ANet, please officially alter the three pillars

[Ohoni.6057]

@Linken.6345 said:We always had instanced content in the pve category even from the start "dungeons" just becouse they added more with fractals and raids dont make it any less pve.

You see why we need ANet to make an official statement on this?

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:We also have the issue of player expectation, where if PvP and WvW are supposedly "two out of three pillars," that they should have a significant amount of developer attention, when the fact is that they've long since dried up as far as the overall playerbase is concerned.

Do you have some kind of source about this? Any kind of official comment about? Statistical data to prove that pvp and wvw "dried up"?

That's why it would help if ANet provided that sort of thing, which is the point of this thread! All we have to work with now is anecdotal evidence, offline polling, people reporting about queuing times, WvW match-up balance, stuff like that. ANet has actual player heat maps and could provide more concrete figures, but they don't.

@Cyninja.2954 said:As such one could argue that WvW indeed falls within the PvP category. Dungeons, Fractals, Raids and any other instanced content definitely is PvE though.

Perhaps in a broad sense, but if people can treat WvW and sPvP as if they are separate entities and each equally as deserving of individual reward tracks and paths to Legendary weapons, then why not apply that same philosophy to PvE, and have "instanced group PvE" and "open world PvE" as two distinct and independently supported systems, rather than treating them as a single system where certain rewards are only tied to one half of that balance?

[Loosmaster.8263]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@TexZero.7910 said:Hello ???

Fractals, Dungeons, Raids they're all PvE and any attempt to say otherwise is silly. You are fighting mobs that are not players that's literally the definition of PvE.If for some reason you still wish to dispute this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_(gaming

)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_versus_environment

Nobody says otherwise. However, if we were splitting the modes only according to that, we would have had

two

modes, not three. PvE and PvP. Both WvW and sPvP are all PvP, and any attempt to say otherwise is silly. And yet they constitute two different modes not one.

@STIHL.2489 said:You have 4 game modes at this point.

Team Based PvE (Fractals, Dungeons, Raids)Open World PvE (PS, LW, Open Maps)Team Based PvP (sPvP)Open World PvP (WvW)This is the current situation. What Ohoni asks for is merely for people to stop ignoring the first (PvE) split, while acknowledging the second (PvP), when in truth both PvX modes are equally divided.(and no, please, do not pretend that the PvP submode differences are greater than PvE ones. They aren't)

Not really. The whole point is to justify a reason to have access to Legendary gear no matter how you split the game.

Basically " I play this way and I want Legendary gear". Just splitting hairs at this point.

I don't care for PvP, so I don't play that mode. I sort of like the idea of Raids but I'm not willing to invest the time learning the mechanics to complete them. WvW is by far the easiest to obtain Legendary gear other than being time/rank gated, then toss in all the mats required which you cannot farm in WvW efficiently. Now I have to grind PvE or gem/gold conversion. I do this after the ticket cap.

So where does that leave me?

Edit: I want The Shining Blade solely for the skin. It goes best with my fashion wars outfit. Why do I have to grind PvE and leave my comfort zone to get this? I can change the stats as needed on my Ascended one but...

[TexZero.7910]

@Astralporing.1957 said:Nobody says otherwise. However, if we were splitting the modes only according to that, we would have had two modes, not three. PvE and PvP. Both WvW and sPvP are all PvP, and any attempt to say otherwise is silly. And yet they constitute two different modes not one.

I like how the common defense is no one says otherwise and yet....

The OP is saying just that when and where it suits them.

WvW isn't just PvP. Last i checked those keeps/towers/scouts are all AI and it requires their deaths to take control of the structures.At its core WvW is a watered down RvR gameplay experience. I know another acronym for a term you probably don't know about but even it the most basic RvR's there's always been elements of PvE.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Ohoni.6057 said:That's why it would help if ANet provided that sort of thing, which is the point of this thread! All we have to work with now is anecdotal evidence, offline polling, people reporting about queuing times, WvW match-up balance, stuff like that. ANet has actual player heat maps and could provide more concrete figures, but they don't.

Wait, so Arenanet has the data. Arenanet doesn't make "changes".Doesn't that mean everything is OK according to the data (that they already have)? And if there was problem seen in the data they'd take action.What's the point in someone, without any kind of data to back their claims up, make a post like this, asking for the developers, who already have the data, to make changes?

And also, I don't understand this "three pillars" thingy. Was it mentioned by the developers somewhere, because I must've missed it.Let's see 2 different types of content grouping.On www.guildwars2.com if you hover over the "GAME" menu option you get the options of:Races of Tyria -> sub menu explaining all the racesProfessions -> sub menu explaining all the professionsCombat -> explaining the general combat in the gameand finally, this is our relevant part:Instanced Combat, explaining dungeons, fractals and raidsDynamic Events, which is the basis of the Open World experience in this gamePersonal Story, which is the instanced part of the story in the game (it's not in the open after all)Competitive Play, which includes Player vs. Player and World vs. World

This is one type of grouping, there are many btw, another way to "split" the game is by using the teams they have.After all if a type of content requires a different team than another one, then it IS different mode of the game (otherwise it wouldn't need a different team, right?).Living World (multiple teams), Structured PVP, WVW, Fractals and Raids all have a dedicated team working on them.And then we have the more general teams that work on all the above, the balance team, the narrative team, the tech team, the sound team, the music team, the graphics team and so on.

[Ohoni.6057]

@maddoctor.2738 said:Wait, so Arenanet has the data. Arenanet doesn't make "changes".Doesn't that mean everything is OK according to the data (that they already have)?

No, where would you get that idea? Game developers very often ignore (publicly at least) any aspects that might be viewed as a negative, such as a portion of the gamer not living up to their initial expectations. Just because the developers haven't affirmatively commented on something does not mean that it's not an issue. My assertion here is just that they should affirmatively comment on it.

And also, I don't understand this "three pillars" thingy. Was it mentioned by the developers somewhere, because I must've missed it.

Yes.

[Tails.9372]

@costepj.5120 said:I go into WvW regularly and rarely engage another player in combat. I mostly roam, flipping camps and other objectives by killing NPCs. Sometimes I just escort dollies for a while. WvW is a crossover between PvE and PvP, so why not represent it as a third category?Because the main focus of the game mode lies in PvP, group PvP to be more specific. Even if you don't fight your enemies directly you're still hurting their team by flipping camps / cutting of their supplies & stuff.

@Cyninja.2954 said:PvE or Player Versus Environment is commonly known as content where a player or a group of players compete against their surroundings or AI controlled enemies. The term is used to differentiate the content from PvP which stands for Player Versus Player.And that's the problem, at this point PvE simply means "not PvP" which is why saying stuff like "but there already is a legendary PvE armor set" is such an empty point to make.

@maddoctor.2738 said:I don't understand this "three pillars" thingy. Was it mentioned by the developers somewhere, because I must've missed it.Someone in the "More “paths” to legendary gear..." thread brought it up to justify not adding more legendary gear to different kinds of PvE.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:Wait, so Arenanet has the data. Arenanet doesn't make "changes".Doesn't that mean everything is OK according to the data (that they already have)?

No, where would you get that idea? Game developers very often ignore (publicly at least) any aspects that might be viewed as a negative, such as a portion of the gamer not living up to their initial expectations. Just because the developers haven't affirmatively commented on something does not mean that it's not an issue. My assertion here is just that they

should

affirmatively comment on it.

Not going to happen. Why should the developer risk alienating part of his player base by saying things? There is absolutely no gain for arenanet to make by stating any stance on this subject.

The only thing we as consumers can do is judge or interpret based on the developments and changes (or lack their of) being made. See PoF, the majority of complaints as far as HoT maps were addressed:

• less vertical maps, more horizontal maps
• easier enemies
• easier hero point challenges
• a better more fleshed out story
• less mastery grind

Now they at no point in time had to come out and state that they were going to do this. Instead the development spoke for its self. Was it the right choice? Judging by the amount of complaints about replayability of PoF maps, I'm not so sure. That's a different issue though and has more to do with do players know whats best for the game and its vision. The point is, changes were made and they did reflect on issues the developers deemed change worthy (even if only to offer more diverse content).

The same will happen in regard to legendary armor and instanced content. If the metrics that arenanet has show that a change is required, they will implement this. Judging by how they have responded to legendary armor and requirements for easier raids so far and the implementation of new content. They seem content with how the numbers for instanced content and open world content at current reward structures are.

[STIHL.2489]

@Cyninja.2954 said:do players know whats best for the game and its vision.

To quote Smedly "Gamers have no idea what they want"

I agree with this to a point, they may not know what they want, but, they do know astutely what they don't like.

As a developer, the goal is give players something they will enjoy, but the truth is, they can't please everyone, so they will need to pick their battles .

Case in point. WoW is all about the raids, if you don't like raids, WoW is not the game for you, and Blizzard embraces this, they have that demographic they want, and the focus on them, everyone else can find something else to play. Total respect for them for that.

Maybe what really needs to happen at this point is the Anet-GW2 dev team needs to have a closed door chat, and make that decision as to what the future of this game is for them, who they are going to build this game for., and stick to the vision of making the best game for that demographic they can.

Who that is.. is not for me to say or know. But I would respect them more if they said "this game is designed with this group of people mind, it's not for everyone" then trying to say "we have some parts you can play"..

Wobbling around without that deftness of focus, will just cost them money and clients.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

So, we descend to a new level of nitpicking over rewards. The same people are arguing that L. equipment "needs" to be available in the content they prefer, as well as the content other people prefer. The same people are defending the status quo because the status quo favors their gameplay preferences. The only thing new here is a spurious reference to a game design philosophy that neither I nor several others who've paid close attention over the years seem to be able to recall. As usual, the OP claims the "3 pillars" philosophy was/is a thing but neglects to provide any evidence for same.

I know what the OP wants. He believes ANet should look at how rewards are assigned, and in doing so they would notice that the OP represents a vast majority of players who both want certain rewards and are unhappy about how they are obtained in the game. Again as usual, the OP presents no evidence that that is the case.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@Cyninja.2954 said:The only thing we as consumers can do is judge or interpret based on the developments and changes (or lack their of) being made. See PoF, the majority of complaints as far as HoT maps were addressed:

• less vertical maps, more horizontal maps
• easier enemies
• easier hero point challenges
• a better more fleshed out story
• less mastery grind

Your point in general is well taken. However, I'd argue that enemy difficulty is about the same in both XPac's, and outliers as far as mob difficulty exist in both XPac's. I normally wouldn't bother mentioning this, except that the entire thread seems to be about nitpicking.

[Astralporing.1957]

@TexZero.7910 said:WvW isn't just PvP. Last i checked those keeps/towers/scouts are all AI and it requires their deaths to take control of the structures.So? I guess you haven't ever killed any lord on Foefire or Stronghold. Haven't killed Chieftain/Svanir on Nilfhelm. DIdn't carry any orbs in Spirit Watch, or performed any ninja caps on empty point in any of those modes? Or perhaps you haven't noticed that the real goal of sPvP is, surprisingly not to fight enemy players, but to cap points (and utilize additional mechanics well), and concentrating on actual PvP is often one of the fastest ways to lose the match?

Seriously, the main difference between sPvP and WvW is time and team scale. Both modes are just a different take on the general PvP idea. Just as OW and Raids are a different take on the general PvE idea. In both cases those submodes appear to distinctly different groups of players.

There's no significant difference between those two divides.

[polarbear.2497]

@Kapax.3801 said:Three pillars, and each one has different "sub pillars"PvE

• Fractals
• Dungeons (dead)

Dungeons are most certainly not dead. Easy to get groups in LFG and my guild runs them often. Still necessary for make gen 1 legendaries.

WvWvW

• 3 Bordes
• 1 eternal battlegrounds
• The Edge of the Mists (dead)

EoTM is not dead either - every day you find full squads. Perhaps it depends on your server.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Ohoni.6057 said:You see why we need ANet to make an official statement on this?No, not in the least. It's never been fruitful to argue about jargon. Plus, ANet offers guidelines, not hard & fast rules about their goals. They know that things change and that being too specific isn't useful for the long-term health of the game. There is no reason to have a technical definition of the "pillars" in a game that blurs such distinctions in the first place.

Why can't you ask your question without depending on ANet's definition of the terms?

[Ohoni.6057]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:You see why we need ANet to make an official statement on this?No, not in the least. It's never been fruitful to argue about jargon. Plus, ANet offers guidelines, not hard & fast rules about their goals. They know that things change and that being too specific isn't useful for the long-term health of the game. There is no reason to have a technical definition of the "pillars" in a game that blurs such distinctions in the first place.

Why can't you ask your question without depending on ANet's definition of the terms?

Because ultimately they are the ones that make the final calls, so it's helpful when discussing the future of the game to have a firm idea of the present.

[mercury ranique.2170]

PvP: Player versus player (with almost zero PvE elements in it)WvW: Player versus player with good amounts of PvE (keep lords, defenders, exploration, jumping puzzles etc)PvE: Player versus environment

This is plain simpel in my opinion.If someone argues that PvE doesnt need legendary armor cause it is allready in raids, they are correct. But maybe you should not ask for legendary armor in PvE while it is allready there, but ask for legendary armor available for open world players.

The pillars are clear (although not equal in attention from both devs and players). Within the pillars there are much more deviations.

I think the main issue is that people too often think that they are entitled to attention from the devs for their gamemode and less tolerable to other formats getting attention. Don't envy, just let them know what you like to see., but also be precise. If you like to see legendary armor available for open world players. say it like that.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:You see why we need ANet to make an official statement on this?No, not in the least. It's never been fruitful to argue about jargon. Plus, ANet offers guidelines, not hard & fast rules about their goals. They know that things change and that being too specific isn't useful for the long-term health of the game. There is no reason to have a technical definition of the "pillars" in a game that blurs such distinctions in the first place.

Why can't you ask your question without depending on ANet's definition of the terms?

Because ultimately they are the ones that make the final calls, so it's helpful when discussing the future of the game to have a firm idea of the present.

You seem to be missing the point: the "pilars" aren't technical terms that have exact definitions. They are descriptive concepts that are used to outline goals, not prescriptions for specific road maps. The distinctions are blurred at best and ANet realizes that a good game needs to be flexible. They never give us a "firm idea" of what they are working on, because things can change (and usually do).

So please, find a way to ask your question without worrying about the jargon.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:You see why we need ANet to make an official statement on this?No, not in the least. It's never been fruitful to argue about jargon. Plus, ANet offers guidelines, not hard & fast rules about their goals. They know that things change and that being too specific isn't useful for the long-term health of the game. There is no reason to have a technical definition of the "pillars" in a game that blurs such distinctions in the first place.

Why can't you ask your question without depending on ANet's definition of the terms?

Because ultimately they are the ones that make the final calls, so it's helpful when discussing the future of the game to have a firm idea of the present.

You seem to be missing the point: the "pilars" aren't technical terms that have exact definitions. They are descriptive concepts that are used to outline goals, not prescriptions for specific road maps. The distinctions are blurred at best and ANet realizes that a good game needs to be flexible. They never give us a "firm idea" of what they are working on, because things can change (and usually do).

So please, find a way to ask your question without worrying about the jargon.

I did, it was the OP to this thread. That was my question.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:You see why we need ANet to make an official statement on this?No, not in the least. It's never been fruitful to argue about jargon. Plus, ANet offers guidelines, not hard & fast rules about their goals. They know that things change and that being too specific isn't useful for the long-term health of the game. There is no reason to have a technical definition of the "pillars" in a game that blurs such distinctions in the first place.

Why can't you ask your question without depending on ANet's definition of the terms?

Because ultimately they are the ones that make the final calls, so it's helpful when discussing the future of the game to have a firm idea of the present.

You seem to be missing the point: the "pilars" aren't technical terms that have exact definitions. They are descriptive concepts that are used to outline goals, not prescriptions for specific road maps. The distinctions are blurred at best and ANet realizes that a good game needs to be flexible. They never give us a "firm idea" of what they are working on, because things can change (and usually do).

So please, find a way to ask your question without worrying about the jargon.

I did, it was the OP to this thread. That was my question.

If all you want to know is how ANet is using jargon this week, you won't get an answer that you will find satisfactory. The terms are intended to be vague, so that they can stretch as needed for the circumstances.

What is it you really want to ask that you feel depends on knowing how ANet defines PvE?

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

Perhaps in a broad sense, but if people can treat WvW and sPvP as if they are separate entities and each equally as deserving of individual reward tracks and paths to Legendary weapons, then why not apply that same philosophy to PvE, and have "instanced group PvE" and "open world PvE" as two distinct and independently supported systems, rather than treating them as a single system where certain rewards are only tied to one half of that balance?

Ok, you should have started with this bit since this is the intent of your conversation versus asking for a declaration about what this game is. I think most people will always think of the different options in game based on their rules:

• Mode where you combat other players - your gear and level matter
• Mode where you combat other players and your gear/level doesn't matter
• Mode where you can not combat other players - your gear / level matters

To some of us that's WvW, PvP, PvE. Open world, world boss, festivals, LS, fractals, Raids, all follow the same rules in the sense that you will not be fighting players but NPCs and your gear / level matter. They all have differing difficulty but they follow the same general rules. Same for various PvP and WvW activities.

So now to your point, your looking for Legendary gear outside of raids. If you are not raiding, what would you consider a similar level of effort to acquire Leg gear in PvE outside of Raids? I would target that issue more than trying to target a game mission declaration, you mask your real issue. What system do you envision. ANet's already thrown out there their thoughts since they released WvW and PvP options. So using that model what are you envisioning? I think I know how I might do it, but this isn't my thread.

On a side note, for any gear, there should be multiple ways to acquire it as long as the level of involvement is comparable. Which is the debatable parts, doesn't have to be the same appearance, but there should be comparable options to acquire versions of it.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

You seem to be missing the point: the "pilars" aren't technical terms that have exact definitions. They are descriptive concepts that are used to outline goals, not prescriptions for specific road maps. The distinctions are blurred at best and ANet realizes that a good game needs to be flexible. They never give us a "firm idea" of what they are working on, because things can change (and usually do).

So please, find a way to ask your question without worrying about the jargon.

I did, it was the OP to this thread. That was my question.

If all you want to know is how ANet is using jargon this week, you won't get an answer that you will find satisfactory. The terms are intended to be vague, so that they can stretch as needed for the circumstances.

What is it you really want to ask that you feel depends on knowing how ANet defines PvE?

"I think that the devs need to get real with us, and perhaps with themselves, and lay out where the actual players spend the majority of their time in game, and move away from the "three pillars" model. Don't "ghost" the community by just pretending that nothing's changed since the launch ideals, be straight about where things stand."

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Ohoni.6057 said:"I think that the devs need to get real with us, and perhaps with themselves, and lay out where the actual players spend the majority of their time in game, and move away from the "three pillars" model. Don't "ghost" the community by just pretending that nothing's changed since the launch ideals, be straight about where things stand."

Its very easy to draw incorrect conclusions from these kinds of things so it can more harmful then helpful. Example: I just spent a large chunk of time in the LS3 maps over the last few weeks. So just from a heat map that would seem like I was PvEing and doing living story. Which in terms of actions I was, but it was to gather materials and currencies to create 4 new WvW builds with since I had used up WvW currencies for other build changes. I spent a large time crafting as well, that's required for 2 modes so which would get the time credit for that. I know there are people that are just PvP, WvWers and PvErs, but I think a majority are PvXers that play varied game modes and they change the amount of time depending on what entertains them at the time. Again, for why would ANet try to define something that players change all the time. To some of us the TP is a game in of itself, but I don't think ANet created it in those terms, its fun all the same.

[Ohoni.6057]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:"I think that the devs need to get real with us, and perhaps with themselves, and lay out where the actual players spend the majority of their time in game, and move away from the "three pillars" model. Don't "ghost" the community by just pretending that nothing's changed since the launch ideals, be straight about where things stand."

Its very easy to draw incorrect conclusions from these kinds of things so it can more harmful then helpful. Example: I just spent a large chunk of time in the LS3 maps over the last few weeks. So just from a heat map that would seem like I was PvEing and doing living story. Which in terms of actions I was, but it was to gather materials and currencies to create 4 new WvW builds with since I had used up WvW currencies for other build changes. I spent a large time crafting as well, that's required for 2 modes so which would get the time credit for that. I know there are people that are just PvP, WvWers and PvErs, but I think a majority are PvXers that play varied game modes and they change the amount of time depending on what entertains them at the time. Again, for why would ANet try to define something that players change all the time. To some of us the TP is a game in of itself, but I don't think ANet created it in those terms, its fun all the same.

Well hopefully they would use a snapshot of more than a few weeks, but they can pick up on trends over months and years of overall participation in various content. I do agree that heat maps don't tell the entire story though, one thing I wish ANet would do is more scientific polling of the community, like they used to have these pop-up questionnaire in beta to rate what you were doing, and while those were annoying, some variation on that might be nice now. Maybe randomly select players who log in fairly regularly, and send them an ingame mail, which would then direct them toward a webform asking them what their preferences were, so that they could get more detailed and personal feedback than just what heatmapping would show. In your case you could indicate that while you spent a lot of time doing X, you prefer to do Y.

[Zaklex.6308]

This whole thing is ridiculous because there is still a WvW dev team and a PvP dev team, and I would never have expected them to be the same size as the PvE dev team as they don't require the same amount of resources...so nothing has really changed in that respect.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Zaklex.6308 said:This whole thing is ridiculous because there is still a WvW dev team and a PvP dev team, and I would never have expected them to be the same size as the PvE dev team as they don't require the same amount of resources...so nothing has really changed in that respect.

That's not really the point of this thread.

[Holykitten.3064]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:This whole thing is ridiculous because there is still a WvW dev team and a PvP dev team, and I would never have expected them to be the same size as the PvE dev team as they don't require the same amount of resources...so nothing has really changed in that respect.

That's not really the point of this thread.

There is no point to this thread.