A Chat w/ Roy and Cecil About WvW Development Goals

[MuscleBobBuffPants.1406]

Just now, Gahagan.4302 said:

I can tell you listened to it, it's why you're giving feedback on the forums, where Roy requested that feedback goes. 🙂

Where feedback goes to be ignored, like in the balance feedback threads.  🙂  So until something changes I am not convinced.  And remember its communication, its a two way.  Listen and speak, give and take.  So far it is just one direction.

[Sheff.4851]

4 minutes ago, MuscleBobBuffPants.1406 said:

Where feedback goes to be ignored, like in the balance feedback threads.  🙂  So until something changes I am not convinced.  And remember its communication, its a two way.  Listen and speak, give and take.  So far it is just one direction.

I understand that, but also, not all feedback is good feedback and gets implemented. You say that until something changes, you aren't convinced, but I've seen a number of things that I've discussed on streams, in videos, et cetera get implemented in one way or another. For example, if you go back and look at the Weaponmaster Beta video that I did, I said that one of the things that Sword needed for Necromancer was an additional benefit to casting the front half of Sword 3, to make the back half worth using. Lo and behold, on release, the front half got a corrupt, and now Sword is a very interesting alternative to Axe.

I think it's more about framing feedback in a way that's actionable, well-reasoned, and constructive, rather than just saying things are broken and demanding they get fixed.

[ArchonWing.9480]

2 hours ago, Gahagan.4302 said:

I don't necessarily disagree with that. I think the current balance environment is definitely one of the issues with the gamemode as it is. But the split isn't necessarily "boonball" versus "not boonball". It's more that there is a large group of players that is interested in discovering and using the most effective techniques available to them in order to perform well. Right now that's boonballs. That may get changed to something else in the future, at which point the group of players that are minmaxing will shift to that, and then a new group of players will complain about that new meta that's been discovered.

Balance isn't something that has a static, defined solution, that everyone will be happy with. Instead, it's something that needs to shift and adapt over time as effective strategies emerge, to keep the game fresh and to give theorycrafters something to work on.

Boonball is merely a shorthand for the numerous sustain balance issues in group play. However, it does not cover the numerous issues that cause WvW to be undesirable for new and casual players that affect gameplay at all scales.

I am worried that all this work put into balancing population will all be for naught if players don't find the content itself desirable, outside of a very hardcore crowd. Games cannot survive on hardcore players alone. And there is much argument that WvW is quite the hostile climate for new blood.

Players will always find ways to min-max and find the most effective tactics. This is true in any game. But the goal should always be for the developers to decide the  min and max-- and Gw2 is somewhat famous for having a massive disparity between things.

Edited July 20 by ArchonWing.9480

[MuscleBobBuffPants.1406]

1 minute ago, Gahagan.4302 said:

I understand that, but also, not all feedback is good feedback and gets implemented. You say that until something changes, you aren't convinced, but I've seen a number of things that I've discussed on streams, in videos, et cetera get implemented in one way or another. For example, if you go back and look at the Weaponmaster Beta video that I did, I said that one of the things that Sword needed for Necromancer was an additional benefit to casting the front half of Sword 3, to make the back half worth using. Lo and behold, on release, the front half got a corrupt, and now Sword is a very interesting alternative to Axe.

I think it's more about framing feedback in a way that's actionable, well-reasoned, and constructive, rather than just saying things are broken and demanding they get fixed.

"not all feedback is good feedback and gets implemented."
Of course all feedback is good feedback, it's someone telling you something is wrong and telling you about their experience.  Feedback is a response, it is an experience, nothing good or bad about it.
"I think it's more about framing feedback in a way that's actionable, well-reasoned, and constructive, rather than just saying things are broken and demanding they get fixed."
It's about creating a system that can integrate the feedback into actionable responses.  The burden is on the company, not the community to create that system.  They are the one's with the responsibility.
"one of the things that Sword needed for Necromancer was an additional benefit to casting the front half of Sword 3, to make the back half worth using. Lo and behold, on release, the front half got a corrupt, and now Sword is a very interesting alternative to Axe."
But of course does that mean it is balanced?  Does that mean that it balances out others movement, damage?  Does it provide counterplay?  Does it provide fun and engaging content?  Changes refers to not ignoring feedback from the community.  I am glad they listened to you, I want them to listen to more and others to provide that balance.  As I go back to before, validating the experiences of others and integrating it.  Not just an ArenaNet partner or some discord chat club.

[Sheff.4851]

3 minutes ago, MuscleBobBuffPants.1406 said:

"not all feedback is good feedback and gets implemented."
Of course all feedback is good feedback, it's someone telling you something is wrong and telling you about their experience.  Feedback is a response, it is an experience, nothing good or bad about it.
"I think it's more about framing feedback in a way that's actionable, well-reasoned, and constructive, rather than just saying things are broken and demanding they get fixed."
It's about creating a system that can integrate the feedback into actionable responses.  The burden is on the company, not the community to create that system.  They are the one's with the responsibility.
"one of the things that Sword needed for Necromancer was an additional benefit to casting the front half of Sword 3, to make the back half worth using. Lo and behold, on release, the front half got a corrupt, and now Sword is a very interesting alternative to Axe."
But of course does that mean it is balanced?  Does that mean that it balances out others movement, damage?  Does it provide counterplay?  Does it provide fun and engaging content?  Changes refers to not ignoring feedback from the community.  I am glad they listened to you, I want them to listen to more and others to provide that balance.  As I go back to before, validating the experiences of others and integrating it.  Not just an ArenaNet partner or some discord chat club.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. "This sucks, fix it" is bad feedback. It's just complaining without offering anything productive.

[Hesione.9412]

3 minutes ago, Gahagan.4302 said:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. "This sucks, fix it" is bad feedback. It's just complaining without offering anything productive.

No-one is saying that. Please stop producing strawmen of other people's comments.

[MuscleBobBuffPants.1406]

Just now, Gahagan.4302 said:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. "This sucks, fix it" is bad feedback. It's just complaining without offering anything productive.

Then in a conversation someone asks them.  "Why do you think it sucks?"  "This doesn't feel right when you play against this" "Why does that feel wrong?" "Well when this happens, then this happens" "Do you mean this" "Yes and then this happens" .  A conversation starts from feedback, no player or developer is going to have some psychic knowledge of another's experience and some player isn't going to understand where the developer is confused either.  It is communication.  That is fundamentally the problem with balance, WvW etc. etc.

[Sheff.4851]

2 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

No-one is saying that. Please stop producing strawmen of other people's comments.

"Of course all feedback is good feedback" is a direct quote from above me. It's literally been said.

[Hesione.9412]

Just now, Gahagan.4302 said:

"Of course all feedback is good feedback" is a direct quote from above me. It's literally been said.

That is not feedback, and it is not what the person meant. Stop producing strawmen.

[Chaba.5410]

1 minute ago, MuscleBobBuffPants.1406 said:

Then in a conversation someone asks them.  "Why do you think it sucks?"  "This doesn't feel right when you play against this" "Why does that feel wrong?" "Well when this happens, then this happens" "Do you mean this" "Yes and then this happens" .  A conversation starts from feedback, no player or developer is going to have some psychic knowledge of another's experience and some player isn't going to understand

General feedback on this forum is not like that at all. And it's unrealistic to expect that to happen. This isn't a conversation. If you have something constructive to say, say it. People shouldn't have to be coddled into giving it.

[XenesisII.1540]

12 minutes ago, Gahagan.4302 said:

I understand that, but also, not all feedback is good feedback and gets implemented. You say that until something changes, you aren't convinced, but I've seen a number of things that I've discussed on streams, in videos, et cetera get implemented in one way or another. For example, if you go back and look at the Weaponmaster Beta video that I did, I said that one of the things that Sword needed for Necromancer was an additional benefit to casting the front half of Sword 3, to make the back half worth using. Lo and behold, on release, the front half got a corrupt, and now Sword is a very interesting alternative to Axe.

I think it's more about framing feedback in a way that's actionable, well-reasoned, and constructive, rather than just saying things are broken and demanding they get fixed.

All that really proves is they listen to their private discord of friends and streaming affiliates, which everyone accuses them of already.

They haven't responded to any of the defense changes that many disagreed with, or even a word on the defense event working properly or not, ignored stuff as usual. Not hard for a player to get disenchanted with this company pretty fast, and not want to bother with long thought out responses anymore, with the way they operate with their communication.

 

2 hours ago, Gahagan.4302 said:

Very interesting, thank you for your insights! I wasn't aware that Roy was secretly feeding advice to the balance team about his experiences as a player. I'll definitely make a video on that next.

I mean where else are they getting the information or advice to nerf something like Null field multiple times specifically for wvw only, players like him and those fight groups. I highly doubt Cal is making it up from his spreadsheets alone, and if he did, well he hates mesmers and happy to do it anyways. 🤷‍♂️

[MuscleBobBuffPants.1406]

Just now, Chaba.5410 said:

General feedback on this forum is not like that at all. And it's unrealistic to expect that to happen. This isn't a conversation. If you have something constructive to say, say it. People shouldn't have to be coddled into giving it.

General feedback isn't like that?  There are people I have seen write some PHD thesis on balance. Why don't the ArenaNet devs come to the forum to that have those conversations?  Of course it is a conversation, of course it is communication.  If you think a small group of people are going to magically understand the experiences of others without talking to them, it ain't gonna happen.  It isn't unrealistic at all.  I play many games where the developers have active conversations with the community.  They are active in their discussions and communication.  It isn't some impossible task.  

[Chaba.5410]

8 minutes ago, MuscleBobBuffPants.1406 said:

General feedback isn't like that?  There are people I have seen write some PHD thesis on balance. Why don't the ArenaNet devs come to the forum to that have those conversations?  Of course it is a conversation, of course it is communication.  If you think a small group of people are going to magically understand the experiences of others without talking to them, it ain't gonna happen.  It isn't unrealistic at all.  I play many games where the developers have active conversations with the community.  They are active in their discussions and communication.  It isn't some impossible task.  

See, this is a prime example of how we are not having a conversation.  You literally just talked past me.  I was talking about your suggestion that people should be coddled when they give non-constructive feedback and you misrepresented my response by talking about people who do provide constructive feedback.  There are indeed posters who write PHD theses.  In general though that's not the kind of feedback given.

Edited July 20 by Chaba.5410

[MuscleBobBuffPants.1406]

Just now, Chaba.5410 said:

See, this is a prime example of how we are not having a conversation.  You literally just talked past me.  I was talking about your suggestion that people should be coddled when they give non-constructive feedback and you misrepresented my response by talking about people who do provide constructive feedback.

Thanks for clarifying!  Now I understand due to ...... communication!  Now would you like to discuss what you consider non-constructive feedback?  Because I feel that like the majority of feedback I see in the threads is quite productive.  That is my experience, please tell me about your experience!

[Sheff.4851]

46 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

All that really proves is they listen to their private discord of friends and streaming affiliates, which everyone accuses them of already.

They haven't responded to any of the defense changes that many disagreed with, or even a word on the defense event working properly or not, ignored stuff as usual. Not hard for a player to get disenchanted with this company pretty fast, and not want to bother with long thought out responses anymore, with the way they operate with their communication.

 

I mean where else are they getting the information or advice to nerf something like Null field multiple times specifically for wvw only, players like him and those fight groups. I highly doubt Cal is making it up from his spreadsheets alone, and if he did, well he hates mesmers and happy to do it anyways. 🤷‍♂️

Friend, I went to dinner and took a walk, it's 7:30pm here. Plus, I already responded to the defense changes, by talking about how I felt that the 50% repair change was advantageous, and described my own experiences of losing fights inside of keeps as somebody who frequently fights in and around contested objectives. If you respond to something by disagreeing about it, it's still a response.

[Chaba.5410]

42 minutes ago, MuscleBobBuffPants.1406 said:

Thanks for clarifying!  Now I understand due to ...... communication!  Now would you like to discuss what you consider non-constructive feedback?  Because I feel that like the majority of feedback I see in the threads is quite productive.  That is my experience, please tell me about your experience!

If I were to use specific examples from this forum of non-constructive feedback, it would violate the "name and shame" part of the TOS.  LOL.

Constructive feedback requires an understanding of the "system status" now, you have to know where you are before you can suggest where you are going, how things function, know the material before taking the test, like knowing what the WvW team does or watching the video before commenting.  Constructive feedback prevents a lot of backtracking over concepts people already or should already know.  Or I should rather call it high quality constructive feedback.  It also requires a person to acknowledge the "gives", like when Anet does implement changes that players asked for, and not just focusing on the negative all the time.

Edited July 21 by Chaba.5410

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

6 hours ago, Gahagan.4302 said:

Hi everyone. My name is Sheff, I make videos about World vs. World on the internet. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to talk to Roy and Cecil about the Restructuring development process: what the limitations of previous systems like linking were that it addresses, and what directions of future development it enables. We also had some conversations about World vs. World design goals overall, things like scoring, making winning matter, and rewards. This was originally a stream, but I converted it into a YouTube vod and added some chapter markers to make it easier to navigate around to specific questions for people who may have missed it previously. Take a look here: https://youtu.be/tgduXol9jEk

You seem so familiar…I just can’t remember but I feel like I’ve played before with you. It was a fun experience from what I remember. Did you happen to play on BP in the past year or so?

[Sheff.4851]

Just now, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

You seem so familiar…I just can’t remember but I feel like I’ve played before with you. It was a fun experience from what I remember. Did you happen to play on BP in the past year or so?

I think I spent a brief amount of time on BP when CO/ShW were also there. Maybe around that period?

[Sheff.4851]

54 minutes ago, MuscleBobBuffPants.1406 said:

Thanks for clarifying!  Now I understand due to ...... communication!  Now would you like to discuss what you consider non-constructive feedback?  Because I feel that like the majority of feedback I see in the threads is quite productive.  That is my experience, please tell me about your experience!

I think the first response in the thread is a pretty good example of non-constructive feedback. It is:

"They're already failing wvw so meh. They can paint the monster problem up with scoring changes, more stingy rewards available, nerfing everything that touches a boon ball, recycling everyone every four weeks around their precious boon blobbing friends, but they're sucking the life out of wvw if they continue to ignore the actual problem killing player motivation."

The points in this post are that there are "scoring changes", "stingy rewards", "nerfing things that touch a boonball", "recycling players", and "sucking the life out of WvW". Those aren't constructive, they are just complaints. An example of constructive feedback would be, here are the specific parts of the scoring changes that are bad. Here are the specific rewards that are undertuned. Here are the specific nerfs that enable boonballs, while hurting other playstyles. Et cetera, et cetera. These point out specific issues that are actionable and can be worked on.

I'm sure people have written what they think are PhD theses on balance in this forum. Unfortunately, a PhD is not just a long collection of words that all happen to be in the same place and about the same topic. It's a structured argument with specific examples, arguments, and solutions, not general, handwave, general statements.

[Zyreva.1078]

17 minutes ago, Gahagan.4302 said:

I think the first response in the thread is a pretty good example of non-constructive feedback. It is:

The first post doesn't look like feedback for the devs, it was just a response to you. This doesn't make it "non-constructive". Elaborating everything in detail whenever someone brings up an issue, like you are suggesting, would just lead to a lot of pointless off-topic spam.

Edited July 21 by Zyreva.1078

[Chaba.5410]

29 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

The first post doesn't look like feedback for the devs, it was just a response to you. This doesn't make it "non-constructive". Elaborating everything in detail whenever someone brings up an issue, like you are suggesting, would just lead to a lot of pointless off-topic spam.

Off-topic spam like having to retread the conversation once again over what the WvW team does vs the balance team?  Or like the conceptual difference between WR and alliances?  It's pretty exhausting.

Edited July 21 by Chaba.5410

[XenesisII.1540]

16 minutes ago, Gahagan.4302 said:

I think the first response in the thread is a pretty good example of non-constructive feedback. It is:

"They're already failing wvw so meh. They can paint the monster problem up with scoring changes, more stingy rewards available, nerfing everything that touches a boon ball, recycling everyone every four weeks around their precious boon blobbing friends, but they're sucking the life out of wvw if they continue to ignore the actual problem killing player motivation."

The points in this post are that there are "scoring changes", "stingy rewards", "nerfing things that touch a boonball", "recycling players", and "sucking the life out of WvW". Those aren't constructive, they are just complaints. An example of constructive feedback would be, here are the specific parts of the scoring changes that are bad. Here are the specific rewards that are undertuned. Here are the specific nerfs that enable boonballs, while hurting other playstyles. Et cetera, et cetera. These point out specific issues that are actionable and can be worked on.

I'm sure people have written what they think are PhD theses on balance in this forum. Unfortunately, a PhD is not just a long collection of words that all happen to be in the same place and about the same topic. It's a structured argument with specific examples, arguments, and solutions, not general, handwave, general statements.

Hi, welcome to the wvw forums affiliate streamer, where we have already had discussions on all these topics, dozen of times, for years now, so excuse me if I won't write another book about these topics in response to you advertising your video, with an interview with developers who are not interested in having a two way discussion in the first place.

Yes the problem is that 99.9% of feedback is poorly written, and thus hand waved away as garbage as usual, and not the people who ask for the feedback yet never bother giving any responses to them, totally. Let's all write some more proper books on the problems of wvw so we can feel good about it all being ignored as usual.

Lastly you didn't come to the wvw forums to have a discussion, you came to advertise your stream, thus "constructive feedback" on those topics wasn't needed. I mean if you did want a discussion, you should have maybe asked the forums for some potential questions of current wvw problems to ask the developers, just so you cover other pov's of wvw game play and not just comp play, one of which we're pretty sure they have that covered by now.

End of the day I don't care what these developers have to say right now, as long as they remain biased and continue to send wvw into a worse state.

[Sheff.4851]

30 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

The first post doesn't look like feedback for the devs, it was just a response to you. This doesn't make it "non-constructive". Elaborating everything in detail whenever someone brings up an issue, like you are suggesting, would just lead to a lot of pointless off-topic spam.

I dunno, I don't think they're telling me that I, specifically am sucking the life out of World vs. World. Maybe I am. It's unclear.

[Chaba.5410]

3 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

with an interview with developers who are not interested in having a two way discussion in the first place

Plenty of people have been having two way discussions with those devs.  And not in private discords either.  When you start with the prejudicial idea that they aren't interested, that's not on them, but on you.

Edited July 21 by Chaba.5410

[Sheff.4851]

1 minute ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Hi, welcome to the wvw forums affiliate streamer, where we have already had discussions on all these topics, dozen of times, for years now, so excuse me if I won't write another book about these topics in response to you advertising your video, with an interview with developers who are not interested in having a two way discussion in the first place.

Yes the problem is that 99.9% of feedback is poorly written, and thus hand waved away as garbage as usual, and not the people who ask for the feedback yet never bother giving any responses to them, totally. Let's all write some more proper books on the problems of wvw so we can feel good about it all being ignored as usual.

Lastly you didn't come to the wvw forums to have a discussion, you came to advertise your stream, thus "constructive feedback" on those topics wasn't needed. I mean if you did want a discussion, you should have maybe asked the forums for some potential questions of current wvw problems to ask the developers, just so you cover other pov's of wvw game play and not just comp play, one of which we're pretty sure they have that covered by now.

End of the day I don't care what these developers have to say right now, as long as they remain biased and continue to send wvw into a worse state.

If I wanted to advertise the stream, I'd have posted about it before I held it, so that I could get even more ad revenue. And unless you have an adblocker installed, you'll note that monetization on this video (and all other videos on my channel) is off. That aside, I think that's a deliberate misrepresentation of the conversation that we're having here.

I came to the forums because, as mentioned in the video, the forums are the official location to provide feedback and hold discussions about the gamemode. That's a topic directly related to this video, so I posted it here to further conversations about it. The questions that I asked were drawn from lurking in the forums, as well as a number of other communities that I participate in, like the NA Alliances Discord, the Guild Wars 2 subreddit, conversations from others streamers' chats, and questions that I see people ask in-game. I see that you have 4600 posts in this forum, I'm sure that something you've said got synthesized and asked, in some form, within this video.

As long as we're on the topic though, do make sure that you smash that like button, ding that notification bell, and leave a comment to BLAST that engagement up on the algorithm, I really appreciate it.