Legendary Relics are Coming Soon

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

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.

Sure it matters, because humans are inherently disagreeable with change. The question if the change is justified or not makes a large difference when actually faced with reality.

What you recall or not is insignificant What does matter is that no MMORPGs remained active if it was not meeting a certain minimum standard of revenue/profit. In fact, almost no business does.

Quote

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.

Sure, that's one way of putting it. Another would be: different attempts to make ends meet.

Quote

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.

This very thread seems to disprove this. How many inactive players are frequenting these forums do you think? Seems a lot of veteran players which shouldn't care are lingering. We can obviously on speculate on this. Are you even active in the game right now?

The revenue and financials speak their own language, and there at least to what we could see and what developers have claimed, the game is trending up.

Quote

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.

Again, not in any way reflected in what has been said from an official side. This is you assuming and wishful thinking to make your point seems reasonable.

Quote

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.

Sure it does, because your entire position is summarized as: before was better than now. You have yet to provide ANY suggestions or ideas how to adapt the games business model or development which would support otherwise.

Edited February 15 by Cyninja.2954

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, Labjax.2465 said:

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?

Easy, if you bothered to read the NCSoft quarterly reports, the actions taken by NCSoft, the actions taken by the developers, the statements made by the developers, etc. You'd know where the game was at and headed.

Reminder: season 4 was supposed to be the end for the game (the epilogue and ending was a dead give away. Aurene is literally flying off into a sunset and there was no preview, cliffhanger or trailer after that), which is when Anet had a huge round of layoffs. Which is when the idea of an ongoing Living World system was pitched (IBS, none of which was in any way ready btw. The wait for episode 1 of IBS is LITERALLY the time they need to produce 1 episode which tells us they had nothing prepared) which is where NCSoft stepped in and demanded an expansion be made (EoD, while also injecting NCSoft West with around 130 million dollars, money which hasn't amortized yet btw though it's likely not only for GW2 and Arenanet). Which leads us to the current mini expansion model, which does away with completely free living world episodes.

There is more stuff, like huge developer burnout (which is often mentioned in recent communication but which we knew was the case as far back as season 1), the constant shift in development cycles and design, etc.

It's a simple connect the dots.

Edited February 15 by Cyninja.2954

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

This very thread seems to disprove this. How many inactive players are frequenting these forums do you think?

Not many. I mean, there's how much, several hundred active forum posters maybe? Most of which are active players? And the issues mentioned are brought up from what i see primarily by active players as well.

Edited February 15 by Astralporing.1957

[Cyninja.2954]

34 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Not many. I mean, there's how much, several hundred active forum posters maybe? Most of which are active players? And the issues mentioned are brought up from what i see primarily by active players as well.

Are you an active player? Are you generating revenue? Would you be the target customer the studio should develop for today purely based on your spending? Answer those questions honestly, then ask yourself if your approch makes sense from a business perspective.

[Healix.5819]

2 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Reminder: season 4 was supposed to be the end for the game (the epilogue and ending was a dead give away. Aurene is literally flying off into a sunset and there was no preview, cliffhanger or trailer after that), which is when Anet had a huge round of layoffs. Which is when the idea of an ongoing Living World system was pitched (IBS, none of which was in any way ready btw. The wait for episode 1 of IBS is LITERALLY the time they need to produce 1 episode which tells us they had nothing prepared) which is where NCSoft stepped in and demanded an expansion be made (EoD, while also injecting NCSoft West with around 130 million dollars, money which hasn't amortized yet btw though it's likely not only for GW2 and Arenanet). Which leads us to the current mini expansion model, which does away with completely free living world episodes.

S5 and its new model was confirmed halfway through S4, months prior to the layoffs. The first episode of IBS was released 4 months after the end of S4, which was their normal release cycle.

[WRay.2391]

2 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Are you an active player? Are you generating revenue? Would you be the target customer the studio should develop for today purely based on your spending? Answer those questions honestly, then ask yourself if your approch makes sense from a business perspective.

Well, I'm an active player. Am I target audience? Not sure anymore... The problem is by changing model GW2 goes into competition with other games with similar model on their field. Its uniqueness was one of major player attraction, and they may loose it with too drastic change.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Healix.5819 said:

S5 and its new model was confirmed halfway through S4, months prior to the layoffs. The first episode of IBS was released 4 months after the end of S4, which was their normal release cycle.

Season 4 ended early 2019.

IBS was announced:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Icebrood_Saga_announcement

August of 2019. You really should not make things up which are easily researched on just the wiki.

Even worse when they relate to events which completely tanked (the IBS event was a disaster) and have thus an extra memorable element.

IBS released 4.5-5 months after the end of Season 4, and exactly 6 months after the layoffs. There was no excuse for the delay, gjven any living world eposode prior was on a 2-3 month schedule, even with PoF inbetween. There was no expansion in the works, there was no big other work being done.

It was literally 6-6.5 months after the layoffs, 4-4.5 months after the last episode and it lasted exactly half a year before it had the plug pulled.

Try again troll.

Edit: oh and in case you do decide to do some basic research: the layoffs happened in February of 2019, right as season 4 ended. Also easily found online.

Oh and FYI: we know that the layoffs actually increased the amount of people working on GW2, since the layoffs cut other projects. Which means that you are now looking at a delayed licing world episode WITH more workforce actually available.

Finaly: we know from disgruntled ex-employees that season 4 was meant as a sort of finale. Now these infos always should be taken with a grain of salt given the source, but here the timeline works out.

Edited February 15 by Cyninja.2954

[Healix.5819]

45 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Season 4 ended early 2019.

IBS was announced:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Icebrood_Saga_announcement

August of 2019. You really should not make things up which are easily researched on just the wiki.

Season 5 was confirmed back in August 2018 for the 6 year anniversary.

[Labjax.2465]

8 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Easy, if you bothered to read the NCSoft quarterly reports, the actions taken by NCSoft, the actions taken by the developers, the statements made by the developers, etc. You'd know where the game was at and headed.

Reminder: season 4 was supposed to be the end for the game (the epilogue and ending was a dead give away. Aurene is literally flying off into a sunset and there was no preview, cliffhanger or trailer after that), which is when Anet had a huge round of layoffs. Which is when the idea of an ongoing Living World system was pitched (IBS, none of which was in any way ready btw. The wait for episode 1 of IBS is LITERALLY the time they need to produce 1 episode which tells us they had nothing prepared) which is where NCSoft stepped in and demanded an expansion be made (EoD, while also injecting NCSoft West with around 130 million dollars, money which hasn't amortized yet btw though it's likely not only for GW2 and Arenanet). Which leads us to the current mini expansion model, which does away with completely free living world episodes.

There is more stuff, like huge developer burnout (which is often mentioned in recent communication but which we knew was the case as far back as season 1), the constant shift in development cycles and design, etc.

It's a simple connect the dots.

Here's the thing though: let's suppose you're correct on this, that the game is not doing well, in contradiction to how they portray how it's doing in PR. If that is the case, then why should we take them at their word on a thing like the justification for relics design? i.e. if they are untrustworthy on the one thing why would it make sense to trust them on the other?

Even if we suppose the game is in decline and needs something different, it's not as though that implies that targeting the functionality of legendaries is inherently a strong and well-thought-out idea; or that cutting up existing gear and placing it elsewhere in design is inherently a strong and well-thought-out idea. All it would imply is that something different needs to be done, which is a problem that could lead to many different solutions. I refuse to look at that this game whose designers historically, whether they are still there or not, came up with such a fun and unique mount design, as just one example of its standout creativity in the MMO sphere - and be tunnel-vision in mindset about designing gear and content, going along with a design that is against the existing model, that is toward the MMO standard, that has creativity nowhere to be seen, all because the game might be doing poorly in contrast to what PR represents. GW2's own designers of the past showed that you can do better; why should I put my standards so low?

I don't expect GW2's design to knock it out of the park every time, but I feel it's fair to have a low opinion of what they have left for decisions on design if we are to believe this is the best that their specific team can do under the circumstances. It would make far more sense to me as greed taking over design, or organizational struggles undermining good intentions, than to believe this is really the best they've got - that they plumbed the depths and this was the only way they saw forward for keeping the game afloat.

[Cyninja.2954]

52 minutes ago, Healix.5819 said:

Season 5 was confirmed back in August 2018 for the 6 year anniversary.

That's pretty much the epitome of pr speak. The claim that season 5 was to follow season 4 was about as safe as the fact that season 5 was not called season 5. No studio is going to come out the gate and tell you:"oh by the way, nothing coming any longer."

But sure, they "announced season 5 mid season 4", delivered it delayed, called it a different name and had to make an entire prologue episode because they forgot to add one with the end of season 4. Almost seems as though they said they're making season 5, then were forced to followup on that, but maybe for different reasons than actually committing to it.

The IBS we got has in no way to be reflective of what was planned when your "season 5 announcement" happened. For all we know it could have been similar to the 2nd half of IBS, some poor content cut together to somehow pass time. Which would be as close to ending the game as can be without actually ending it.

Edited February 15 by Cyninja.2954

[Cyninja.2954]

15 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

Here's the thing though: let's suppose you're correct on this, that the game is not doing well, in contradiction to how they portray how it's doing in PR. If that is the case, then why should we take them at their word on a thing like the justification for relics design? i.e. if they are untrustworthy on the one thing why would it make sense to trust them on the other?

Even if we suppose the game is in decline and needs something different, it's not as though that implies that targeting the functionality of legendaries is inherently a strong and well-thought-out idea; or that cutting up existing gear and placing it elsewhere in design is inherently a strong and well-thought-out idea. All it would imply is that something different needs to be done, which is a problem that could lead to many different solutions. I refuse to look at that this game whose designers historically, whether they are still there or not, came up with such a fun and unique mount design, as just one example of its standout creativity in the MMO sphere - and be tunnel-vision in mindset about designing gear and content, going along with a design that is against the existing model, that is toward the MMO standard, that has creativity nowhere to be seen, all because the game might be doing poorly in contrast to what PR represents. GW2's own designers of the past showed that you can do better; why should I put my standards so low?

I didn't say the game is not doing well. I said the game WAS not doing well. It's doing better now, both from what we can see revenue wise as well as what is being communicated. That's a slight difference.

You are correct, something different needs to be done. That's exactly what some are complaining about here: disagreeing with how different things are not as they used to be.

Quote

I don't expect GW2's design to knock it out of the park every time, but I feel it's fair to have a low opinion of what they have left for decisions on design if we are to believe this is the best that their specific team can do under the circumstances. It would make far more sense to me as greed taking over design, or organizational struggles undermining good intentions, than to believe this is really the best they've got - that they plumbed the depths and this was the only way they saw forward for keeping the game afloat.

and you should. What I disagree with is the nostalgia and demands to return to worse performing monetization and content cycles. The constant whiining about cost and price, while the game remains some of the cheapest entertainment amongst its peers by far.

The complaints about reused assets alone were hilarious. I guess most players never bothered to research how many game reuse assets. Some of the most popular recent games at that are full of reused assets left and right (look at Elden Ring and how much of that game is literal copy paste from earlier Fromsoft titles).

Edited February 15 by Cyninja.2954

[Labjax.2465]

20 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

What I disagree with is the nostalgia and demands to return to worse performing monetization and content cycles. The constant whiining about cost and price, while the game remains some of the cheapest entertainment amongst its peers by far.

The complaints about reused assets alone were hilarious. I guess most players never bothered to research how many game reuse assets. Some of the most popular recent games at that are full of reused assets left and right (look at Elden Ring and how much of that game is literal copy paste from earlier Fromsoft titles).

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with relics, but I am suspicious of it because it sounds like an uncharitable generalization of people's complaints. I would say it's pretty normal and well-adjusted for a customer to complain about the cost of an existing product going up, when such occurs; I would be concerned if they did not notice at all. In such cases, it doesn't really have any relevance whether other like products cost more. It's a simple matter of "why should I be paying more for this than I was before?" And considering I think we'd both be in agreement that GW2 is currently producing less than they were before in quantity and depth of content than during some earlier periods, likely because of team size, it's a hard pill to swallow to expect people to just take "less content for more money." Again, I would be concerned if people were not bothered by that at all, else companies could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. Personally, I would be a lot more understanding of the business side of it if I was getting paid. 😉 From the customer end, I see no reason to grant them understanding of business decisions; it's literally their job to make these things palatable and make a good case for the customer to join up (if new), come back (if not there anymore), or continue (if already there). As a human, I can try to empathize with the people who are doing their best with what the mechanisms they're working within allow, but the mechanisms themselves don't deserve my understanding, if that makes sense.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

Some interesting points of view. Just quickly here is my take on the game, legendaries and some of the points raised, including Labjax's detailed reply to my post on the last page.

• Legendaries were a great idea, it's an excellent solution to providing big goals while still embracing horizontal progression.
• I can see Labjax and other's concern about Anet abandoning the things which make GW2 unique. However, I don't think Legendary Relics (ie having to play some of the expansion content rather than just buy it) are that big a departure from how other Legendaries work and it's a stretch to extrapolate from there to Anet abandoning the game's values (see also my next point). My main caveat here would be PvP and WvW players, if they have to play through a bunch of PvE content to unlock the new relics then that's OK, but not great (we don't know whether they will have options to unlock them using WvW/PvP currency instead, much the same way you can unlock expansion recipes from the WvW vendors, if Anet go that way then this caveat is solved).
• I actually think an argument can be made that the Legendary Relic approach is how Anet should have implemented Legendaries from the start. Financially they are already covered by making people buy the expansions to unlock new stats for their legendaries, but they also want players to play through and enjoy their content. You might not like it but someone who isn't already upset about it (probably too late for the people complaining in this thread) is probably going to enjoy unlocking the relics in expansion 5 because that's how it works, achieving goals and receiving rewards motivates and provides enjoyment to many people. It's a significant part of why people like playing games.
• An even stronger argument can be made that this is most important for GW2's 10000+ hour vets. They are the ones most struggling with lack of goals in the game. If Anet had made all Legendaries work this way from the start then I think there would have been little angst at the time (no one would have known any better) and we would be in a much better state overall now. Essentially many of these 10000+ hour vets would be happier in this alternative world. Unfortunately, they didn't go that way and now in trying to move just a tiny part of the game (relics) to this model Anet are getting all this pushback because it's not how the precedent of the other Legendaries work.

Edited February 16 by Mistwraithe.3106

[WRay.2391]

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Some interesting points of view. Just quickly here is my take on the game, legendaries and some of the points raised, including Labjax's detailed reply to my post on the last page.

• Legendaries were a great idea, it's an excellent solution to providing big goals while still embracing horizontal progression.
• I can see Labjax and other's concern about Anet abandoning the things which make GW2 unique. However, I don't think Legendary Relics (ie having to play some of the expansion content rather than just buy it) are that big a departure from how other Legendaries work and it's a stretch to extrapolate from there to Anet abandoning the game's values (see also my next point). My main caveat here would be PvP and WvW players, if they have to play through a bunch of PvE content to unlock the new relics then that's OK, but not great (we don't know whether they will have options to unlock them using WvW/PvP currency instead, much the same way you can unlock expansion recipes from the WvW vendors, if Anet go that way then this caveat is solved).
• I actually think an argument can be made that the Legendary Relic approach is how Anet should have implemented Legendaries from the start. Financially they are already covered by making people buy the expansions to unlock new stats for their legendaries, but they also want players to play through and enjoy their content. You might not like it but someone who isn't already upset about it (probably too late for the people complaining in this thread) is probably going to enjoy unlocking the relics in expansion 5 because that's how it works, achieving goals and receiving rewards motivates and provides enjoyment to many people. It's a significant part of why people like playing games.
• An even stronger argument can be made that this is most important for GW2's 10000+ hour vets. They are the ones most struggling with lack of goals in the game. If Anet had made all Legendaries work this way from the start then I think there would have been little angst at the time (no one would have known any better) and we would be in a much better state overall now. Essentially many of these 10000+ hour vets would be happier in this alternative world. Unfortunately, they didn't go that way and now in trying to move just a tiny part of the game (relics) to this model Anet are getting all this pushback because it's not how the precedent of the other Legendaries work.

Well, I'm close to 10k hours and I don't struggle with lack if goals. I actually prefer to choose my goals rather than being forced to some. I postponed much of my goal to become full legendary and forget about gear, and now here it is... I will need to unlock something that was on my legendary runes already. This is not adding meaningful goal for me but diminishes my investments I made already. And kitten me off quite a bit as well. I will unlock relics in WvW if needed anyway, still had more than a stack of WvW potions, but it's frustrating at least.

Edited February 16 by WRay.2391
Typo

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

• I can see Labjax and other's concern about Anet abandoning the things which make GW2 unique. However, I don't think Legendary Relics (ie having to play some of the expansion content rather than just buy it) are that big a departure from how other Legendaries work and it's a stretch to extrapolate from there to Anet abandoning the game's values (see also my next point).

On the contrary, going from "big upfront investment to never bother with gear grind from this point on" to a model revolving around gear grind seems to me like a serious departure from the original idea.

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

• I actually think an argument can be made that the Legendary Relic approach is how Anet should have implemented Legendaries from the start.

An argument could, of course, be made for that. Or that they should have just went straight towards classic style vertical gear progression and not even bother with trying to masquerade it under a different guise. Some devs certainly seem to think so, anyway. And i am sure that argument would have went very well with those that like gear hamster wheel designs. Now, the issue is that i am not one of those people. I have picked this game exactly because that kind of design was not present. And the original Ascended debacle has clearly shown that i was not alone in this.

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Financially they are already covered by making people buy the expansions to unlock new stats for their legendaries, but they also want players to play through and enjoy their content.

Then they should do so by making content people would enjoy playing through. Seriously, this will not make me enjoy the content any more than i'd have enjoyed it otherwise. If anything, it will make me enjoy it less, because now i will feel forced into playing it.

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

You might not like it but someone who isn't already upset about it (probably too late for the people complaining in this thread) is probably going to enjoy unlocking the relics in expansion 5 because that's how it works, achieving goals and receiving rewards motivates and provides enjoyment to many people. It's a significant part of why people like playing games.

Yes, there are players that do enjoy this kind of gameplay. Those players for th most part go for hamster wheel vertical progression games, of which there is quite a number on the market. This game was unique in it being aimed at people that disliked this kind of design. Again, Ascended debacle has shown, that at least originally those people were in overwhelming majority.

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

• An even stronger argument can be made that this is most important for GW2's 10000+ hour vets. They are the ones most struggling with lack of goals in the game. If Anet had made all Legendaries work this way from the start then I think there would have been little angst at the time (no one would have known any better) and we would be in a much better state overall now. Essentially many of these 10000+ hour vets would be happier in this alternative world. Unfortunately, they didn't go that way and now in trying to move just a tiny part of the game (relics) to this model Anet are getting all this pushback because it's not how the precedent of the other Legendaries work.

I happen to be a 10k+ hours vet. I am not struggling with lack of goals in the game. I am struggling due to Anet more and more trying to pick my goals for me. And generally doing it in a way that clearly show they have no idea what i want and why i even started playing this game in the first place.

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

If Anet had made all Legendaries work this way from the start then I think there would have been little angst at the time (no one would have known any better) and we would be in a much better state overall now.

No. "we" would not be. Because if Anet from the beginning made it clear that they are eyeing the gear grind design and prefer to use it as a cheap replacement to actually enjoyable content, then i would not be there now, because i would not have started playing this game in the first place. And i am sure the same would have been true of many, many other players. And i am not so sure all those players would have been replaced by those that did like this kind of mechanic, because that market was then (and still is) already way too heavily covered. You can't get players from other games by offering them something other games do better (well, at least not on MMORPG market anyway). You do it by offering them something done better, or (as in this case) something other games don't do.

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Essentially many of these 10000+ hour vets would be happier in this alternative world.

In other games, you mean? Could be.

1 hour ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Unfortunately, they didn't go that way and now in trying to move just a tiny part of the game (relics) to this model Anet are getting all this pushback because it's not how the precedent of the other Legendaries work.

Yes, a fundamental change of underlying game design that originally made people interested in a MMORPG game (or at least was one of the deciding factors) after 10 years of play is definitely something i'd call "unfortunate". And the pushback is quite warranted.

Edited February 16 by Astralporing.1957

[Ashen.2907]

8 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Some interesting points of view. Just quickly here is my take on the game, legendaries and some of the points raised, including Labjax's detailed reply to my post on the last page.

• Legendaries were a great idea, it's an excellent solution to providing big goals while still embracing horizontal progression.
• I can see Labjax and other's concern about Anet abandoning the things which make GW2 unique. However, I don't think Legendary Relics (ie having to play some of the expansion content rather than just buy it) are that big a departure from how other Legendaries work and it's a stretch to extrapolate from there to Anet abandoning the game's values (see also my next point). My main caveat here would be PvP and WvW players, if they have to play through a bunch of PvE content to unlock the new relics then that's OK, but not great (we don't know whether they will have options to unlock them using WvW/PvP currency instead, much the same way you can unlock expansion recipes from the WvW vendors, if Anet go that way then this caveat is solved).
• I actually think an argument can be made that the Legendary Relic approach is how Anet should have implemented Legendaries from the start. Financially they are already covered by making people buy the expansions to unlock new stats for their legendaries, but they also want players to play through and enjoy their content. You might not like it but someone who isn't already upset about it (probably too late for the people complaining in this thread) is probably going to enjoy unlocking the relics in expansion 5 because that's how it works, achieving goals and receiving rewards motivates and provides enjoyment to many people. It's a significant part of why people like playing games.
• An even stronger argument can be made that this is most important for GW2's 10000+ hour vets. They are the ones most struggling with lack of goals in the game. If Anet had made all Legendaries work this way from the start then I think there would have been little angst at the time (no one would have known any better) and we would be in a much better state overall now. Essentially many of these 10000+ hour vets would be happier in this alternative world. Unfortunately, they didn't go that way and now in trying to move just a tiny part of the game (relics) to this model Anet are getting all this pushback because it's not how the precedent of the other Legendaries work.

Honest question here,

How do you come to the conclusion that you know how others would feel, how they would be happier, etc? Where are you getting the information to declare that 10k+ hour veterans would have been more pleased with some hypothetical alternate GW2?

[Gehenna.3625]

13 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

That's pretty much the epitome of pr speak. The claim that season 5 was to follow season 4 was about as safe as the fact that season 5 was not called season 5. No studio is going to come out the gate and tell you:"oh by the way, nothing coming any longer."

I think the point Mike was making that there wasn't going to be an expansion following season 4 (like we were used to) but that they would add another season.

13 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

But sure, they "announced season 5 mid season 4", delivered it delayed, called it a different name and had to make an entire prologue episode because they forgot to add one with the end of season 4. Almost seems as though they said they're making season 5, then were forced to followup on that, but maybe for different reasons than actually committing to it.

I think they did change their minds after this announcement. Following the layoffs and refocussing on GW2, I got the distinct feeling that Anet didn't really want to make another expansion and so they came up with something else that they called "Sagas". And well, we all know, how successful that idea was.

13 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The IBS we got has in no way to be reflective of what was planned when your "season 5 announcement" happened. For all we know it could have been similar to the 2nd half of IBS, some poor content cut together to somehow pass time. Which would be as close to ending the game as can be without actually ending it.

In my view IBS definitely wasn't what Mike Z announced in 2018. I think that idea came after the layoffs as I mentioned above.

[Gehenna.3625]

4 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Honest question here,

How do you come to the conclusion that you know how others would feel, how they would be happier, etc? Where are you getting the information to declare that 10k+ hour veterans would have been more pleased with some hypothetical alternate GW2?

I think it's a matter of "I want it and as such we need it" or "I think I have an amazing idea so other people must love it too". Us humans do tend to overestimate ourselves after all.

[Healix.5819]

19 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

I actually think an argument can be made that the Legendary Relic approach is how Anet should have implemented Legendaries from the start.

It's actually what people originally suggested back when you had to pay to change stats on legendaries. What this change actually allows for is a simple way to re-use an existing implementation to create account unlocks for all of the remaining stuff that would have otherwise never had a legendary, since giving everything makes no sense. They're not just getting you to unlock new relics, there's potentially a lot of new legendaries now and they don't need to be overly expensive to compensate.

People complaining about it don't seem to realize that not doing this will have the same outcome. There either won't be more legendaries, or they'll be held back until the end, then require everything (legendary jade bot chip allowing you to unlock chips vs requiring all chips to make it).

5 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

I think they did change their minds after this announcement. Following the layoffs and refocussing on GW2, I got the distinct feeling that Anet didn't really want to make another expansion and so they came up with something else that they called "Sagas". And well, we all know, how successful that idea was.

They didn't really have a choice. They were already advertising it, about how it was going to bring "expansion level stories and features over the next couple years" (MZ). In season 4, it was taking them ~11 months to develop episodes, averaging 3.5 months between episodes, with IBS starting 4 months later. When the layoffs hit, IBS would have already been planned out and the first episode half finished. If they had flipped and announced an expansion, it would have obviously been season 5 repackaged as one, which would have either been released like SotO, or had a long delay like EoD. Instead, they tried to advertise it like an expansion, and considering it was planned to take multiple seasons, the name was always intended.

[Astralporing.1957]

7 hours ago, Healix.5819 said:

It's actually what people originally suggested back when you had to pay to change stats on legendaries.

That was before Anet introduced ascended and completely overturned the situation. At the moment that suggestion was being made, there was an assumption that there will be no gear grind whatsoever. Once a suggestion that this might not be true appeared, Anet used the "but if you go for legendaries, you will never have to bother with gear grind again" card in order to try to pacify the most active players after the forums blew up in their face as a result of ascended backlash.

7 hours ago, Healix.5819 said:

What this change actually allows for is a simple way to re-use an existing implementation to create account unlocks for all of the remaining stuff that would have otherwise never had a legendary, since giving everything makes no sense. They're not just getting you to unlock new relics, there's potentially a lot of new legendaries now and they don't need to be overly expensive to compensate.

People complaining about it don't seem to realize that not doing this will have the same outcome. There either won't be more legendaries, or they'll be held back until the end, then require everything (legendary jade bot chip allowing you to unlock chips vs requiring all chips to make it).

Good. I do not want to see any more gear slots being introduced. Nor do i want them adding even more functionality to jade bot slot (adding that slot in the first place was a bad idea). And while adding a legendary breather might have been nice, by now it has already became a meme, and it would likely be better from the game had that slot been removed completely or turned into purely cosmetic one.

[Gehenna.3625]

14 hours ago, Healix.5819 said:

They didn't really have a choice. They were already advertising it, about how it was going to bring "expansion level stories and features over the next couple years" (MZ). In season 4, it was taking them ~11 months to develop episodes, averaging 3.5 months between episodes, with IBS starting 4 months later. When the layoffs hit, IBS would have already been planned out and the first episode half finished. If they had flipped and announced an expansion, it would have obviously been season 5 repackaged as one, which would have either been released like SotO, or had a long delay like EoD. Instead, they tried to advertise it like an expansion, and considering it was planned to take multiple seasons, the name was always intended.

Yeah, I now remember them talking about the Saga approach already during LS4. They tried to sell Jahai Bluffs that way. Particularly Sun's Refuge, but because they barely did anything with that, people were just thinking that it was just a load of marketing bs trying to sell us not making an expansion.

I suspect that IBS was brought out very quickly in order to start working on a new expansion which is what NcSoft told them to do iirc. It's also the reason why EoD felt, well, unfinished. That also showed them that smaller expansion could do the trick if they were more frequent. Come to think of it, I think that this is how they got the idea of making smaller expansions with higher frequency.

IBS also introduced releasing maps in 2 updates. Like Bjora Marches and Drizzlewood Coast. We saw the same with Gyala Delves and now Inner Nayos. Come to think of it I still haven't even explored the second part of Gyala Delves (that's how much I care about it lol). I lost interest in EoD after I found out that they were moving on from Cantha without having a Kurzick inspired map. EoD was too much about Jade and not enough about Amber but I digress.

All in all, I'm glad that NcSoft stepped in. I remember being very angry when Anet said in interviews that they didn't really want to bring out new expansions and wanted to take the Saga approach. They were just too involved in other things and took us for granted. Just a shame that so many people lost their jobs over it: that I'm not glad about.

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

They were just too involved in other things and took us for granted.

I'm afraid that's the very same situation we're in currently.

[Ashantara.8731]

4 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

All in all, I'm glad that NcSoft stepped in. I remember being very angry when Anet said in interviews that they didn't really want to bring out new expansions and wanted to take the Saga approach.

If they didn't have to cut the IBS short, it would - all in all - have been much better content than what we are getting these days. The IBS was fun, up until Champions, and even that was better than SotO Update 1 (and likely 2 and 3 as well).

[Gehenna.3625]

19 hours ago, Ashantara.8731 said:

If they didn't have to cut the IBS short, it would - all in all - have been much better content than what we are getting these days. The IBS was fun, up until Champions, and even that was better than SotO Update 1 (and likely 2 and 3 as well).

That's subjective though but I was more talking about them not wanting to do another expansion at all. IBS should've been an expansion and if NcSoft hadn't stepped in we wouldn't have had another expansion ever. If Anet would've just done another expansion instead then we wouldn't be in the situation we are now in. 

But you make a fair point still, NcSoft probably wanted results yesterday and that would've definitely affected the amount of quality of content. Mind you, I don't care for IBS and I'm also done with SotO. At this stage, only HoT/LS3 have lasting replay value for me. The rest after was fun or useful initially but once I got through those maps, I rarely come back to them again. So it is with PoF, LS4, IBS, EoD and now SotO is going the same way. 

I suspect that's how I ended up in WvW but then I'm getting tired of all the shenanigans over there and guess what? I'm in playing HoT maps again.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

On 2/16/2024 at 8:49 PM, Ashen.2907 said:

Honest question here,

How do you come to the conclusion that you know how others would feel, how they would be happier, etc? Where are you getting the information to declare that 10k+ hour veterans would have been more pleased with some hypothetical alternate GW2?

Reading lots of forums posts, logic, life experience, extrapolation and guesswork. Note that I pepper my posts with phrases like "I think" and this is "my take". It's "my" conclusion but I don't anywhere near enough evidence to state that I'm correct, it's just a logical guess based on what I do know.

A few people rebutted it and said that I was wrong. So maybe I'm wrong. OTOH, two of those rebuttals stated they weren't short of goals which is very much the opposite of what I've seen other veteran players post in this forum and even in this thread. So maybe those two were not representative of the group at large?

One thing that gets me in this debate, and it's repeated in several recent posts in this thread, is the assertion about how much grind and effort the scheme used by the legendary relic entails and how it's a betrayal of the legendary model. This seems hyperbole. I've created 10 or so legendaries now (weapons, armour and Conflux) and it never really crossed my mind that getting access to all stats bonuses was a big feature. I was crafting ascended (or stat swapping existing ascended) happily for whatever stats I wanted long before I started crafting Legendary equipment and had gone about unlocking the stats I wanted without thinking twice as part of playing the game. It wasn't a big deal.

The big features I wanted from Legendary items were having it across all characters, instant stat swapping, ability to remove/swap runes/sigils/infusions and of course the bling is a nice reward. Unlocking stat combos wasn't something I really thought of. I get that it's part of how Legendaries work but it seems a minor part? Several people have already pointed out that SOTO relics are relatively easy to unlock too.

Edited February 19 by Mistwraithe.3106