least GW2 offers Fractals, Strikes, Raids, and puts a lot of focus on open world where the majority of the players will be and it is such a great experience. 

For casuals and new players, yes. For veterans, it is super boring, because the world is not alive - nothing new is ever added to any of the maps. No new quests, no adventure. Nothing ever happens, nothing ever changes.

With their current design, what GW2's open world could use is new Side Stories on a frequent basis that do something with dead content. Elona, for instance, is such a rich place - imagine having new reasons to go there and experience a new little adventure with an independent little story.

[Teratus.2859]

5 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

For the most part I suspect these are the same people that have given up on and walked away from fractals. What makes you think a training mode for 10-people raiding will lure them back when even the tierd difficulty of 5-people fractals can't?

Because as I said before, one of the main reasons they do walk away in the first place is not because of the content itself, it's because of negative experiences they have with other players.

The training mode would help to greatly diminish that because there would be little to no reason for the hardcore raiders whom the casuals consider to be "toxic" to go into the training mode and attack them.
This alone creates a very different learning environment to what many casuals expect and/or believe the raiding environment is like at the present time.
Thus one of the biggest reasons keeping them from wanting to try raids anymore is removed almost entirely.

Both Dungeons and Fractals had casuals walk away in the past as well for largely the same reason, bad experiences with other players.
I was one of them for a while in the games early days.
Both of them managed to eventually maintain a casual playerbase though and that's what differs them from raiding.
Anyone can go into Dungeon or Fractal LFG's and find a group of random casuals to play with.
This is not something you can do with raids because there is no casual community in that content.

5 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

I get it, you're very passionate on the subject and have high hopes that a technical solution can be found to get people to give this kind of content another chance. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but in decades of online gaming I've seen way too many "people problems" and have seen technical attempts fail to make up for them too often, to have any hope that a technical solution, even if it came without any implementation cost, would make a difference.

Afraid I can't share your experiences there, I do play a few MMO's these days but for a long time I was exclusive to the Guildwars franchise.
Guildwars 1 was my first serious MMO... and it's not even technically an MMO lol
I did also briefly play an Isometric MMORPG back in the day as well called Myth of Soma but I give that up due to the mandatory subfee which I hated the concept of and still do to this day.
I liked the game but I just couldn't justify playing it if I had to buy timed access to it that would tick away even when I wasn't even playing it.

I would agree that there is a "people problem" element to raids in Gw2 although I do attribute it more to the kind of negative experiences I've mentioned so many times.
I do think a technical solution can work to greatly help remedy the population problem raids has but I don't see it as a be all and end all fix for all of raids problems.
My vision for the easy/training mode raids did take cost and time implementation into mind, It really is nothing more than adding a duplicate new mode to the normal one just with an auto res system in place and no rewards.
I'm no game dev but surely something like that wouldn't take that much time and effort to implement.. at least not compared to some of the developers free time passion projects that have come to reality.

Even if it was just one raid boss or wing initially that got this training mode as a test run, I'd be very interested to see what kind of impact it had on the larger community.
Gw2 simply isn't like other MMO's nor is it's playerbase for that matter either.
So I wish they would just try it, even if it would just be so we'd all know whether it was a legitimate, viable solution or just the wishful thinking of the ignorant lol.

6 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

The main challenge of any instanced group content isn't mechanical. It's adapting to 4 or 9 or however many other people to work together. No technical solution can solve this.

In a traditional MMO I'd probably agree with you there but Gw2 does things very different to other games.
We have no defined and heavily specialized roles like other online games do and a very dominant casual playerbase to which all of the game's PvE content is balanced around, including raids.

What roles exist in raiding are largely player implemented by people who are used to that kind of thing in other online games.
This is largely where I have criticized many in the raiding community for their hard pushing of meta builds which are nothing more than the most "efficient" builds at the time for speed clearing.
They are not essential to actually beat the content by any means and most inefficient PvE builds can actually beat the content providing the combined 10 man DPS is enough to kill the boss before it enrages and everyone pulls their weight, overcomes the mechanics and doesn't take a dirt nap etc.

DPS is rarely the reason for failing raids, inexperience and botched mechanics are.
That's ultimately what the training mode would remedy.. providing it was successful at enticing enough players to actually come back and try again.

[robertthebard.8150]

2 hours ago, Tails.9372 said:

What exactly are you trying to respond to here? I said the content variety suffers for it, why you're trying to spin it into "the players are suffering" is beyond me. You yourself admitted multiple times that non-story instanced content in this game is designed for a specific subgroup of the player base. You're agreeing with the premise and are not even trying to argue with the conclusion instead you're constantly going on and on about unrelated stuff and things you make up like ""But what about legendary gear?" means nothing", let me remind you of your own words:

so yeah, you're really not the one to talk.

 

And there we go, for once you made a statement that's actually relevant to the post you're responding to but the issue here is that you haven't made a single argument as for why that is. I don't see any reason as for why the game can't have both: non-story instenced content that is designed for the enjoyment of the average player and non-story instanced content designed for players which are "looking for more challenging gameplay". All you're ultimately saying with "this content should be harder to run" is that you don't want people who are not looking for more challenging gameplay to enjoy non-story instanced content.

Except the variety doesn't suffer for it.  The variety is just fine.  There's relatively simple OW stuff to do, some complicated OW stuff to do, and complicated content for those that want it, and want to learn it's nuances.  I made this statement, or similar in the first post I replied to you with.  The problem is that you don't seem to like that there's content that's harder, for those that want it, because you want to run it, and can't.  There's no other alternative to why you insist that having this unrelated to story content "makes the game suffer".  It doesn't.  If it locked you out of story completion, then yeah?  But it doesn't.  I know I have multiple completions of the story w/out ever setting foot in it.

There are means available to players that want to experience the content w/out the hassle of dealing with "you must be this tall to ride this ride", use the provided LFG tool, and create your own learning group.  Dungeons and fractals have easier modes for learning.  Use them, if you want to play the content.  Because w/out doing that, it's just another "but I want a solo mode" thing, and we really don't need that.  It's an MMO, and the group content exists to encourage grouping, the horror, in an MMO, I know, and where it does have modes, to help players learn to play in a group setting.  The game doesn't suffer because someone is unwilling to use the tools the game provides.

[Tails.9372]

4 hours ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

Except the variety doesn't suffer for it.  The variety is just fine.  There's relatively simple OW stuff to do, some complicated OW stuff to do, and complicated content for those that want it, and want to learn it's nuances.  I made this statement, or similar in the first post I replied to you with.

No you didn't and even if you did it wouldn't have mattered because as you just admitted OW content offers a variety you don't want to see in non-story instanced content and it's getting rather sad seeing you tap-danceing around actually coming up with a reason to justify your position here.

4 hours ago, robertthebard.8150 said:

The problem is that you don't seem to like that there's content that's harder, for those that want it, because you want to run it, and can't.  There's no other alternative to why you insist that having this unrelated to story content "makes the game suffer". 

Sure there is, you just don't seem to be able to comprehend that people are capable to call out issues they themselves are not suffering from so you come up with baseless nonsense like "you don't seem to like that there's content that's harder, for those that want it" in spite of the fact that in the very post you were replying to I even argued for the existence of such content.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Tails.9372

[voltaicbore.8012]

12 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

I hate to be the one to introduce some semblance of reality to you, but they did not just close down some side projects.  That's what they told you and of course you can make it look like a win on a balance sheet any time the company "saves money" this way.  Only a fool would take this as a sign of positive change, however.  It's more likely GW2 was on the chopping block and they decided to give it another go.  How confident are you that EoD can miss and GW2 still gets another chance?

I think you are conflating at least 3 separate issues here:

1. the (very likely) possibility that the layoffs and shuttering of side projects makes the financial situation look more stable and desirable than it is,
2. that GW2 was performing so poorly as to be on the chopping block, and
3. if GW2 can afford to have EoD fail financially.

TLDR; (1) we're probably in some agreement, it's routine practice for such events to be made to look better than they are. (2) is really the only hard disagreement. (3) I agree that ANet can't really afford to have EoD fail, but not because GW2 has been performing so poorly. Rather, it's because I believe the current level of decent performance rests on somewhat brittle player goodwill, which might not withstand EoD being terrible.

I concede that #1 is entirely possible. It's routine corporate practice to use any sort of restructuring to reclaim certain assets and cut certain liabilities to make it look like there was positive change, when the reality is that the business was badly hurt by the failed and abandoned projects. It's just what corporations do (at least my IRL corporate clients, as well as my colleagues' clients, do this), and the painting of a rosier-than-reality picture is just that: rosier than reality. "Looks better than it really is" is an entirely different inference than "OMG we gotta hide these business-ending hemorrhages with cooked books." You can't look at the former and immediately assume the latter is the case.

As for #2, I fully and wholeheartedly contest the idea that GW2 was doing so poorly that the game, on its own financial performance, was on the 'chopping block.' Unless NCSoft or outside investors were footing a significant amount of the bills for the side projects, my understanding is that GW2's revenues funded the side projects. In that scenario this game could operate and support other ventures that were at the time complete money sinks. However, I do admit that the publicly available documents don't explicitly discuss where the GW2 money was going, or where the side project money came from. The assumption I made though (that GW2's revenue funded all or at least a significant proportion of the side project needs) seems reasonable given business experience as well as what ANet themselves have told us.

Finally on issue #3, I actually believe that GW2 cannot afford to have EoD fail financially. But this isn't because I think ANet is so financially dependent on EoD sales themselves to just keep the lights on. Rather, it's because EoD's failure would follow the mess that was Champions, and I fear that a similar failure would steadily bleed off too many current players without attracting enough new (and paying) ones to compensate. The studio might literally survive as a financial entity, but an EoD failure would definitely seem to push very hard into a maintenance mode and devs-updating-resumes situation. To me it's less about the numbers themselves, and more about ANet having worn player goodwill quite thin over the years. Which is saying a lot, given how consumer-friendly this game is. Despite not nickel and diming us for the most part, they've managed to impart a great deal of uncertainty and disconnectedness to many players, and EoD would be a very large and unwelcome addition to that list.

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by voltaicbore.8012

[piitb.7635]

Dungeons are used for two reasons.  Gear treadmills and storytelling.

 

ANet has stayed clear of gear treadmills.  If you played the game for even a few hours you would know this.

 

 

The other, being story, ANet has been able to tell the story they want without the use of dungeons.

 

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

57 minutes ago, voltaicbore.8012 said:

I think you are conflating at least 3 separate issues here:

1. the (very likely) possibility that the layoffs and shuttering of side projects makes the financial situation look more stable and desirable than it is,
2. that GW2 was performing so poorly as to be on the chopping block, and
3. if GW2 can afford to have EoD fail financially.

TLDR; (1) we're probably in some agreement, it's routine practice for such events to be made to look better than they are. (2) is really the only hard disagreement. (3) I agree that ANet can't really afford to have EoD fail, but not because GW2 has been performing so poorly. Rather, it's because I believe the current level of decent performance rests on somewhat brittle player goodwill, which might not withstand EoD being terrible.

I concede that #1 is entirely possible. It's routine corporate practice to use any sort of restructuring to reclaim certain assets and cut certain liabilities to make it look like there was positive change, when the reality is that the business was badly hurt by the failed and abandoned projects. It's just what corporations do (at least my IRL corporate clients, as well as my colleagues' clients, do this), and the painting of a rosier-than-reality picture is just that: rosier than reality. "Looks better than it really is" is an entirely different inference than "OMG we gotta hide these business-ending hemorrhages with cooked books." You can't look at the former and immediately assume the latter is the case.

As for #2, I fully and wholeheartedly contest the idea that GW2 was doing so poorly that the game, on its own financial performance, was on the 'chopping block.' Unless NCSoft or outside investors were footing a significant amount of the bills for the side projects, my understanding is that GW2's revenues funded the side projects. In that scenario this game could operate and support other ventures that were at the time complete money sinks. However, I do admit that the publicly available documents don't explicitly discuss where the GW2 money was going, or where the side project money came from. The assumption I made though (that GW2's revenue funded all or at least a significant proportion of the side project needs) seems reasonable given business experience as well as what ANet themselves have told us.

Finally on issue #3, I actually believe that GW2 cannot afford to have EoD fail financially. But this isn't because I think ANet is so financially dependent on EoD sales themselves to just keep the lights on. Rather, it's because EoD's failure would follow the mess that was Champions, and I fear that a similar failure would steadily bleed off too many current players without attracting enough new (and paying) ones to compensate. The studio might literally survive as a financial entity, but an EoD failure would definitely seem to push very hard into a maintenance mode and devs-updating-resumes situation. To me it's less about the numbers themselves, and more about ANet having worn player goodwill quite thin over the years. Which is saying a lot, given how consumer-friendly this game is. Despite not nickel and diming us for the most part, they've managed to impart a great deal of uncertainty and disconnectedness to many players, and EoD would be a very large and unwelcome addition to that list.

 

 

 

So, basically a history of being poorly managed with a lot on the line in the immediate future?  Sounds about right.