Legendary Relics are Coming Soon

[Labjax.2465]

3 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

For those people complaining, what would you do to provide goals for veteran players?

Creating relics seems like a pretty sensible move to me. The old system with the 6th Rune containing the special bonus was significantly more limited in how easily they could add new special bonuses because unless the stats for the first 5 runes are exactly right for a build people aren't going to use that rune set. Separating the special bonus out into relics objectively gives them a lot more flexibility to provide new special bonuses which will actually be used by players. So the change tidied up how it worked, added build flexibility and gave Anet something they could expand upon in future expansion. It's a solid change, I run a software team (not games) and I think if I was in their position I would have gone for it.

A lot of the complaints in this forum seem to be short sighted or even contradictory. "I'm 10k hours in and bored cause I have done everything, give me more things to do and new goals, but don't actually add anything new for me to aim for because horizontal progression prohibits that, also if you do add anything I need everything unlocked and available without playing any of the game.". How does anyone develop a game for people who have reached that mindset?

Working in software doesn't mean you understand Guild Wars 2 the game, or game design in general. You can read up through the thread for explanations on what's wrong with the change. If you have pointed questions, you can ask in this thread and if I happen to check back, I might try to answer. It feels very obvious to me what is wrong with it, but I have quite a bit of mechanics familiarity with GW2, as well as with its reputation as a game (what makes it stand out in how people talk about it, historically), and with how that relates to game design. I can see there are a number of people in this thread who also understand and have offered some choice words on the subject, and they may be able to help you understand too.

[Ashantara.8731]

13 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Problem is, all those changes they're pushing are because they are apparently either not willing or no longer able to provide those things you want.

I am afraid so, too, but I will leave my final judgment for the next two Updates. If this trend continues, I know who won't order the next pseudo-expac.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

20 hours ago, Labjax.2465 said:

Working in software doesn't mean you understand Guild Wars 2 the game, or game design in general. You can read up through the thread for explanations on what's wrong with the change. If you have pointed questions, you can ask in this thread and if I happen to check back, I might try to answer. It feels very obvious to me what is wrong with it, but I have quite a bit of mechanics familiarity with GW2, as well as with its reputation as a game (what makes it stand out in how people talk about it, historically), and with how that relates to game design. I can see there are a number of people in this thread who also understand and have offered some choice words on the subject, and they may be able to help you understand too.

Wow. Ok. So 25 years in software development at all levels, including previously working in game development, plus 2000 hours in GW2 including playing it from the start in 2012 (I had a multi-year hiatus in the middle), doesn’t make me anywhere near as qualified to comment as you. Right. Can I assume you are one of the jaded 10000+ hour players I mentioned then?

Regardless, I did post a pointed question which you didn’t answer. What would YOU do to provide goals for veteran players?

[Pifil.5193]

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Wow. Ok. So 25 years in software development at all levels, including previously working in game development, plus 2000 hours in GW2 including playing it from the start in 2012 (I had a multi-year hiatus in the middle), doesn’t make me anywhere near as qualified to comment as you. Right. Can I assume you are one of the jaded 10000+ hour players I mentioned then?

Regardless, I did post a pointed question which you didn’t answer. What would YOU do to provide goals for veteran players?

Do you think this is a good goal for veteran players?

I mean, I play WvW so I will probably be able to unlock any relic I want in a few hours at most. I'll do the achievements anyway, because they're there, but unlocking a Relic through an achievement is not really a compelling goal for me. They're just another unlock and not that exciting. In fact good looking skins are still far more enticing to me: even if I don't use them I can appreciate the work that went into them but most of Relics that I've unlocked felt pretty irrelevant.

Surely the real point of this isn't to add goals but rather to give them something to lock behind each new expansion? That's especially important for WvW and sPvP players who otherwise will get very little from these expansions. Want the latest greatest OP Relic? Buy the expansion now!

What would I do? Not sure. But I wouldn't consider locking Relics behind achievements and reward tracks to be a good goal for future expansions.

[Labjax.2465]

4 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Wow. Ok. So 25 years in software development at all levels, including previously working in game development, plus 2000 hours in GW2 including playing it from the start in 2012 (I had a multi-year hiatus in the middle), doesn’t make me anywhere near as qualified to comment as you. Right. Can I assume you are one of the jaded 10000+ hour players I mentioned then?

Regardless, I did post a pointed question which you didn’t answer. What would YOU do to provide goals for veteran players?

What I said was true - working in software doesn't imply any sort of understanding of or expertise in video game design; I'm sure you would agree that software development is extremely broad, yes? You did not mention you have worked in game development previously (that's pretty important to the picture you're painting of your alleged expertise).

You seem to have taken offense though, which I'm not sure I understand. I was trying to be understanding about how obvious it feels to me by pointing out my familiarity with certain aspects of the situation. I suggested reading up in the thread because people have already explained the situation at length and I didn't see the reason to try to re-explain when explanations are already there.

The question you asked is not what I would consider a pointed question. I would consider it a vague/general question about providing goals, which can be answered by looking through years of development history in GW2 and how they've (mostly) found ways to come up with forms of horizontal progression that you keep permanently in contrast to the MMO gear grind standard. I don't understand how you can stare that in the face and tell me that it suddenly makes sense to depart from that and ask the players to come up with ways to entertain them when Anet had already figured out how to do that for the last 10 years without ripping out their accomplishments and placing them elsewhere. If Anet has already been doing that a lot and I missed it, then ok, but everything I understand about how this game works and has been historically, it has had its problems, sure, but seems to have been pretty firm overall on the line that you don't mess with what players earned. I mean, they leaned into that design when they made the Legendary Armory, no? Making it abundantly clear what the ultimate progression goal is for convenience, to get a legendary in every slot. And now they intend to undermine the nature of what a legendary is.

As for the implication I'm a jaded player, which has nothing to do with the position I'm taking here, I'll be honest: It pains me to see the game going in the direction it's going in and if I thought it was going in a really cool direction instead, maybe I'd consider coming back if I could find the space for it in my life. But I quit playing in late 2022 and I check back every now and then to see how the game is doing. I care in part for self interest reasons because yeah, it'd be nice to see the game do well knowing what I've put into it in the past and I also care because, well, players deserve better than this. In what other field would it even be a serious point of conversation asking customers to come up with an alternative design because they don't like the one being foisted on them?

Pay the players to work on the game and give them power to make changes, and then we can have that talk. Until then, the whole premise of it is unserious to me. If only you knew the amount of times I've sunk time into writing design-minded, targeted feedback about a video game only to have it fall on deaf ears (and I know I'm not the only one by a long shot). People like me do that in spite of it not being our job to do so and getting paid nothing for it because we care about what happens to the games we play or grew attached to or want to support the players of, but it should never be fielded to us like it is our problem to solve. It is a gift when players go out of their way to give thoughtful feedback. It is not an obligation.

[Ashen.2907]

An awesome goal (to me at least) would be to create content that I want to play through, perhaps even on an alt or three.

[Sobx.1758]

1 minute ago, Ashen.2907 said:

An awesome goal (to me at least) would be to create content that I want to play through, perhaps even on an alt or three.

Now all the devs need is a crystal ball to know what you'll like before they create and release it! 😄

[Ashen.2907]

Just now, Sobx.1758 said:

Now all the devs need is a crystal ball to know what you'll like before they create and release it! 😄

Theyve got plenty of data, no need for a crystal ball. Some of their content is vastly more popular than others. I would just rather not see a focus on more power in the form of rewards as the driver of engagement rather than the content itself.

[Sobx.1758]

2 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Theyve got plenty of data, no need for a crystal ball. Some of their content is vastly more popular than others. I would just rather not see a focus on more power in the form of rewards as the driver of engagement rather than the content itself.

Do you think rewards don't play the role in the popularity of the content though? Where do you think people stick to repeated farm trains, which in turn will show up as "the favored content"? Because as much as I do agree about "not focusing on more power in the form of rewards", if new content is released without "competitive level of rewards", there's a high chance of complaints popping up that the content added nothing because it's better to stick to [whatever older farm they're already running most of the time].
What if, you know, anet's data did show exactly that the rewards are main driver for content replayability and they just didn't want to go for ever increasing gold reward in every newly released map?

[Cyninja.2954]

18 hours ago, Labjax.2465 said:

What I said was true - working in software doesn't imply any sort of understanding of or expertise in video game design; I'm sure you would agree that software development is extremely broad, yes? You did not mention you have worked in game development previously (that's pretty important to the picture you're painting of your alleged expertise).

You seem to have taken offense though, which I'm not sure I understand. I was trying to be understanding about how obvious it feels to me by pointing out my familiarity with certain aspects of the situation. I suggested reading up in the thread because people have already explained the situation at length and I didn't see the reason to try to re-explain when explanations are already there.

The question you asked is not what I would consider a pointed question. I would consider it a vague/general question about providing goals, which can be answered by looking through years of development history in GW2 and how they've (mostly) found ways to come up with forms of horizontal progression that you keep permanently in contrast to the MMO gear grind standard. I don't understand how you can stare that in the face and tell me that it suddenly makes sense to depart from that and ask the players to come up with ways to entertain them when Anet had already figured out how to do that for the last 10 years without ripping out their accomplishments and placing them elsewhere. If Anet has already been doing that a lot and I missed it, then ok, but everything I understand about how this game works and has been historically, it has had its problems, sure, but seems to have been pretty firm overall on the line that you don't mess with what players earned. I mean, they leaned into that design when they made the Legendary Armory, no? Making it abundantly clear what the ultimate progression goal is for convenience, to get a legendary in every slot. And now they intend to undermine the nature of what a legendary is.

As for the implication I'm a jaded player, which has nothing to do with the position I'm taking here, I'll be honest: It pains me to see the game going in the direction it's going in and if I thought it was going in a really cool direction instead, maybe I'd consider coming back if I could find the space for it in my life. But I quit playing in late 2022 and I check back every now and then to see how the game is doing. I care in part for self interest reasons because yeah, it'd be nice to see the game do well knowing what I've put into it in the past and I also care because, well, players deserve better than this. In what other field would it even be a serious point of conversation asking customers to come up with an alternative design because they don't like the one being foisted on them?

Pay the players to work on the game and give them power to make changes, and then we can have that talk. Until then, the whole premise of it is unserious to me. If only you knew the amount of times I've sunk time into writing design-minded, targeted feedback about a video game only to have it fall on deaf ears (and I know I'm not the only one by a long shot). People like me do that in spite of it not being our job to do so and getting paid nothing for it because we care about what happens to the games we play or grew attached to or want to support the players of, but it should never be fielded to us like it is our problem to solve. It is a gift when players go out of their way to give thoughtful feedback. It is not an obligation.

You are thus not the target audience any more. It's that simple.

The developers had to make changes to keep the game afloat. This included less (but still very) consumer friendly monetization (aka the new mini expansion system).

It also includes more grind ever since the IBS. Why? Because their internal metrics probably show that it keeps players engaged longer. Which the game desperately needed. The "hey log in every 3 months and play for 1 week" model didn't pay the bills.

You said it yourself: you quit 2022. You aren't paying the bills and the developers are likely best advised to cater to current players, even with changes which some might disagree with short term, if it leads to overall more engagement. 

You get to keep come and complain on the forums obviously, because the bills are payed by other players, in part due to changes you disagree with. That's the funny irony here.

Mistwraithe is right on 1 thing: this game has a large amount of players which both complain about lack of things to do while also complaining about any changes which might aleviate this.

Edited February 14 by Cyninja.2954

[Labjax.2465]

3 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Theyve got plenty of data, no need for a crystal ball. Some of their content is vastly more popular than others. I would just rather not see a focus on more power in the form of rewards as the driver of engagement rather than the content itself.

Exactly. There is nothing mysterious about figuring out this problem. It's very odd that some are talking about it like the route being chosen is some sort of corner Anet was forced into. It's not as though Anet listed an exhaustive investigation into possibilities and explained in detail why this was the best they felt they could come up with. People are essentially being told "trust us, this is for the best and there's no alternative," even if they don't like it.

[Sobx.1758]

4 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

Exactly. There is nothing mysterious about figuring out this problem. It's very odd that some are talking about it like the route being chosen is some sort of corner Anet was forced into.

3 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Do you think rewards don't play the role in the popularity of the content though? Where do you think people stick to repeated farm trains, which in turn will show up as "the favored content"? Because as much as I do agree about "not focusing on more power in the form of rewards", if new content is released without "competitive level of rewards", there's a high chance of complaints popping up that the content added nothing because it's better to stick to [whatever older farm they're already running most of the time].
What if, you know, anet's data did show exactly that the rewards are main driver for content replayability and they just didn't want to go for ever increasing gold reward in every newly released map?

"Exactly".

 

9 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

It's not as though Anet listed an exhaustive investigation into possibilities and explained in detail why this was the best they felt they could come up with. People are essentially being told "trust us, this is for the best and there's no alternative," even if they don't like it.

It doesn't matter what they'd say, you'd label it as "corporate speech" and it probably wouldn't be the first time. In every other of your recent posts you're repeating how you quit the game in [whatever year] -as if it's supposed to mean anything to anyone- and yet you're here because "you care so much", totally not to stir the pot. 🤷‍♂️

[Labjax.2465]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

You are thus not the target audience any more. It's that simple.

The developers had to make changes to keep the game afloat. This included less (but still very) consumer friendly monetization (aka the new mini expansion system).

It also includes more grind ever since the IBS. Why? Because their internal metrics probably show that it keeps players engaged longer. Which the game desperately needed. The "hey log in every 3 months and play for 1 week" model didn't pay the bills.

You said it yourself: you quit 2022. You aren't paying the bills and the developers are likely best advised to cater to current players, even with changes which some might disagree with short term, if it leads to overall more engagement. 

You get to keep come and complain on the forums obviously, because the bills are payed by other players, in part due to changes you disagree with. That's the funny irony here.

Mistwraithe is right on 1 thing: this game has a large amount of players which both complain about lack of things to do while also complaining about any changes which might aleviate this.

There are obviously very active users in here still playing the game who have complained about this, I'm just backing them up on it. I don't get what's funny irony about me choosing to stand up for this point when I could be doing other things. It also seems there is no winning if someone wants to defend this decision. I was responding to someone who accused me of being a jaded 10000+ player, as if that implied my concern isn't serious for that reason. Now I say that's not what I am, I am told my concern isn't serious because I'm not currently playing the game. At what point are we allowed to be taken seriously on this? Or are the goalposts always going to move, so that the concerns can be dismissed?

But ultimately, I don't think it matters a lot what you and I say to each other.The fact is, GW2's image is in trouble if they go through with this and no forum posting narratives can change that. So you can tell me about what you think is irony or whatever, but the consequences of Anet's actions are what matters here most and those consequences are happening regardless of how we post at each other. I'm not trying to be dramatic either, saying that. The point is just that the end result of them pushing this through, assuming they do, is largely out of our control. So if you want to defend it, you can try, but if I'm right about what it will do to the image of the game, then it's going to cause damage. For a game this old, I struggle to see how it's going to grow from that. I mean, I already saw somebody who talked about how they were on a legendary kick and then got put off by the relic stuff. Don't understand how anyone could tell me that's healthy for the game.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

20 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

There are obviously very active users in here still playing the game who have complained about this, I'm just backing them up on it. I don't get what's funny irony about me choosing to stand up for this point when I could be doing other things. It also seems there is no winning if someone wants to defend this decision. I was responding to someone who accused me of being a jaded 10000+ player, as if that implied my concern isn't serious for that reason. Now I say that's not what I am, I am told my concern isn't serious because I'm not currently playing the game. At what point are we allowed to be taken seriously on this? Or are the goalposts always going to move, so that the concerns can be dismissed?

But ultimately, I don't think it matters a lot what you and I say to each other.The fact is, GW2's image is in trouble if they go through with this and no forum posting narratives can change that. So you can tell me about what you think is irony or whatever, but the consequences of Anet's actions are what matters here most and those consequences are happening regardless of how we post at each other. I'm not trying to be dramatic either, saying that. The point is just that the end result of them pushing this through, assuming they do, is largely out of our control. So if you want to defend it, you can try, but if I'm right about what it will do to the image of the game, then it's going to cause damage. For a game this old, I struggle to see how it's going to grow from that. I mean, I already saw somebody who talked about how they were on a legendary kick and then got put off by the relic stuff. Don't understand how anyone could tell me that's healthy for the game.

Hmm. Thanks for the reasoned reply earlier.

I think whether the people complaining are 10000+ hour veterans is an important one as the world views are very different. There is clearly a massive difference between doing something for the first few hundred hours and doing it after thousands of hours. Sometimes it doesn't matter and enjoyment can even deepen after a long time, eg many sports are like this, as you get better and more skilled/knowledgeable, this can make your enjoyment richer and usually there are plenty of better players around to keep challenging you. Countering that is that the more you do something the more ho-hum and hence boring it becomes. This is accentuated when enjoyment is coming in part from newness and achieving goals (where the goals are limited in number).

In GW2 terms, modes like WvW have an advantage because of the same factors which help sports, a lot of the variety comes from the other players and there is often plenty of challenge available, including a feeling of achievement from overcoming those challenges and winning engagements (cue the complaints about poor world match-ups which fail to deliver that challenge). PvE has a lot of great stuff too, there is a huge amount to do both in terms of exploring the game maps, unlocking new features (eg gliding, mounts, etc), doing the story, teching up your equipment to ascended / legendary. Then there are the difficult challenges, fractals, strikes, raids, which with their CM can scale quite high. There is so much for a new player to do, it's amazing. 2000 hours in (a fair amount in WvW admittedly, but at least half in PvE too) I still have plenty to do and explore, I'm only about 2/3rds through the story because of how I've been going through it and splitting my GW2 play time with WvW, friends/family etc.

But for a PvE veteran who has already spent 10000 hours playing the game? They have likely explored all the maps, done all the story, unlocked all of the features and overcome fractals, strikes, raids to the highest level that they are interested in. It is going to be vastly harder for Anet to keep this player entertained with new content. Particularly when they are unable to add any new teching up capabilities (horizontal progression) or have to offer a Legendary option which unlocks everything instantly (keeping in mind these veterans should have enough resources to buy any new single legendary very easily, unless Anet require a lot of a new currency for it in which case they get accused of requiring too much grind).

So yeah. As someone said above, you may not be the target audience. In fact, it is likely not possible to build a business model around the most bored veterans. The amount of dev/design time required to keep them amused is probably too high to be economic.

Conversely, people like me, who have plenty to explore, learn, unlock and overcome, are very easy to keep happy because for us GW2 is an amazing game.

Note that I believe this phenomenon is why you get such divided opinions on these forums. In very broad stereotypes, the newer players (and keep in mind that newer can still mean a few thousand hours playing) tend to be happy and offering praise for how fun the game is and how much there is to do, while the oldest veteran players are more likely to be grumpy and complaining about the lack of content, the lack of fun, etc.

Both groups are right but from their own viewpoints.

I guess this is why Labjax said a few posts ago that I just don't get it, he has a different worldview. I believe I do get it (as written above, plus I do understand and applaud how GW2's philosophy is different from other MMOs), but I, and many others, aren't at that 10000+ hour point yet. Anet still should take the views of these veterans into account (as they have by giving out the free Legendary Relic, which I don't think they originally expected to have to do) but I don't think they can base their development plans solely on those views.

[WRay.2391]

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

You are thus not the target audience any more. It's that simple.

The developers had to make changes to keep the game afloat. This included less (but still very) consumer friendly monetization (aka the new mini expansion system).

It also includes more grind ever since the IBS. Why? Because their internal metrics probably show that it keeps players engaged longer. Which the game desperately needed. The "hey log in every 3 months and play for 1 week" model didn't pay the bills.

You said it yourself: you quit 2022. You aren't paying the bills and the developers are likely best advised to cater to current players, even with changes which some might disagree with short term, if it leads to overall more engagement. 

You get to keep come and complain on the forums obviously, because the bills are payed by other players, in part due to changes you disagree with. That's the funny irony here.

Mistwraithe is right on 1 thing: this game has a large amount of players which both complain about lack of things to do while also complaining about any changes which might aleviate this.

To summarize you: devs cannot create engaging content anymore and replacing with grind to satisfy engagement metrics set by management. And this is exactly what I felt about SotO. This is not good direction for a game though...

[Ashen.2907]

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

rewards are main driver for content replayability

Replayability is something different though. The current example is rewards as the driver for the initial playthrough.

[WRay.2391]

1 minute ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Replayability is something different though. The current example is rewards as the driver for the initial playthrough.

There are 2 ways looking at this. Reward/achievement for initial playthrough, then overall value of the meta/instance for farm. Main problem that farm/grind is confused with replayability, which it is not. Replayability is the content you like to play, even if not as profitable as other types. Without profit even good content will die, so reward should definitely present.

[Cyninja.2954]

20 minutes ago, WRay.2391 said:

To summarize you: devs cannot create engaging content anymore and replacing with grind to satisfy engagement metrics set by management. And this is exactly what I felt about SotO. This is not good direction for a game though...

Sure, that's one way of putting it.

Here is another:" the past approaches yielded no longterm sustainable results, burnt out the developers repeatedly and resulted in a steady unsustainable decline in players and revenue on an aging, soon to be 12 years old game".

Thus changes were necessary.

Notice how both statements can be true. 

Edited February 15 by Cyninja.2954

[WRay.2391]

Just now, Cyninja.2954 said:

Sure, that's one way of putting it.

Here is another:" the past approaches yielded no longterm sustainable results, burnt out the developers repeatedly and resulted in a stready unsustainable decline in players and revenue on an aging, soon to be 12 years old game".

Thus changes were necessary.

Notice how both statements can be true.

Absolutely. Though there is no guarantee mentioned changes will not cause even bigger decline as it may start conflicting game philosophy that brought players at the first place. Not all changes are good, especially if brought in by profit metrics. Only time will tell.

[Cyninja.2954]

6 minutes ago, WRay.2391 said:

Absolutely. Though there is no guarantee mentioned changes will not cause even bigger decline as it may start conflicting game philosophy that brought players at the first place. Not all changes are good, especially if brought in by profit metrics. Only time will tell.

True, and not all changes will be favored by all players. Simple reality is: as montization and revenue gains importance to the company , it will be an issue for some players.

Why? Because everybody wants their kitten to be free, but the bill has to get payed.

As to conficting philosophy: true. Everybody gets to decide if the changes are to their liking or not all the time. I for one would rather have sensible adjustments to the initial philosophy, if that is the price of continued development.

Edited February 15 by Cyninja.2954

[Astralporing.1957]

6 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

As to conficting philosophy: true. Everybody gets to decide if the changes are to their liking or not all the time. I for one would rather have sensible adjustments to the initial philosophy, if that is the price of continued development.

Indeed. The key point is the word "sensible" however, as this is extremely subjective. What may seem sensible to Anet, might not be so to many players. Especially since it seems they are now aiming their changes at a group of players very different than the one they originally brought to this game (and changing playerbase for a game as old as GW2 usually does not work out all that well).

[Cyninja.2954]

8 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Indeed. The key point is the word "sensible" however, as this is extremely subjective. What may seem sensible to Anet, might not be so to many players. Especially since it seems they are now aiming their changes at a group of players very different than the one they originally brought to this game (and changing playerbase for a game as old as GW2 usually does not work out all that well).

True, though if I was to list the grievances players have been enraged about right now, a lot would seem petty and unreasonable. Again subjective, but compared to an industry standard today, which too has shifted significantly, very unreasonable.

Also true, the games focus has shifted, once again. Notice how this has happened multiple times by now, always as a result to player behavior and revenue.

I also disagree here, if restoration requires shedding veteran players which did/do not interact with the game or had insignificant interactions with the game is necessary, I say go for it. I'm all for the changes which encourage playing the game. Your position seems to assume that the game was doing fine before, which it did not. It might have been fine for some individuals, but overall the game was not in a good spot. Which puts this claim a bit in perspective.

Edited February 15 by Cyninja.2954

[Labjax.2465]

8 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Hmm. Thanks for the reasoned reply earlier.

I think whether the people complaining are 10000+ hour veterans is an important one as the world views are very different. There is clearly a massive difference between doing something for the first few hundred hours and doing it after thousands of hours. Sometimes it doesn't matter and enjoyment can even deepen after a long time, eg many sports are like this, as you get better and more skilled/knowledgeable, this can make your enjoyment richer and usually there are plenty of better players around to keep challenging you. Countering that is that the more you do something the more ho-hum and hence boring it becomes. This is accentuated when enjoyment is coming in part from newness and achieving goals (where the goals are limited in number).

In GW2 terms, modes like WvW have an advantage because of the same factors which help sports, a lot of the variety comes from the other players and there is often plenty of challenge available, including a feeling of achievement from overcoming those challenges and winning engagements (cue the complaints about poor world match-ups which fail to deliver that challenge). PvE has a lot of great stuff too, there is a huge amount to do both in terms of exploring the game maps, unlocking new features (eg gliding, mounts, etc), doing the story, teching up your equipment to ascended / legendary. Then there are the difficult challenges, fractals, strikes, raids, which with their CM can scale quite high. There is so much for a new player to do, it's amazing. 2000 hours in (a fair amount in WvW admittedly, but at least half in PvE too) I still have plenty to do and explore, I'm only about 2/3rds through the story because of how I've been going through it and splitting my GW2 play time with WvW, friends/family etc.

But for a PvE veteran who has already spent 10000 hours playing the game? They have likely explored all the maps, done all the story, unlocked all of the features and overcome fractals, strikes, raids to the highest level that they are interested in. It is going to be vastly harder for Anet to keep this player entertained with new content. Particularly when they are unable to add any new teching up capabilities (horizontal progression) or have to offer a Legendary option which unlocks everything instantly (keeping in mind these veterans should have enough resources to buy any new single legendary very easily, unless Anet require a lot of a new currency for it in which case they get accused of requiring too much grind).

So yeah. As someone said above, you may not be the target audience. In fact, it is likely not possible to build a business model around the most bored veterans. The amount of dev/design time required to keep them amused is probably too high to be economic.

Conversely, people like me, who have plenty to explore, learn, unlock and overcome, are very easy to keep happy because for us GW2 is an amazing game.

Note that I believe this phenomenon is why you get such divided opinions on these forums. In very broad stereotypes, the newer players (and keep in mind that newer can still mean a few thousand hours playing) tend to be happy and offering praise for how fun the game is and how much there is to do, while the oldest veteran players are more likely to be grumpy and complaining about the lack of content, the lack of fun, etc.

Both groups are right but from their own viewpoints.

I guess this is why Labjax said a few posts ago that I just don't get it, he has a different worldview. I believe I do get it (as written above, plus I do understand and applaud how GW2's philosophy is different from other MMOs), but I, and many others, aren't at that 10000+ hour point yet. Anet still should take the views of these veterans into account (as they have by giving out the free Legendary Relic, which I don't think they originally expected to have to do) but I don't think they can base their development plans solely on those views.

Thanks for going in depth on it. There are aspects of this I think are on point and agree with, and other aspects I think are missing the mark a little on why I think this is a problem (I would say, why I and others think it's a problem, but I don't want to put words in other people's mouths). The part I agree with in your analysis is that there is a gap in the perception of the game between, I guess how I would put it is, "player who has seen most of what the game has to offer" and "player who is still in the honeymoon period with the game and just has so many things they can do, that as long as there's at least one game mode they like, they can probably sink in a good year of heavy playing before they start hitting the end of the that honeymoon period (I would venture to say this was kind of me at the end of 2022, after some pretty heavy playing, though my reasons for leaving were more complex than that and aren't really the point here anyway - I just use it to try to ground the point a little).

The part where I diverge is, I think the perception of legendaries is as important as veteran players continuing to keep them as they are. What I mean by this is, to use the example of the player I mentioned who was on a legendary kick and got put off by the relic stuff, I don't think they are a "10000+" hour player. They could be and I am misunderstanding, but my impression was, they are someone who was probably played a significant amount and got into legendaries, which made them feel more invested in the game in the long-term and gave them long-term goals to chase. Which from a game design standpoint is my understanding of what works about the legendary system and a part of why it's so alluring. In a type of game (MMO) where people are frequently having to do a treadmill, the legendary system stands out as a promise of "do more work than some treadmills upfront, but then you get this [literally] shiny reward that means you never have to do that thing gain." Key word being have to, not "will never want to," as even after gaining a legendary, you may specifically want to go among other players with it visible in order to show off what you've earned.

It's late and I feel I'm not at my best in terms of summing things up, but the point here is, from where I'm standing, the legendary system as it was before relics was both helpful for keeping newer players interested and for giving veteran players a long-term sense of accomplishment. Having to figure out how to entertain the ones who have full legendaries may be difficult compared to entertaining people who don't, but I believe that undermining the nature of legendaries hurts full legendary and otherwise players alike, in terms of their long-term interest in the game. For the full legendary player, it takes away what they already earned. For the other kind of player (and I actually fall under that, I was nowhere near full legendaries when I quit), the notion that legendaries aren't actually a promise of long-term one and done undermines some of the motive to go through with the heavy upfront time and effort commitment to it (which relates to the example I've mentioned of the player who had been on a legendary kick until relics happened).

We can speculate that Anet has data indicating the legendary system was failing to work effectively enough and so they decided to move in some other direction, but I'm doubtful it's that clear cut if we look at the process of how relics have been done. The nature of its implementation, to me, suggests a lack of forethought and planning on the subject in general. People have been left in limbo on it for way too long and it's not even just about legendaries and how they are perceived, it's also about what rune bonuses were and how, for example, some players had specifically set up characters with quirky rune bonuses for fun. I don't know from personal confirmation, but my understanding is some of those quirky bonuses are just gone as of this point.

Hope that makes some sense.

[Astralporing.1957]

17 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

True, though if I was to list the grievances players have been enraged about right now, a lot would seem petty and unreasonable. Again subjective, but compared to an industry standard today, which too has shifted significantly, very unreasonable.

In reality it being reasonable or not does not really matter. What matters is player perception. If players have certain expectations then, even if those expectations were unreasonable in the first place, when they won't be met it will cause issues. Also, again, what seems petty and unreasonable to one person might not be so to someone else.

Not to mention, as you said, you are comparing to current industry standarts, that (for the most part) are much, much lower than they were 10 years ago. At the same time most MMORPGs survive or die mostly by the satisfying veterans. I do not remember even one MMORPG that ended up being succesful by shedding original players in favour of a different, new playerbase.

17 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Also true, the games focus has shifted, once again. Notice how this has happened multiple times by now, always as a result to player behavior and revenue.

I'd say it was usually due to changes driven by dev ideas (that often did not align with the majority of the playerbase), and desire to maximize revenue, that were then adjusted due to playerbase backlash to them. And most of the time those cases did not make the game better, nor more popular. Quit ethe opposite - there were several cases when such dev attempts at changing the direction ended up with significant number of players leaving.

17 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I also disagree here, if restoration requires shedding veteran players which did/do not interact with the game or had insignificant interactions with the game is necessary, I say go for it.

I don't think shedding players will be limited to those. I believe that the players that weren't interacting with the game are the least likely to care about the changes. Those that are the most put off are those that are still active, and simply dislike the overall change of direction.

I also do not believe that at this point in game's history Anet can bring in enough new players to offset any more significant veteran player loss. If anything, making veteran players discontent is more likely to generate the opposite result - cause even less new players to come here.

17 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I also disagree here, if restoration requires shedding veteran players which did/do not interact with the game or had insignificant interactions with the game is necessary, I say go for it. I'm all for the changes which encourage playing the game. Your position seems to assume that the game was doing fine before, which it did not. It might have been fine for some individuals, but overall the game was not in a good spot. Which puts this claim a bit in perspective.

My position does not assume that the game was doing fine before (well, depending on what you mean by "before", of course - there were times when game seemed at least to be doing better than now, for example). I just happen to believe that (no matter how good or bad the game was before) the end result of the most recent changes will put the game in a spot that will be worse.

 

[Labjax.2465]

35 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I also disagree here, if restoration requires shedding veteran players which did/do not interact with the game or had insignificant interactions with the game is necessary, I say go for it. I'm all for the changes which encourage playing the game. Your position seems to assume that the game was doing fine before, which it did not. It might have been fine for some individuals, but overall the game was not in a good spot. Which puts this claim a bit in perspective.

I just want to take a moment on this point because I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding of MMOs as a whole, but also this specific problem. First, some people who have vocal problems with this change are definitely ongoing players. I am probably the weird exception, if anything. Second, and I will admit I can't cite hard data on this, but it's based on things I've heard in passing about another MMO from someone who works on that MMO, is that players who come for content and then leave for a while are an expected part of it. I can't say for sure that's true for GW2 also, but I don't think it's far-fetched to figure some people are doing that. So I don't think it's sensible to view players through the lens of "shedding those who are inactive" in that context and I'm doubtful that this game or other MMOs are viewing it that way. I would imagine, though again cannot cite hard data, that it's easier to get back a player who already invested significant time into a game, than it is to get a completely new player to commit to it in the long-term. Because of sunk cost fallacy, because of connections made in a community, because of emotional attachment, because of competence/familiarity with it, etc.

Finally, to the point that "the game was not in a good spot," I would ask in what ways we are to believe it wasn't because everything I recall coming across in recent years was that Anet was making a show of claiming the game was growing and doing well. I was always a bit skeptical of that, but if we are to take them at their word, what information do we have to believe the game was in need of a significant shakeup?