Astralporing.1957 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 2 hours ago, yann.1946 said: Isnt forcing other people to play with you also lording over others? Yes. And that's why pushing people into content they dislike is bad. 6 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 3 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said: Yes. And that's why pushing people into content they dislike is bad. We have agreed before that some pushing is good. I really do not want to go over that discussion again. 1 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 13 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: Sure, it is not only 1/0 or yes/no. I just gave same examples where I experienced first-hand the negative effects of mixing that would not happen without mixing. Does it mean it happens always? No. Maybe it is not the mixing itself that creates the problems but some underlying issue that only manifests because of mixing? Yes. Could Anet solve some of this problems by changing the game? Yes. Should Anet and the Community have an open discussion about all this to reduce the problems and negative effects? Yes. Do I belive that Anet would do this? No. Do you believe there are cases in the game where mixing has a net positive impact on the game atm? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephire.8049 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 37 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: I am not a game designer. But instead of forcing people ("you MUST do the strike if you want the advertised turtle") you can give players an incentive to do so without punishing them and give them a positive motivation. They kinda did this with the Skyscale. You could do a bunch of jumping puzzles but if you didn't/couldn't do them, you could make or buy food instead. It encouraged you to do content you may have not tried before or weren't sure about but it didn't force you to do it if you didn't want to. Have things for the turtle drop from strikes, metas, etc. sure, but there's no reason they couldn't include an alternative route that has a time or gold cost to it. If you want the mount ASAP or don't care, you'll do the content they want you to experience but if you know you don't like that content, you aren't forced to do it. Everyone's happy because no one is forced into (possible) high conflict situations they aren't comfortable with for a feature that was heavily advertised and implied to not need multiple instances of forced group content to get. 6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 38 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: Don't push people but make them an offer that they can accept (or not). Players that already know that they do not like some type of content should NOT be pushed into that content. I have to say that that is a pretty empty statement. What others consider an offer others consider a push. (Also the reason these pushes are sometimes nessecary are because people dont always already know they dislike something even if they think they do.) If you want i can give some examples. 38 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: I am not a game designer. But instead of forcing people ("you MUST do the strike if you want the advertised turtle") you can give players an incentive to do so without punishing them and give them a positive motivation. Two examples: "fractal week" (a special event with extra loot and more, that Anet did and advertised). Or give alternative ways to achieve something that are sligthly longer (player can get the turtle without strike mission, but it will take a little bit longer). And then players have the choice to choose the fastest way (strike) and check it out (if they are unsure if they like strikes) or take the longer way (if they really don't like strikes). THere is a point to be made there, i do think that with strikes (and mostly raids) there is a strong stigma that hangs over these gamemodes which is not matching reality. (The community is absolutely not as toxic as these fora pretend they are). This makes it that you need to have a pretty hard push te get people who might enjoy it but are turned of by community perception to try it. The same is true for PvP modes for example. Originally i had this idea i hated pvp for example, but after doing some WvW for the gift of battle and (i forgot wat i started pvp for) i started enjoying these gamemodes from time to time. Being pushed into them has had a net positive gameplay experience for me. 38 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: GW2 is a game that, in its core design philosophy, gives players a choice (in a lot of things) to achieve something in doing the type of content they have most fun with. Absolutely, but i do think there is place for things which you cant get but one way. (I agree for example that locking the turtle behind a succes of DE was a problem, i personally would have given it after a few losses also, possibly dependent on the percentage health. But i dont agree that locking it behind one strike is a problem. ATM the perception of the collection is so kittend because of DE that they might need to remove the strike req, but that has more to do with DE then anything else.) 38 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: And: Its sometimes not only the content but the behaviour of players that are attracted to that content. Example: Gear check and DPS meter controversy. GW2 does not have it itself because Anet thinks this is a not a good idea and it can create toxicity and they created the test golems instead. But Anet allowed ArcDPS use under some conditions/compromises because the raid community asked for it. One of this is: It is only allowed for players in the same group/squad. For instanced content you have to be in the same group with others and you can not "opt out" so others using ArcDPS do not see your numbers. The only "opt out" is not to go in those instances. And there is a rich debate to be had there, although i have to say that it is the "perception" of the behaviour not the actual behaviour that matters. For example ive seen a lot of people saying that it are just the raiders who are being toxic in DE, but there really is no evidence for that statement. But that does not really matter for the game though. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luthan.5236 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 (edited) I didn't see a lot of toxicity so far. Sometimes there is. Sometimes there is not. Considering that EoD is pretty new it is weird though that there are even - though not that much - people complaining about failing events. Most players are pretty new to it. Not everyone is playing 24/7 with focus on meta events since the day of release. I think the commanders (if any decide to command) should try to explain mechanics. Some in Dragon's End did only in a way that it felt like they would remind other players (that know about the meta) about certain stuff - not really explaining a lot in a helpful way. But I also encountered one in Kaineng that explained a bit more. If you want to succeed and know a lot about it - don't complain. Explain. And continue to do so - instead of raging when it does not work every time. It is not the job of the new player to wiki everythintg (there isn't even full info on all the meta - might need a lot more reseach with videos and checking forums) just to make the meta successful for others. Maybe some want to explore themselves - willing to accept explanations but not willing to do research where they need to alt-tab out of the game when they just want to play the game. Most people seem friendly though - when it comes to other stuff. Helpful in the forums. As long as the one asking does ask in a friendly way. Similar ingame. But there seems to be an increased amount of people not reading (or just answering too fast lol). Was so funny in Echovald when someone asked how to get to "that POI west of" (west of the Jade Gate wp I think) - that one was the Vasburg Armory. Constantly people kept trying to tell him that ne needed the Graveseeker achievement when that POI was south and even after explaining some tried to tell him that lol. Weird every now and then. 😄 Edited March 13, 2022 by Luthan.5236 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zok.4956 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 6 minutes ago, yann.1946 said: Do you believe there are cases in the game where mixing has a net positive impact on the game atm? Do you? The purpose of a game (from a gamer perspective) is so that players have fun playing it. If mixing increases the fun (for ALL sides, that mix) it could have a net positive impact. But if we want to have a net positive impact we should first talk about what players experience as "fun" and as "not fun" in general and then look for a common ground. That would be a much bigger discusion (and I think that Anet should start and moderate such discussion), but until Anet steps in, I do not think we can change a lot. Maybe Anet does not want this discussion at all, because they have internally already decided about the (new) way the game should go and don't want this discussion bevore they are ready (with their unannounced projects). Players that want to be toxic, will be toxic, but there is a saying (in marketing) "The product defines the customer". For a game this means: The game design defines, what player types are attracted to the game and how (in general) they behave in the game. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 8 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: Do you? Yes, absolutely. For example I consider the fact you have to engage with the first story step to enter new lw maps a positive way to get people to engage with the story. 8 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: The purpose of a game (from a gamer perspective) is so that players have fun playing it. If mixing increases the fun (for ALL sides, that mix) it could have a net positive impact. But if we want to have a net positive impact we should first talk about what players experience as "fun" and as "not fun" in general and then look for a common ground. It can also be a net positive when a subset of the population has lost fun. For example people who really hate raids being added to the game might say that while it is true that some joy is lost from the hardcore community if raids where deleted, it would be a net positive. 8 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: That would be a much bigger discusion (and I think that Anet should start and moderate such discussion), but until Anet steps in, I do not think we can change a lot. I was never under the impression that we can change a lot as a person. As a group maybe we can. 8 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: Maybe Anet does not want this discussion at all, because they have internally already decided about the (new) way the game should go and don't want this discussion bevore they are ready (with their unannounced projects). 8 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: Players that want to be toxic, will be toxic, but there is a saying (in marketing) "The product defines the customer". For a game this means: The game design defines, what player types are attracted to the game and how (in general) they behave in the game. While I agree that specific content promotes specific behavior, sometimes the behavior people expect to get is not what they get. I've seen multiple treads pop up over time of the form, "I thought this community (pvp, WvW, raid, etc.) was toxic, but I started and I'm having a really good time. 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, yann.1946 said: We have agreed before that some pushing is good. I really do not want to go over that discussion again. Have we? I don't think so, unless we understand something completely different with this term. And if we've had, it definitely wasn't about the kind of pushing that is brought up in this thread. 1 hour ago, yann.1946 said: Do you believe there are cases in the game where mixing has a net positive impact on the game atm? Not when that mixing is involuntary from at least one of the sides. It can only work if the goals of all the people mixing together do not conflict in any way. To be more precise: i do not consider shortterm gains made by making a large part of the game population unhappy to be positive longterm. Edited March 13, 2022 by Astralporing.1957 6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gehenna.3625 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 8 hours ago, Doctor Hide.6345 said: I'll be honest here. Gear check will always be toxicity in my opinion and you don't do enough damage because that kind of talk is elitism in my eyes. And I personally despise Elitism because to me it is people lording over others. It doesn't matter if they mean it or not. The very fact you have requirements makes it toxic, and I will call it just that. I know a lot would disagree with me there, but I have had this opinion a long time in games and all the MMO play. Just my take at least. /shrug Well if the content requires a certain level pf dps and a group will always fail at the content because there's not enough dps then it's still toxic in your view. But that also means that per your definition ArenaNet creates content that is toxic, because it requires a certain amount of dps to do it or the fight fails. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said: Well if the content requires a certain level pf dps and a group will always fail at the content because there's not enough dps then it's still toxic in your view. But that also means that per your definition ArenaNet creates content that is toxic, because it requires a certain amount of dps to do it or the fight fails. Content itself is never toxic. It can however push players towards toxic behaviour. Yes, a content that requires a certain level of dps that group will never be able to reach does push players towards toxicity. That toxicity will or will not happen depending on specific personalities of players, of course, but the design of that content will make the toxicity far more likely. Edited March 13, 2022 by Astralporing.1957 6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlenaVolkova.8179 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 I'm sorry, but this isn't really new, it's been like that ever since HoT was released, too. The toxicity has been there, but it's EoD that finally unveiled this ugliness to the surface. You lots remember how salty it was during Dragon's Stand meta initially? Yea, good and bad times, and less RNG on the tail part. However, the reason why DE is much more negative, is due to the amount of effort and the gain aren't equalized properly. At least you'd still be getting tier rewards in Dragon's Stand, should you fail the meta. In Dragon's End, you get less than that, and imo, luck essence IS NOT LOOT. By any means, Anet should've put this into instanced meta similar to Dragon Storm, if they truly want only just players with raid gears to beat DE. Because they forgot the fact we can have players that just returned from years of hiatus, freshly installed GW2 after buying EoD, paired up with who had been playing for years. And it makes everyone hate each other. Or at least, make this DE meta biggest end game meta, because the fact this is close to end times, should've made it at least 100 players, divided into groups for coordination-focused meta like Dragon's Stand. 6 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchslein.8639 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 The only "Increasing" toxity i personally see, is in the forum with the full EOD-bashing in every positive thread about the Expansion. Before EOD this was never a thing, or mods removed this negativity in positive threads who said thank you and so on, i don't know. 2 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zok.4956 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 1 hour ago, yann.1946 said: Yes, absolutely. For example I consider the fact you have to engage with the first story step to enter new lw maps a positive way to get people to engage with the story. Story and open worlds maps are not really different game (sub-)types but attract (mostly) the same player type. I do not think that it is really mixing of different player types, if its mostly the same player type. But still: Anet mad it the way that you have only a very small story until you enter the map and the story is optional for entering the maps. You can simply just teleport-to-friend if you want to go to the new maps without story. I, for example, teleported into Arborstone because some friends wanted to do the new strikes with me but I was not there yet with my story. For example: It would even be more "engaging with the story", if Anet made finishing the story (and all maps/story meta achievements) mandatory for to be able to go into the new strikes. But that would be bad and "pushing" and "punishing" in my opinion. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zok.4956 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 19 hours ago, nutri.1385 said: I've just listened to MightyTeapot's point of view on this topic. Here it is, if someone is interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_L4dZCfKFI Thats a 45 minute long youtube-podcast. TL;DR. Do you have a short summary of important statements from that video? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydev.9521 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 In response to the original post on this topic, fellow gamer, if you think anything you've seen in GW2 chat is really toxic, well, I don't think you know the meaning of the word "Toxic" as it has been used in English slang. I come from World of Warcraft, Overwatch, and League of Legends. There's some toxic chat for ya in those games. I've only been playing GW2 for a little over two months. I expected the same amount of vitriol and flaming in chat just as I did from the other games I mentioned. I was nominally surprised that the jerks are the exception and not the rule in GW2. But I have seen a fair share of inappropriate chat and foul language (I'd be shocked if there wasn't any at all.) Since I game to relax and don't want to read the same profanity I heard in high school or at work all day from angry customers, I report these "exceptions." But whether ArenaNet promptly punishes these offenders, I have no idea. Blizzard and Riot didn't seem to move very quickly on bad behavior. I know the developers of "Lord of the Rings: Online" had a zero tolerance for jerks. But all the other big gaming companies were more concerned about their profit margins then kicking a few thousand paying customers out; kicking players from the game hurt that bottom line. Oh, well. At least my block list in GW2 is endless. As many of the other gaming companies lose players from their ongoing scandals, a lot of the relatively smaller MMO's are going to see the player numbers go up a little. And that's going to bring the jerks in, too. So, I would hope the developers are quick to tell said jerks "We don't want you in our game" and ban them. Because I can tell you for a fact that chat silences and 24 hour bans are not going to make anyone behave. 2 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 6 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: Story and open worlds maps are not really different game (sub-)types but attract (mostly) the same player type. I do not think that it is really mixing of different player types, if its mostly the same player type. You seem to have missed the treads who pop up from time to time about people complaining that they have to do the first storystep. 6 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: But still: Anet mad it the way that you have only a very small story until you enter the map and the story is optional for entering the maps. The workaround is not just a walk into the map thing. In the end that does not matter that much for my point though, it is a case where the game pushes you into a piece of content to do another. And as far as i remember you actually do need to de the first story for season 3. 6 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: You can simply just teleport-to-friend if you want to go to the new maps without story. I, for example, teleported into Arborstone because some friends wanted to do the new strikes with me but I was not there yet with my story. Can you get into arborstone without the mastery? 6 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said: For example: It would even be more "engaging with the story", if Anet made finishing the story (and all maps/story meta achievements) mandatory for to be able to go into the new strikes. But that would be bad and "pushing" and "punishing" in my opinion. Thats why its a matter of degree, I'm not saying we should just have one acquistion method for everything. I just think there is merit into some pushing (even if it causes short term friction)? And i wouldnt consider pushing one singular strike as a problem. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said: Have we? I don't think so, unless we understand something completely different with this term. And if we've had, it definitely wasn't about the kind of pushing that is brought up in this thread. Well it was about a conversation about shallow and deep forced engagement where you said that you considered swallow forced engagement okay. (You said back then, you might have changed your mind, that you did not consider the GoB a problem because it was shallow engagement) 1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said: Not when that mixing is involuntary from at least one of the sides. It can only work if the goals of all the people mixing together do not conflict in any way. Strong disagree, mixing will always be involuntary to some degree 1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said: To be more precise: i do not consider shortterm gains made by making a large part of the game population unhappy to be positive longterm. Its funny, because mixing playstyles and pushing gamemodes is about exactly the opposite. The goal is to make positive long termgains, which might cause short term negativity (altough it does not have to have the shortterm negative effect.). 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 5 minutes ago, yann.1946 said: Well it was about a conversation about shallow and deep forced engagement where you said that you considered swallow forced engagement okay. (You said back then, you might have changed your mind, that you did not consider the GoB a problem because it was shallow engagement) Then you misunderstood me. I never said i consider shallow engageent good. I just meant that it's not a (major) problem. It's not the same. 5 minutes ago, yann.1946 said: Strong disagree, mixing will always be involuntary to some degree Then it will always be a problem to at least certain degree, and the best we might hope for is for that problem to be small. 5 minutes ago, yann.1946 said: Its funny, because mixing playstyles and pushing gamemodes is about exactly the opposite. The goal is to make positive long termgains, which might cause short term negativity (altough it does not have to have the shortterm negative effect.). Then it's doubly funny how it usually achieves the exact opposite effect. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teratus.2859 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 (edited) It's always been there. There have always been toxic behaviours in both the casual and the hardcore community, my theory on why it seems more common now is because so many people are hitting a wall with the new meta event. They're just angry, frustrated.. and they're venting that out into the game and sometimes onto other players. Truth is, venting is a very healthy thing for people to do.. it helps them deal with stress, frustration and allows them to cope when they feel stuck. You don't want people bottling that kind of thing up, that's how controllers end up getting thrown across rooms and severely, genuinely offensive things get said... it's not good to bottle things up like that, and it's borderline cruel and inhumane to force people to. I can understand how people may not like seeing people vent and make jokes or say inappropriate things. That's perfectly fair and you shouldn't have to put up with stuff like that if you find it distasteful and offensive. It's also fair to say these people should just leave the game and cool off when they are so irritated, maybe they should do that, it probably would help some of them.. but you can't force them to do it. But with that said, it is also fair for them to point out that if you have a problem with the things they say or the jokes they make, then you do have the freedom to right click on their names and block them so you can't see it anymore. By all means report them for bad language too if you feel like any comment aimed at you was completely undeserved, that's more than fair as well. Blocking people is more than sufficient to remove jokes and things you find offensive from the chat.. or more specifically from your experience. Anet give us this tool so they don't have to spend time and resources pouring over mountains of chat logs and penalizing players for every little thing they've said or done that may offend someone else. The simple fact here and this goes well beyond Guildwars 2 and all other games, is that this whole subject about what it offensive and what isn't offensive.. what you can say and what you can't say is a ridiculous overcomplicated mess that is largely based on factors and feelings that are constantly changing on a hourly basis. It's irrational and illogical to think anything like that can be or should be controlled when free will exists and free expression is a fundamental human right. And there is no path what so ever where trying to suppress peoples free will and free expression doesn't make you the villain in that scenario. What it really comes down to is a simple difference in sense of humour, some people find just about everything funny, other people find just about everything offensive.. and the vast majority of people vary somewhere in the middle of those extremes. I'm not making excuses for anyone's bad behaviour, harassing people is not ok.. bullying people is not ok.. excluding people is not ok.. But censoring people is also not ok.. and it's not the answer either. If you find the things other people say offensive or distasteful then use the tools available to you and block them. That is pretty much the only thing you can do, tailor your game to your preferences and leave other people to do the same. The bigger issue around this event and the real toxic behaviour that do need addressing are not the jokes and the edgyness that some people put into the chat to cheer themselves up, as said above you even have the ability to not see if it bothers you. The bigger problem is the intentional sabotage of the event, and bullying around it.. the real toxic behaviours. The Trolls: Those who intentionally run down the clock in the wisp phase to make the event fail. The Profiteers: Those who refuse to participate in the event and demand payment to leave the map. The Elitists: Those who bully and exclude people in an attempt to get them to leave the map. The lazybones: Those who die and refuse to waypoint, expecting to be revived.. come on guys it's been 10 years we should be past this by now XD The Leechers: Those who hide and don't actively participate and just want to rush in and get the rewards at the end. The Egotists: People who attack and blame everyone else for the event failing. These be some of the behaviours that are far more of a problem and actually impact the event very negatively. As you can see from just this list alone there is no one community causing problems here, it's not a hardcore player vs casual player problem. And we need to stop looking at it that way because it is only fuelling the elitism and toxicity behaviours that are dividing this community and tearing it apart. There are Casuals and Hardcore players on the same page about this meta event, on both sides when it comes to the "should this event be nerfed" discussion. Don't let the toxic behaviours of selfish or arrogant players blind you to that, and don't allow those behaviours to continue in your communities. Call it out when you see it and report it. Edited March 13, 2022 by Teratus.2859 2 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 32 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said: Then you misunderstood me. I never said i consider shallow engageent good. I just meant that it's not a (major) problem. It's not the same. Ok, then i sorry i apperently misunderstood. 32 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said: Then it will always be a problem to at least certain degree, and the best we might hope for is for that problem to be small. The best we can hope for is that the positives outweigh the negatives. 32 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said: Then it's doubly funny how it usually achieves the exact opposite effect. And this people, is confirmation/survivorship bias in effect. You see the negative effects, and cant see the positive ones because we dont have the numbers and conclude that it only does the negatives. And then we go around with annocdotes where you say look at these people complaining and quitting and i say look at these people saying there happy that they were pushed to try new things and we go around and around in a silly dance without end because we have no data at end to back this up anyway. Personally i believe that the fact that in almost all games this pushing happens to some degree that the merit probably outweigh the negatives. Now im not saying that all pushing is good, you obciously can go to far (i agree that DE is/was a problem ) but i wouldnt say that all pshing is bad. 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jianyu.7065 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 Understanding the current level of toxicity resides in calculating a past to present comparison of how often players blatantly refuse to revive downed players. I remember a time when players would go out of their way to revive. Lately it seems one even gets left behind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xorthos.6947 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 Eh the toxicity level was kinda creeping up before EoD. Some folks are getting very elitist in PUG content. Had a buddy of mine kicked out of an open LFG "easy three" Strikes squad about a month ago because he was asked to link his spec and gear, and was not using full ascended, and a snowcrows meta build. Had never seen that before. 3 4 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zok.4956 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 3 hours ago, yann.1946 said: Can you get into arborstone without the mastery? Yes. With teleport-to-friend. That's what I have written already. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zok.4956 Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 6 hours ago, yann.1946 said: This makes it that you need to have a pretty hard push te get people who might enjoy it but are turned of by community perception to try it. The same is true for PvP modes for example. Originally i had this idea i hated pvp for example, but after doing some WvW for the gift of battle and (i forgot wat i started pvp for) i started enjoying these gamemodes from time to time. Being pushed into them has had a net positive gameplay experience for me. Its good for you, that you liked it. But others maybe do not like to be "hard pushed" into something they already know they don't like. When HoT released, Anet tried to "hard push" (or just push) all players into more challenging content as a stepping stone for Colin Johansens PvP / eSports ambitions for the game. The result was that a lot of players just left the game and the studio had to do some reversal of their strategy. 6 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts