ANet responsibility toward Asura and Charrs

[Kulvar.1239]

There are 2 major issues that cause these races to be least played than they could that are all ANet fault.

Asura : Redo their feet to properly be feet with 3 toes and not a weird cone with side cones. It especially obnoxious when 80% of the shoes have the side "toes" stick out.

Charr : Stop making haircut for them. What ANet should design for them are manes.

[kharmin.7683]

I hardly believe these to be major issues.

[Scalacious.4139]

The most played race (and gender) will always be the one that is considered the most pretty and since all players are human, we tend to races that look more or less human (norn and sylvari) or are just humans.

[Gehenna.3625]

25 minutes ago, Kulvar.1239 said:

There are 2 major issues that cause these races to be least played than they could that are all ANet fault.

Asura : Redo their feet to properly be feet with 3 toes and not a weird cone with side cones. It especially obnoxious when 80% of the shoes have the side "toes" stick out.

Charr : Stop making haircut for them. What ANet should design for them are manes.

Neither of these will make me play Asura or Charr more. I have one Asura that's still level 20 something that I don't really play and no Charr at all. I'm glad those two races exist for the people who do love them, but they are what they are.

It's interesting though that for Asura you want to make them more human and for Charr you want to make them less human.

[Veprovina.4876]

None of that is why those races are the least played (if they even are)...

[Scalacious.4139]

5 minutes ago, Veprovina.4876 said:

None of that is why those races are the least played (if they even are)...

If we count playtime, then humans are at the top with 44,74 %, followed by sylvari (15,6%), asura (15,17%), norn (14,58%) and charr (9,92%).

[kharmin.7683]

1 minute ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

If we count playtime, then humans are at the top with 44,74 %, followed by sylvari (15,6%), asura (15,17%), norn (14,58%) and charr (9,92%).

Based on what?

[Scalacious.4139]

1 minute ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Based on what?

https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics

[kharmin.7683]

1 minute ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics

Right.  Everyone cites that source, but it is nowhere indicative of the entire player base since players must opt-in to it.

Edited October 19, 2022 by kharmin.7683

[Scalacious.4139]

Just now, kharmin.7683 said:

Right.  Everyone cites that source, but it is nowhere indicative of the entire player base since players must opt-in to it.

Yes, that's right. Nevertheless, the site gives a good, rough overview and I doubt very much that the complete figures would show a completely different ratio of the races.

[Veprovina.4876]

2 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Right.  Everyone cites that source, but it is nowhere indicative of the entire player base since players must opt-in to it.

I agree, but it seems pretty accurate.

 

I doubt mostly human players opted in, while charr players mostly didn't making the whole thing skewed in one direction, the averages of players who opted in are probably close to all players who play so it can be considered valid.

[kharmin.7683]

1 minute ago, Veprovina.4876 said:

 the averages of players who opted in are probably close to all players who play so it can be considered valid.

That's a really broad assumption.

[lezbefriends.7516]

Pl

27 minutes ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

The most played race (and gender) will always be the one that is considered the most pretty and since all players are human, we tend to races that look more or less human (norn and sylvari) or are just humans.

People are familiar with orcs, dwarves, gnomes, etc. in a fantasy setting. I don’t know why we got these abominations in order to be more like WoW. 

[Scalacious.4139]

1 minute ago, lezbefriends.7516 said:

People are familiar with orcs, dwarves, gnomes, etc. in a fantasy setting. I don’t know why we got these abominations in order to be more like WoW. 

To be honest, I very much like that gw2 has their own fantasy player races instead of having the generic orc/dwarf/elf/gnomes and so on.

[Gibson.4036]

1 hour ago, Kulvar.1239 said:

 

Asura : Redo their feet to properly be feet with 3 toes and not a weird cone with side cones. It especially obnoxious when 80% of the shoes have the side "toes" stick out.

Since Asura are superior in every other way, this is needed to keep diversity.

[Gehenna.3625]

19 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

That's a really broad assumption.

Well it's an assumption that it's a broad assumption. You don't know that.

25 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Right.  Everyone cites that source, but it is nowhere indicative of the entire player base since players must opt-in to it.

And this is also an assumption on your part. It might be indicative, it might not.

 

"I don't know" is all any of us can say when it comes to that. So please, don't accuse others of making assumptions when you make them just the same.

 

[Danikat.8537]

I have a male and female character of each race (and an extra sylvari) and I'm seriously considering a 3rd charr and none of these things would make any difference to my decisions.

Personally I like that GW2's races are fairly original and that the asura and charr are distinctly non-human looking. Fantasy races are less interesting to me when they're all basically variations on humans. The asuras feet do look weird to me, but I think it would look at least as weird if they were more like human feet with 3 toes (which I assume is what the OP means by "properly be feet"). As for charr I like that we get a variety of hair styles and if I want more of a mane (which I do on one of them) I have that option. There are some styles I'd probably never use, but the same is true for all the races and it would be absurd to expect Anet to tailor all the options to what I do like.
 

37 minutes ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

If we count playtime, then humans are at the top with 44,74 %, followed by sylvari (15,6%), asura (15,17%), norn (14,58%) and charr (9,92%).

I think the nearest we have to an official version is the 1st anniversary infographic, which gives percentage breakdowns of characters created by race, as well as profession: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/guild-wars-2-the-first-year/
36% human
19% norn
16% asura
15% sylvari
13% charr

That's a bit different because it's the percentage of characters created, not time played on them. It's also 9 years old now. But it is direct from Anet. As far as I can see they haven't done a breakdown like that since, but the PoF infographic did say male human warrior was the most popular and female charr revenant was the least popular, so it wouldn't surprise me if the overall percentages haven't shifted much.

[kharmin.7683]

22 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Well it's an assumption that it's a broad assumption. You don't know that.

And this is also an assumption on your part. It might be indicative, it might not.

 

"I don't know" is all any of us can say when it comes to that. So please, don't accuse others of making assumptions when you make them just the same.

 

Those aren't even valid arguments.

[Gehenna.3625]

15 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Those aren't even valid arguments.

And yet they are.

[Fueki.4753]

1 hour ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics

We have no way of knowing how close these numbers resemble real statistics, unless Arenanet releases official statistics.

Also, that site does not reflect a vertical slice of the player base, so it can't be extrapolated across the entire fanbase in a reasonable manner.

I'd even guess that the registered accounts are very far from the majority of the playerbase, as most players in this game don't even remotely care about efficiency.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Fueki.4753

[Kulvar.1239]

To everyone saying you wouldn't play Asura or Charr even with those changes, you're not the people for which these changes are asked.

The goal is also not to make those races the most played.

These changes are for people who would play Asura or Charr if not for the low effort feet or terrible haircuts.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Kulvar.1239

[Veprovina.4876]

1 hour ago, kharmin.7683 said:

That's a really broad assumption.

So?

[Kulvar.1239]

1 hour ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

It's interesting though that for Asura you want to make them more human and for Charr you want to make them less human.

How do you came to think that 3-toed mole feet with claws were "more human" ?

I only asked for a better model than 3 glued cones.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Kulvar.1239

[Vilin.8056]

Or maybe it's simply that the other 3 races possess more sexual attraction than the rest.

[Danikat.8537]

22 minutes ago, Fueki.4753 said:

We have no way of knowing how close these numbers resemble real statistics, unless Arenanet releases official statistics.

Also, that site does not reflect a vertical slice of the player base, so it can't be extrapolated across the entire fanbase in a reasonable manner.

I'd even guess that the registered accounts are very far from the majority of the playerbase, as most players in this game don't even remotely care about efficiency.

The site name is a bit misleading in terms of what it actually offers. I didn't use it for years for exactly that reason: I don't care about 'efficiency' in games and the main appeal seemed to be tracking how much gold they estimate your account is worth, which is irrelevant to me. But it does a lot of other things too.

I started using it mainly for the item search function, which is useful when you have a lot of characters and also use it periodically to check other things, like which character would benefit most from an item which dropped, or which plant I have the least of in material storage when I'm replacing one in my home instance garden. (I could check both within the game, but it would take longer.)

It's definitely using data from a minority of accounts, but in situations like this I think it's likely to be representative. It seems unlikely that players who would use that site are more likely than average to have human characters. (The sample size and source would be more of an issue for things like what percentage of players have a legendary item, or have completed a particular achievement, since I think long-term players who have a lot of stuff are more likely to use it.)
 

18 minutes ago, Kulvar.1239 said:

To everyone saying you wouldn't play Asura or Charr even with those changes, you're not the people for which these changes are asked.

The goal is also not to make those races the most played.

These changes are for people who would play Asura or Charr if not for the low effort feet or terrible haircuts.

I assume you're also excluding people who already play asura and charr, since they're clearly not put off by these specific features.

That seems like a very niche request then. I know some people complain about asuran feet, but usually only asking for shoes to fit over them properly, not asking for the feet themselves to be changed. I can't remember seeing anyone say they won't play charr because there aren't enough hairstyles that look like manes.