Lily.1935

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > You think these wouldn't do a lot? i strongly disagree. But I'm also willing to hear others ideas. I'd love to hear what you have to offer as a solution to bridge the ever widening gap between new and old players. > > I have no solution because I don't think it's a problem that needs to be addressed. In fact, I think any forced interactions where people don't want them, new or old players ... is just a massive put off. Nothing should be implemented in this game to force interactions between demographics. No one plays this game to be forced to play with people they don't want to play with. Any move to change that will be unacceptable to the core. > > But ... to be fair, that gap has already been narrowed with fast leveling, expansion of endgame content, reasonably gotten endgame gear. Hell, a player can BUY their way to endgame if they don't want to encounter that gap at all ... you can't get more accommodating than this. SO if this is a problem ... the solution already exists. Even a step further ... NOTHING prevents old players interacting with new ones ... it's just not forced. > > So really your problem seems rather contrived ... the idea that new/old players don't interact enough ... and that's somehow related to what's wrong with the game. You keep getting hung up on the word 'force' and ignoring the substance of what I and others have said. Look, no one is forcing anyone to play with anyone else. Its giving more options to play with each other. What you see as FORCE isn't something you have to do. You never have to do it. MMO players are fickle. They want their time to be spent meaningfully most the time. Or however they perceive that to be and for many its through in game rewards. Giving that incentive is a step to aid that, whether it be liquid reward or something else, it needs to have repeatable value. The fact is, you think that throwing a new player into end game with absolutely no knowledge of the game is good seems to be where we differ. I look at the experience of an RPG as not just one of building of power but of knowledge. Power can be limited or given out freely, sure, but knowledge comes with time and just throwing someone in end game with know knowledge leaves them woefully prepared for what they're supposed to be doing and struggling against some of the most basic enemies and fights. Leveling isn't a good option because the process is pretty awful. Boosting to 80 is a bad option because they players then have no knowledge of what they're doing or what their class is good at. Either option turns off more new players than retains them. It is an issue. Whether you refuse to acknowledge it or not.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > Some of my ideas if you REALLY want to get into specifics about what I think would be good. > > These are low value changes that wouldn't impact many players in a game that is focused on level 80 content. I also don't see how these are related to EoD. > > The bottomline is that whatever the changes are .. they better have an impact on revenue ... a positive one. I think any content improvements in the leveling zones are questionable since so little time is spent in those portions of the game compared to endgame. The point of the post isn't specific to End of Dragons. Its more about an encompassing problem with the entire game. To which End of dragons is being pushed out as a means to help Guild wars. PoF included mounts to bring people into the game because the people here wouldn't have stopped playing if mounts weren't included. End of Dragons is going to try something to bring new players in and my criticism of their attempts thus far have been that they've missed the mark because of the poor maintenance of their early game. The shared inventory slot and 80 booster where included with some of the PoF purchases, athough not sure all the tiers it was included with, to meet the end goal of getting new players into the new content as quick as possible. The problem with that is GW2 is not a simple game. its complex and requires a lot of knowledge to jump in and play. Much like many other RPGs. Starting players off in the deep end wasn't successful in that attempt so when I say "EoD wont be enough" my perspective comes from this. Arena Net could have the best possible expansion in existence with 5 new dungeons, 2 new raids, 4 strike missions, new maps that hit that nostalgia, but if they don't do something about the early game and the leveling process all the players will be experiencing is the rather underwhelming story and early maps. I'm not sure where y'all are getting this "Taking stuff away" idea. That's just absurd which you've mentioned in an earlier post. To whom am I taking something away? The Level 80 players don't lose access to their mounts anywhere. New rewards become available to new players. New players are given a mount without having to buy an anything. Only thing I'm really advocating for getting rid of is access to the level 80 booster and experience boosters(although not all) to fresh accounts. If you wanted to use one on an Alt, congratulations, YOU would have access to it and the new player would gain access to it after they hit 80 with a character once. Hardly taking anything away. The only forcing I'm doing, which is what I was talking about is forcing the players to level up at least once. The other aspect to that is to make the content more engaging. Dungeons don't have to be hard. In fact I would be against that for the story modes. However having the tools a player needs to learn the game is something they should absolutely do. And rebalancing them and their rewards could bring new and old players to doing them more often. Sometimes PvE players get tired of the same thing. There is a tone of Down time in Guild Wars 2 between seasons. We go story, holiday, story, holiday, story, holiday, and sometimes we skip the story for 4 months. Holidays are great and all, but filling more of that down time with early content which people want to run can help break up the monotony for old players and bridge the gap for new players so they always have something they can do with a good chunk of the community. You think these wouldn't do a lot? i strongly disagree. But I'm also willing to hear others ideas. I'd love to hear what you have to offer as a solution to bridge the ever widening gap between new and old players.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > Then why make a fallacies statement like that? I never said anything like players wouldn't be able to keep leveling past 30 if they don't do the dungeons or join a guild. That would be absurd. Didn't even mention how I'd force players to play together. (Ideally they wouldn't notice it when it was happening.) > Again, you impugn me. I never made a statement, so how could it be false? I made an observation based on my interpretation of your posts. I never even touched on characters leveling -- you should go back to the original observation that I made. It had nothing to do with leveling. It was about how it seems to me that you want to force players to engage in content together whether or not they want to do so. > > And, no, you never mentioned HOW you would do this; only that you wanted to. > > Good luck with your ideas, though. I am completely against them but not opposed to your posting them. Since you have misinterpreted my posts twice now, I am no longer willing to continue conversing with you. > I did not. If you wish to explain yourself better, please do so. If I'm getting something wrong explain it better. I'm trying to do the same. You're against all of it but why? TO what end and what solution would you propose in its place? There is an issue whether you want to see that there is or not. If you can explain yourself clearly and concisely I can better determine if I agree with your assessment or not. At the moment you're just rejecting everything and making fallacies accusations. I used that example as something that probably could be misconstrued from what I was saying. The only forcing I suggested was the players going through the leveling process without boosters or tomes. And I suggested incentives to get people to play with each other. But you made a sarcastic comment about guilds as if what I was saying was as absurd which is a strawman.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > Guilds are something that can help. If the new players want to join one. And them playing with other people makes them more likely. At some point they do need to be pushed into multiplayer content. Sooner than later is better. > > > Why not simply force players into guilds to play the game? Seems like you are advocating forcing content on players anyway or forcing players to have to play with others. > > > > > > > Strawman argument. Never said anything like that. > > Never said that you "said" that. I said that you seem to be advocating for it. Please be more careful when you read what I post. Then why make a fallacies statement like that? I never said anything like players wouldn't be able to keep leveling past 30 if they don't do the dungeons or join a guild. That would be absurd. Didn't even mention how I'd force players to play together. (Ideally they wouldn't notice it when it was happening.) I talked a lot about revamping dungeons, weaving strikes into the leveling process so they're available at level 40+ but I never said they were required for leveling. I did say that the level 80 boost shouldn't be available or given to new players. But beyond that, I didn't say much which a few of you are adverse to even that which makes no sense to me. There is and should be enjoyment in the leveling process itself. Arena Net's method at the moment to bridge the gap between new and old players is awful and one of the key points of my criticism. Rather than giving old players incentive to go back to old content, such as dungeons(and revamp them to act to better teach players) or weave strikes into the leveling process like dungeons are, they put that burden on the new players to close that gap with the level 80 boost to scoot them along into the new content as quick as possible. Some of my ideas if you REALLY want to get into specifics about what I think would be good. 1. Revamp of the dungeons, both story and explorable, to act as teachers to the players to understand mechanics in an active situation such as breakbars, projectile blocks, dodging, jumping over attacks, so on and so on. 2. Give real rewards for doing the story dungeons that veteran players would want. 3. Strikes every 20 levels starting at level 40 or 45. So like, 40/45, 60/65, 80. 4. Leveling strikes should also have rewards veteran players would want. 5. Core Map venders with region based rewards for map areas that are summoned after doing major group events similar to how the Temple of Balthazar meta works with unique rewards to that region. By region I don't mean specific map but like Kryta, Ascalon, shiverpeaks. 6. More group events in core tyria zones along with Events that literally can't start without a specific number of people at that area. 7. Give the new players a mount at about level 10 or 15 that they could unlock through a heart that is prompted with mail to the character to tell them to come quick or something similar. 8. Remove access to the level 80 boost for new players along with experience boosts for them as well. Experience boosts could be given out to them as rewards for doing specific things. 9. All living world seasons should be bundled with the expansion they follow with no extra charge. 10. Rewards could be things which were normally gemstore or black lion chest items that rotate every month and are difficult or pricy to acquire in game. Such as unavailable black lion skins or dyes. Or even a PvE equivalent to the gift of Battle. 11. Rebalance core enemies to be better scaled with the power creep of the game. 12. A random Dungeon/strike finder or Rolette. Say if a small group of friends are starting a dungeon but can't get people, a random dungeon finder could be good for a vet as they enter it and are put in that group to fill the missing space so they can play the content and the random can get a dungeon or strike. This is a bit more specific than I want to get into, but these are some of the ideas I've had. Are they perfect? No. The only real forcing I'm doing is forcing the players to level up on without an external aid like special mounts, boosters and leveling tomes. As the game is now, no I wouldn't want to force someone to have to go through the process since its a grind. Part of my goal with this post is to push the idea that the process of leveling doesn't need to feel like a grind. It can be exciting and active. Players should want to do dungeons, they should want to do strikes, they should want to do world events. New and old alike. And my criticism of arena net is this. When they've been so focused on what's new without managing what new players are going to see first they have created a problem. New players are locked out of accessing current content or completely lost due to several pay walls and old players are pushed continually forward without regard for the new players. I think new content is fantastic. Its fun, and its great to do these metas. They're great! And central tyria should be great as well. We should be incentivized to go back to old maps and run metas with newbies or run dungeons with them. These are some of the systems, or something similar that I'd like BEFORE End of Dragons comes out. Are these perfect solutions? Absolutely not. They're flawed, but there something. They're ideas that could help to better bridge that massive gap. Would Arena net lose some money short term? Yeah they probably would. But I honestly believe that if they took the time to make the core experience so much richer with so much more to offer old players and new players alike the game could explode with popularity again. As for PvP and WvW. There isn't anything specific I'd like here. I would like them to crack down on the cheating in PvP and WvW as well as better tune the balance. But that's not a solution, just the common complaint. For PvP, new game modes would be nice for them with their own tournaments and rewards, could be different could be the same, I'm not entirely sure what they want. WvW really needs their alliances implemented. An expansion is coming out soon. Cool. I'm going to love it and play the heck out of it. I'm going to Get all the new armor and weapons skins I like and do whatever strike, raid, dungeon they include as well as all the story. That's great. But I'm a mega fan. I don't need to be convinced to buy EoD. I'm preordering it as soon as it becomes available. I do think End of Dragons will be a rousing success... For us... Do I think it'll attract a lot of new people? Maybe. If it does I don't think it'll retain people if arena net's track record continues as it has been for these past few years. From my perspective, End of Dragons is the perfect time to really buckle down and make sure the new player experience is catered to just as much as the veteran experience. Neither expansion thus far has catered to the new player experience. Even the addition of the revenant was cut short by experience tomes so old players could just skip that, though it wasn't nearly as egregious as it was when PoF released.

> @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > Guilds are something that can help. If the new players want to join one. And them playing with other people makes them more likely. At some point they do need to be pushed into multiplayer content. Sooner than later is better. > > > Why not simply force players into guilds to play the game? Seems like you are advocating forcing content on players anyway or forcing players to have to play with others. > > > > > > > Why play a Massively multiplayer Online Video game if you're not going to play with other people? > > Why not? It's not enforced. I realize that you want to change that, but seems unlikely that anet would do something so dumb. Like FFXIV, if raids start being required to progress, i will quit. Simplicity itself. Dungeons are required in Final Fantasy 14 to progress the story.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > Guilds are something that can help. If the new players want to join one. And them playing with other people makes them more likely. At some point they do need to be pushed into multiplayer content. Sooner than later is better. > Why not simply force players into guilds to play the game? Seems like you are advocating forcing content on players anyway or forcing players to have to play with others. > Strawman argument. Never said anything like that.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > Guilds are something that can help. If the new players want to join one. And them playing with other people makes them more likely. At some point they do need to be pushed into multiplayer content. Sooner than later is better. > Why not simply force players into guilds to play the game? Seems like you are advocating forcing content on players anyway or forcing players to have to play with others. > Why play a Massively multiplayer Online Video game if you're not going to play with other people?

> @"DeanBB.4268" said: > @OP, I'm not sure how long you've been playing, if the new player experience was in place or not, or when you last leveled up a character. Part of the level up is a pop-up that gives info, pointing out new skills, what are skill points and how to apply them (even opens the hero panel), what power, precision, etc are good for, that sort of thing. As @"kharmin.7683" said, the game doesn't force much of anything on anyone, so nobody is forced to look at that information when leveling up. I know my brother and daughter, both recent recruits, didn't bother to since I was around to guide them. The point is, info is there, but the impetus is on the player to acquire it. > > And don't we have "level up" dungeons now? But who runs them? Level 80's. If new players are forced (level gated?) to do level-up dungeons and strikes, will the level 80's accept them in their parties? I'd say no, nothing would change. So the "forced level up" instances then have to be made solo-able, for an appropriately geared and experienced player. > > And my brother and daughter have no complaints about the game. They are ages away from where you are and have a ton of content to play through. Maybe the uber-16hrs/day-power-MMO player has a different experience, blowing through content, but I'd say that isn't the norm. > > [edit] If anything, encouraging guilds may be the best thing for new players, providing possible mentors. Y'all have a very strange idea of who I am. Last time I did the level up process was just 2 months ago. It wasn't helpful and the person I was playing with didn't realize he had rewards for leveling for several levels. 16 hours a day? What? I have work and exercise to do. As well as a boyfriend to be with. Try 1-4 hours a week. Guilds are something that can help. If the new players want to join one. And them playing with other people makes them more likely. At some point they do need to be pushed into multiplayer content. Sooner than later is better.

> @"Excursion.9752" said: > @"Lily.1935" > I agree with most everything you said. Player retention due to lack of updating instanced content and competitive modes will greatly cause the population to dwindle. > > The new player / new character experienced does need to be looked at. I am not sure if limiting all mount mobility is part of that answer however. What I see is that people create new characters then rush them to end game content. While the instant 80's are awesome in all but it really handicaps the player using it unless they are familiar with the class/specialization they made. Most people have no clue what most of the skills are outsides of the ones used in the Meta build for their game mode. In short people don't know their class. Then they try to get into a group of veterans who know more about their class than they do and end up getting kicked because they under perform. > > Most players perceive this as toxic behavior. But truly its not. But what it does do is make the players start to get a bad impression of the game and little by little starts to chip at them and then they stop playing because the game is "toxic" or simply don't want to put up with the people. Is it the people who is kicking the peoples fault, no. Is it the person who is under prepared for the contents fault, no. > > Who's fault is it. It is the new player / new character system's fault for not properly preparing you. I believe there needs to be a system in place the "teaches" you the basics of your class, traits, utilities and specializations. The Silverwastes just does not cut it. I would wager most people don't spend a ton of time there before they move on. Not to mention the experience scrolls and tomes of knowledge people have saved up. All of this just lets you jump right to end game content. > > Most people, myself included, thought I could just make a new class and be good at it because "I know the game". I was wrong and in most cases people are not good straight away but they sure want to fake it until they make it. Yes eventually you do learn but it can be a tough process. Especially if you are trying to do T4 Fractals or Raids. > > Do I have an answer for the best solution to solving this? Not at all but I do think allowing people to jump straight into end game content with little or no experience is bad and it effects player retention because players leave when they don't "feel" accepted. I do think part of the issue can be solved through a revamp of Dungeons and possibly adding new strikes in between when a player would gain access to dungeons. This would give players something to do every 10 levels, or every 5 levels, after hitting level 30. Dungeons and these new strikes could have a Random group find system so that players could pick up a run quicker than group find as the normal group find, although great in many aspects, can cause exclusion. Having daily Random Dungeons or strikes for rewards could help this process out as well. Revamping the dungeons so they force players to engage with Mechanics that they'll need to know at the end game content like Fractals and raids would help them to transition into that content. Many think that raids and fractals are for elitists only but in truth those forms of content are fairly forgiving in a lot of sense and reward players for their dedication for their class and builds. And less Viable classes and builds do get a leg up through builds like the heal scourge which can ignore mechanics. Dungeons having parts where players need to engage with Jumping over aoe, dodging, using special action keys, using CC against breakbars should all be weaved into the dungeon and leveling strike experience building up in game on their skills as these dungeons only require you to know maybe one or two of these mechanics as to not overwhelm the players. I do think that Looking into this could give players a lot to do in the early levels which would allow them to further engage with the game and be built up for success in the game. I do think Strikes overall are a good idea. How they're implemented I feel wasn't well excited. Arena net does take so much away from the leveling experience that players care more about the destination of Level 80 than the journey to that goal in the first place. What many people seem to be forgetting in this Forum post is the fundamental idea of an RPG which is the progress of power. Players need to earn that power. But the journey to that power should be fun to do. As for the other game modes, PvP and WvW. I actually don't know what they could need to really help them out. I don't personally enjoy them so I could only make second hand guesses as to what the competitive players want. Where as the PvE its an issue of bridging the gap between new and veteran players and giving more incentive for Veterans to go back, engage with, and help new players, for PvP and WvW I don't think that issue is quite the same. I'd love to have PvP and WvW player's give their take on it. On another note, I do think there are more methods Anet could aid in bridging this gap in PvE. And that's the introduction of a new Race, New class and new leveling zones. All of these could help to get old players into old zones with new players or even gain the desire to explore the new leveling zones and enjoy the new local stories, ambiance, and events those places have to offer. WHY I have an issue with mounts in early zones isn't because I am some elitist who hates mounts and who wants to flaunt my undead skyscale mount in front of people, that isn't even remotely close. Why I have an issue with mounts is that the core maps of tyria are designed without them and exploring those maps and discovering how to get up to those vistas, points of interest, looking down nooks and crannies to find jumping puzzles is eroded when a raptor can just jump over a gap, or a springer can just hop up to the next vista. It takes away the problem solving element of the leveling process and reduces the player's ability to think critically and be more observant of their surroundings while leveling. Its an experience I wish new players where encouraged to partake in but mounts discourage the player's ability to almost literally get lost in the world. Even with my distaste for that lost experience I do want to give new players a mount without the bells and whistles and slightly slower and for leveling. Why? Because mounts are cool and I do honestly believe players will be super excited when they unlock it at lets say level 10 or 15. Suddenly the task of leveling to 80 just to get a mount isn't needed. All they need to do is get to level 10 or 15. I'll use another game as an Example of this. Final Fantasy 14. You don't need to get to max level to get a mount. And to tell you the truth I was super happy as a newb when I got my big goofy yellow Chocobo. No bells and whistles on that mount at all, but I appreciated it a lot. Its simple things that really can give a good impression. And Sure, a Veteran player would lose out in that they couldn't make a new level 1 character and be able to fly over all the other level 1s with their Skyscale, but do we really need to flaunt a superiority complex over the new players at every single step of the game? I think this is especially important if a new race was added with a new leveling zone. New players jump in to play the new race and Old players jump in and just do donuts around new players with their rollerbeetle before speeding off never to see those new players again. For me, the mount issue is compounded with other issues. And What I WANT is for new and old players to play together and be incentivized and rewarded for doing so. If I was to go back and try and help a new player now, it would not reward me in game. I would still do it but we can't assume that of everyone, especially considering MMOs often attract people who struggle in social situations.

> @"DemonSage.6317" said: > > @"HotDelirium.7984" said: > > Engineer- I want a fun- light-hearted spec like Sous Chef- splattering crippling cake-batter, buffing people with sweets (like the Bday gun), and cutting those deep like Gordon Ramsey. > lolololol. This gave me a good laugh. As an Engi main, I can't imagine the reaction of other players as they see a Sous-Chef Engi walk up to the Boss and start raining cakes and pastries to great effect (or more like terrible, knowing Anet's dislike for engi). I am not actually opposed to a fun, light-hearted e-spec but I hope its a 4th one rather than in the next expansion. > > @"Headcase.4618" said: > > 5. Elementalist/Spellslinger: Gains dual pistols and helm armor. > This is a great idea. The concept of a spellslinger theme is really cool for Elementalist. You done necroed my post! Woah! But as for the sous-chef idea, I think that sort of idea would work better as skill skins. Which has been an idea floating around for a while. Like replacing med kits with cupcakes or turrets in the style of Asura tech. As for Ele, My my position is evolving. But what exactly would a spellslinger do different than what ele already does?

> @"DeanBB.4268" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > ... I can't help but feel it just wont offer enough. ... > > We have a few images of the upcoming expansion, and that is it. Why bother speculating on how it fails? We know literally nothing other than they have told us it is based in Cantha. That immediately triggers those with nostalgia to imagine the best when, again, we literally have no idea. So to speculate what it will or will not offer is pointless and most likely setting up unrealistic expectations. Never said End of Dragons will fail. I think it'll be extremely popular with the existing fans. And my expectations for the expansion is extremely low. I expect nee maps, new elite specs, a solid story, great music and a new gimmick. I don't expect it to breath new life into the game.

I'm going to concede the mount point for the time being. Perhaps I'll bring it up in another discussion in the future, but for now I'd prefer we move on. Scrap that gripe for the time being.

> @"Hypnowulf.7403" said: > Let's look at a few key points, here. > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [...] Guild Wars 2 has a retention problem [...] > > What a point to open on. It invites two very important questions. > > _Does Guild Wars 2 have a retention problem?_ That'd be the first one. The thing is though is that the answer to that mightn't really matter. So a better question to ask then is: _If Guild Wars 2 has a retention problem, does that matter?_ > > This isn't a subscription MMO. The number of overall players doesn't really matter so long as those players are profitable, I think that ArenaNet shot themself in the foot by being too bizzarely kind with allowing one to convert coins to gems. That was a silly move from an economic standpoint. I appreciate it for its kindness because empathy is awesome, it's just that in a world like this where so many people are self-interested, you'll find that far too many won't spend money if they can grind and get the same result, or better. > > So this leads us to the only question that truly matters here: _Does Guild Wars 2 have a profitability problem?_ [snip] Cutting some things out as these feels like the meat of your first point. I wont be able to respond to every detail but I'll do my best. The longer players want to spend in the game the more they will spend. Your concern is money which, sure. However play retention is the biggest issue when talking about this. Why you want to shift the focus on more ways to squeeze money out from the existing playerbase rather than retaining new players is opposite to my general philosophy. A locking out the gold conversation for gems wouldn't do anything but upset players. You could lose players that way too. It's not recommended. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [...] the constantly shifting priorities and inconsistency of the developers [...] > > This is, again, to do with the attempt to make ArenaNet profitable before NCSoft gives them the boot. I think they're on a good path right now, though. I certainly haven't lost any confidence in them. Like I said, I think that Cantha to draw in a Chinese audience is very much a clever choice. It could be the shot in the arm that Guild Wars 2 needs. Arena net already tried to get into the Chinese market and the game didn't do all that well. Cantha isn't for the Chinese market, it's for the long time fans of the game. Cantha has been a meme for years and the core player base has been beginning for for a better part of 8 years. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [...] or new players coming in. > > I'm not convinced of that, really. I've never seen a game where new players coming in have any sense of the economics or internal politics of the game itself, nor will they until they become a part of the old-guard. It's only really a certain facet of the old-guard that gets embroiled with this. You cut out a whole sentence without context which confuses your response. To put it simply, all games have a learning curve where they can build on complexity and teach the players either all at once like some poorly designed tutorial or teach the players as you progress in the game. But the statement you're clipping is more about abandon content which sees no support. Specifically there it would be Dungeons for my perspective and for someone else it would be the capture game mode for PvP. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [...] capturing very little imagination [...] > > Speak for yourself. > > [snipped the rant about you loving the story currently] > > It's a strange desire, I think, to want to be frozen in time and yet to also want more content. What is this content to look like if it doesn't evolve and change? Times change, and both ArenaNet and Guild Wars 2 changes with them. Strawman argument. I never mentioned that I wanted the game to stay the same or that people who are critical of the game want that. Stick to the arguments at hand and don't get off track with baseless accusations. As for the story, I'm glad you enjoy it. The consensus that I've seen is that it's a bit rushed and overshadowed by End of Dragons. Where people just want it to end so they can get into Cantha. And the story beats are a bit all over the place in my opinion which does sour the experience for me and I'm not the only one who shares that sentiment. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > The situation to me looks like End of Dragons is a desperate move by the developers to retain what they have of the community. > > Strong disagree. It looks like an attempt to expand the Guild Wars 2 audience by attracting Chinese players. [snip] It's not but I'm not going to repeat that point. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > Don't mistake me. I'm excited for EoD as much as anyone else but I can't help but feel it just wont offer enough. > > What are you looking for? I mean, what are you actually looking for? What desire or need have you, so strong, that must be sated? What is it you really seek? I worry this is going to come down to raids or PvP, which have historically proven to be unprofitable, toxic, and even unhealthy in the case of raid addictions. > > Of course, I might be barking up the wrong tree. So let's read on... What I want is irrelevant. I don't need to be convinced to buy EoD, jump back into the game after a long hiatus or pick up the game for the first time. You seem far more concerned with profits than if the product itself is good. I'm the opposite. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [New content is] one thing [...] > > I'm confused by what you're saying here. The edit is mine to illustrate this point. New content is new content, a lot of players are going to have fun running a number of their characters through this content as it's going to be, well, new content. When you buy a new video game, that's new content. It's going to be about PvP or raids again, isn't it? The gap between new and old players is massive and only growing. New content is great for us. Doesn't do much for new players when the playerbase is so isolated from each other. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > 2Arena net needs to do some major work for the players in all game modes and this is a monumental task I'm skeptical of arena net's ability to deliver on that. > > What does this actually mean? What is it you want? You aren't actually saying anything. I mean, you've said a lot but I can't ascertain what it is you actually seek. I mean, yes, you've made it clear a number of times now that you fear ArenaNet's ability to deliver "it," but it's like you're almost afraid to tell us what "it" is. > > Which game modes? In what way? How would they achieve this? Details are very important. Retooling some old designs to a better understanding of the game and refine the systems or design new ones in order to better fit with the evolution of the game. Getting too specific isn't great as what I think might solve the issue, say the issue in that the game is bad at teaching players important mechanics as they level. I could say a few things about this problem but my solutions to this might not be correct or nuanced enough. I have the ability to point out these problems but to solve them is a different story. And it's not my job to solve the issues for arena net either. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > I feel as if the company of Arena net need to shift their philosophy of the game from their new toy in old toy forgotten and really go back and take a long hard look at the systems and modes of play they have now and really buckle down to refine those to a silver polish. > > What does _that_ actually mean? This is very political. I mean, it's words! It's a lot of words! What does it mean? You aren't really asking questions or posing solutions. It's just a lot of oration with no real goal. > > Why is it a toy now? Why was it not a toy before? Which systems? Which modes of play? Old toy like Dungeons or soon to be strikes. Abandon maps and dungeons which languish with issues unsolved for years and shifting their focus to the new toy, or new game modes. I'd have hoped that metaphor was obvious. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > Arena net has been so quick to abandon content [...] > > _What content?_ Dungeons, living world maps, world metas, pvp modes. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > We have a fairly fragmented experience with guild wars right now [...] > > Do we? How so? Can you explain that? How is it "fragmented?" How could it not be so? I don't see it as fragmented. It might not be what you want, but that doesn't mean it's fragmented. This is really just a lot of words. Living world seasons are locked out by a paywall, core maps and leveling dungeons aren't run often for veteran players but run all the time for new and free players. Except for dungeons. In NA at least they're rarely run. Veterans are always chasing the next new thing while new players wouldn't organically get a chance to play with old players through the game's incentives and mechanics. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > The game not only does a poor job of bringing new players in but the high level of convenience it drops into their lap outright distorts and breaks the experience of the new players. > > What does _that_ mean? [snip:elaborate please] Made the response a bit more polite and less rambling. You mentioned it teaching dodge roll, well it doesn't do it through gameplay but rather its tucked away and not that noticable. Forcing players to interact with important mechanics like combo finishers, stunbreaks, dodging, special action key through emergent gameplay would be better. Giving players a starting item of a hand book which shows pictures and gives a brief description of what each of the mechanics do and how to play with them would be helpful. Heck, if that book acted as almost a quest log that could be filled and turned in for a reward after completing it it would be better than what we have now. But these mechanics aren't taught very well if at all. You need to go outside the game to learn them. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [i want PvP] > > That's basically all the next section says. I'm sorry, it isn't a popular mode. It isn't a profitable one. They tried. It failed. It was a failed effort. It's entitled to expect them to devote resources and manpower to something that only a tiny minority of those who're playing the game actually engage in. What have you for recompense? What amount can you offer commensurate to what they would have to do to meet your desires? Are you willing to fund this new PvP revitalisation out of pocket? > > All of this just to get to where I had a strong suspicion it was going to—I knew it was going to be about PvP or raids, and the entitlement that some players feel toward that which just doesn't bring in any money. I'm sorry, but ArenaNet is a business. I know it sucks. I'm socialist, so I get it. I know capitalism sucks. So we're faced with the very inevitable and unavoidable truth that they have to do what's profitable. > > If they don't, NCSoft—their owner—will eat them alive. > > Do you want a repeat of City of Heroes? Complete misrepresentation of my argument then an emotional manipulation response. I actually hate PvP. But it's not about my feelings for that or WvW. Its about what can be done for those who enjoy those modes. I don't even come close to having a solution for that, as what the issues are for them would be better served to be expressed by them. There are glaring issues with it, such as cheating. Other issues are the abandoned PvP game mode that doesn't have a proper tournament system. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [i want harder content] > > I discussed this in another thread. This can't happen. Operant conditioning chambers—also known as Skinner boxes—never work out. It's because this addiction is a drug, and like with any drug you're always going to need a bigger hit. Today it's harder content, but what does that mean? It means bigger numbers. You want the enemies to have those, which in turn means that to get your dopamine buzz you'll want bigger numbers to reward you for your efforts. Another Strawman. I'm satisfied with the difficult if the end game content. But that's irrelevant if the difficulty curve spikes so hard. It's a 0-80 almost literally. The rest of the statement isn't worth responding to as its built on a false premise. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [i want the game to coach players into joining our operant conditioning chamber] > > That's never going to happen for the reasons I just went over. I can see your angle now so at this point I'm just spelling it out. It was a lot of noise and empty words to get to this point, but this is your angle. You want your dopamine hit, via PvP or raids, via haves and have-nots. It's not popular! It's not profitable! You have to accept this. Strawman into ad hominem attack. Not sure what you're trying to say here other than to attack my personal character. Which nothing you said is true either. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [...] weaving strikes into the leveling process where they would serve the players best, > > Except strikes aren't popular. The only ones that get played regularly are the easiest ones that can be soloed. It was the last gasp from the voices in ArenaNet who're ardent raid fans. Yes, ArenaNet has raid fans amongst its number but the undeniable truth is is that this content is not popular. Hard strikes aren't played. Try to find a strike group for any strike that can't be soloed! Strikes are supposed to be the bridge for casual players to get into raiding. They're not that popular because of the location they are in the game. If they were weaved between the dungeons and had level appropriate strikes they could serve to prepare new players for group content. This could also be used to explore old stories as well as. I wouldn't suggest the strikes we have no be put into the leveling process. Oh no. New strikes for that. They're not popular because their rewards aren't there and they're tucked away in a rather isolated and remote part of the world. As a leveling tool you could get a prompt at level 40 that says "you've unlocked the Karka Defense of Lion's Arch" and ping it on the map so players starting at level 40 can do that and possibly get rewards. It prepares them for group content if they want to do it. Using the same Strike tokens for them and offering daily rewards to completing a set of them could act as a bridge for new and old players especially if it had a random group finder. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [the old levelling process] made you try things out. > > No... It really, really didn't. It just forced you to find a cookie-cutter build that was best suited to grinding through it. If you really want to try things out... _Try things out!_ You don't need an impetus. You have an imagination, use it. There are myriad madcap builds hardcore players have left untapped that would give them more challenge, variety, difficulty, and whatnot. Find the solution with the least resistance. This is what all creatures do, humans included. The players can and will unintentionally sabotage their own experience for convenience. This is a well known phenomenon in the world as well as gaming. A trap on a tree that looks like an easier climb to the top can fool a squirrel I to falling into it because they want to conserve energy. Humans too fall Into this behavior. Take the berserker meta for PvE for example. Worst and most toxic meta in gw2 history. You all wore Zerker gear and stacked in a corner tricking the ai to walk into your groups burst while ignoring all the mechanics. This sabotaged the player's experience and prevented many of them from learning vital mechanics such as dodging or proper team positioning. The players will sabotaged their own experience for convenience unless the consciously and actively seek to ignore the convenience or easy solution. When I say to force the players to engage with the game and its mechanics, it's not to strip their agency but to aid them Into problem solving, critical thinking and learning what the game has to offer to enrich their experience. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > [...] no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players [...] > > Which is just another appeal to being a have and forcing other players to be have-nots to feed your addiction, to get that dopamine buzz of social superiority. Not only is this unhealthy for you, it's unethical, it's unfair, and it's _not profitable_. More ad hominem attacks. A free mount for new players without having to buy PoF that you get at level 1 or level 10, that you could use until getting to level 80 would be fantastic for Free players especially to entice them to get to PoF for the superior mounts. I also don't have a need to feel superior to new players. Not in my character. Especially since I would refuse to use a mount unless I fell behind my friend in a map when starting a fresh character with them. Or if they got the raptor I'd only use the raptor and nothing else. > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > Advertising is another major weakness of the game. > > Everyone has to be told what to think by advertising. That worked out well for CD Projekt RED. I'd rather a game stand on it's own marits but the truth is that's not usually how it works. Advertising reminds people of the game and helps to get people interested. You keep complaining about profits but you're adverse to advertising? > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > I want EoD to succeed. > > Do you? Do you really? I don't know if you know what you want. That's the problem. You have this weird disconnect and you don't seem to realise how unprofitable all of your demands are. The sad truth is is that End of Dragons would have a greater chance of success if it did the opposite of everything you've said. Your strawman of me, probably. Considering you've misrepresented me multiple times, attacked my character and motivation, it would seem that way of the strawman you've constructed of me. If you don't understand something, its much easier to ask me to elaborate. Don't make up what you want me to mean in order to fuel your strange crusade. > How will any of that "save" End of Dragons? Never said anything about saving end of dragons. > Really though, what you want doesn't benefit new players in the least. It's actively detrimental to their health since you want to get them addicted to your drug. > > I think I'll leave it at that. Great. I cut out a lot that I felt was completely unnecessary to the conversation or pointless fluff. I do pointless fluff to so no condemnation for that, however the person attacks and strawmen are where I have a problem and why I felt I needed to respond. If you don't understand something, there is no shame in asking for clarification. I do it myself on the forums from time to time. Of the strawman you created, yeah I sound awful. Strawlily sucks! What I want, which you didn't pick up, is for the game to be polished up and the learning curve be fixed for the new players to aid them. I want the gap between old and new players closed. My explanations might be clumsy at times and I'm aware my method of communication might not fit well for everyone. Asking for clarification for one point at a time would have been more productive than a wall of text where you attack my character and intentionally strawman my positions.

> @"Ashantara.8731" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > The leveling process itself should be looked at as well. In my opinion the leveling process is worse and less meaningful than it was at and near the launch of the game. It wasn't perfect but it made you try things out. Noting other aspects of the leveling process I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80. I'd suggest a leveling mount that was, say 50% faster than player speed, maybe less that had no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players so they could get that mount fix new players crave. Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign. > > > > > I cannot disagree more. GW2 is so very alt-friendly, that locking out mounts that are currently account-wide would (IMO) detract from one of the more significant attractions to the game. What is the actual purpose that you are trying to serve with this suggestion? It almost seems as if it is another veiled whine about mounts in core zones. > > I don't _know_ what the OP meant, but can imagine that it was a general complaint about how new players aren't learning the game mechanics properly with the current leveling system. They can use a level 80 boost on their very first character, and after that have it very easy to level additional chars to 80 without improving, as they never go through a real learning curve. > > The core content is too easy and doesn't prepare you for the later level of difficulty, and base mechanics like CC are not explained anywhere, either, etc. That's part of the issues. But it's not the only issue I'm concerned about. It's not just PvE I'm considering but PvP akd WvW, I just don't have the proper voice to Express those communities issues.

> @"yoni.7015" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > For me, End of Dragons would be enough. I don’t need them to change core maps or dungeons. I enjoy them just fine how they are. And there is absolutely no need for a leveling mount. > > > > We are all established players here. End of Dragons will satisfy us for a while, including myself. However just having a solid expansion isn't enough when the core systems do not translate well for new player experiences or bridge the ever widening gap between us and the novices. I've played with a dozen or so new players and played with them while leveling and boosting. They always want to boost to get the mount and their enjoyment of the game dies in a few weeks to a month, always. This seems to be true for even players who say they "Really enjoy Guild Wars 2". This is anecdotal evidence of course, so take my experience with a grain of salt if you must. But I'd ask you to at least considered this experience. > > I have different experiences with new players. > Oh I'm sure, my experience isn't universal. However, I'd still ask to consider it.

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > I find it unlikely new players use the offered L80 Boost, jump to Path of Fire, unlock the Raptor (much less all other Mounts), and _stay_ in Path of Fire, or any post Core content. > It's not easy to tackle L80 content right off the bat. They do. That's been my experience. More so they unlock Raptor, springer, skimmer and maybe jackal if they decide to complete PoF. If they play longer than a month they might go back to HoT but this hasn't been my experience.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > I have to admit, I couldn't get through the whole OP ... but I can say that anything Anet would do that would restrict players abilities to play the content they have in the new expansion would severely diminish faith that Anet can deliver meaningful, new content. That includes access to mounts. In otherwords ... if Anet needs to take something away just to give it back as 'content' ... there is a BIG problem. > > > > > > Sure, there are lots of problems with GW2 for numerous reasons ... but if anyone thinks those problems can and should be solved with expansions ... you don't really understand what people who play this game DESPITE those problems are wanting from the game to begin with. People need to stop setting themselves up to be disappointed all the time ... because it means you will ALWAYS be disappointed. > > > > I never mentioned restricting players from playing the new content in the expansion. I even mentioned a new race which would bring new players and old players into starting zones. > > No, but you DID mention about locking people out from mounts until they reach level 80 ... which is the restriction of player abilities I'm talking about. They're already locked out of mounts until 80.

> @"yoni.7015" said: > For me, End of Dragons would be enough. I don’t need them to change core maps or dungeons. I enjoy them just fine how they are. And there is absolutely no need for a leveling mount. We are all established players here. End of Dragons will satisfy us for a while, including myself. However just having a solid expansion isn't enough when the core systems do not translate well for new player experiences or bridge the ever widening gap between us and the novices. I've played with a dozen or so new players and played with them while leveling and boosting. They always want to boost to get the mount and their enjoyment of the game dies in a few weeks to a month, always. This seems to be true for even players who say they "Really enjoy Guild Wars 2". This is anecdotal evidence of course, so take my experience with a grain of salt if you must. But I'd ask you to at least considered this experience.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > The leveling process itself should be looked at as well. In my opinion the leveling process is worse and less meaningful than it was at and near the launch of the game. It wasn't perfect but it made you try things out. Noting other aspects of the leveling process I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80. I'd suggest a leveling mount that was, say 50% faster than player speed, maybe less that had no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players so they could get that mount fix new players crave. Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign. > > > I cannot disagree more. GW2 is so very alt-friendly, that locking out mounts that are currently account-wide would (IMO) detract from one of the more significant attractions to the game. What is the actual purpose that you are trying to serve with this suggestion? It almost seems as if it is another veiled whine about mounts in core zones. > Player engagement and retention. First impressions are everything and GW2 has a difficult time keeping players in the game. Many MMO channels will recommend GW2 as a game with a caveat, that Guild Wars 2 is a good side MMO, that it isn't as solid of a main MMO. Yes "Oh you can pick it up later and not be obsolete even years later." But that's a double edged sword. I also don't have a problem with mounts as a concept. I think they're fun and I even don't have a problem with them in low level zones. The issues I see with mounts is that it tunnel visions players to skip the leveling process, skip one of the expansions and go straight to path of fire. You might not see this as an issue but that is months of content largely ignored. We on the forums are ultra fans. We are super invested into the game. So in order to see these issues we need to get out of our own headspace and look at how the experience translates for a new player. What systems which sound great might actually be hurting the game? I know for a fact as well that new players will sabotage their own enjoyment for convenience without even realizing it. This isn't a condemnation of them or us at all so don't misread that. It is something arena net should take note of as unpopular as my perspective on these issues might be.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > I have to admit, I couldn't get through the whole OP ... but I can say that anything Anet would do that would restrict players abilities to play the content they have in the new expansion would severely diminish faith that Anet can deliver meaningful, new content. That includes access to mounts. In otherwords ... if Anet needs to take something away just to give it back as 'content' ... there is a BIG problem. > > Sure, there are lots of problems with GW2 for numerous reasons ... but if anyone thinks those problems can and should be solved with expansions ... you don't really understand what people who play this game DESPITE those problems are wanting from the game to begin with. People need to stop setting themselves up to be disappointed all the time ... because it means you will ALWAYS be disappointed. I never mentioned restricting players from playing the new content in the expansion. I even mentioned a new race which would bring new players and old players into starting zones.

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > I'm not opposed to underutilized weapons getting some love, but I think it's working as intended if melee weapons deal better damage than ranged weapons in general. Higher risk should equal higher reward. There is also more support available for melee than for ranged. Healing and buffs are at their strongest in melee. This isn't always the case as both Scourge and Tempest make for good midline support. I don't necessarily agree that a melee weapon needs to be better at DPS than range, but I don't have real strong feelings on it. For me, I'd prefer some quality improvements across the board for all under utilized weapons. A lot of those are ranged but just as many are melee. Some weapons that could use some improvements being Rev hammer, necro dagger, guardian longbow, guardian mace, Guardian hammer, engineer rifle, necro focus, thief daggers, thief sword. And I'm sure there are more...

Necromancer is easier to level, but lets get something straight about necromancer. I'd recommend against leveling necromancer because its core class is rather dull to play and offers very little in what it can teach you in the game. For learning how a class works, Necromancer is a safe one to boost. I'd be more inclined to suggest leveling the engineer naturally even though it would be more difficult because its more fun. As for which one is faster? Well, Engineer is better at tagging mobs but Necromancer is faster. So going through your criteria. Easier? Necromancer more fun? Subjective, but Engineer is more fun to level imo Faster? About the same. Which puts them at about even. Necromancer and Engineer are my two favorite classes. So I'll do what I can. I'll put some advantages and disadvantages for both. note, this is only their advantages and disadvantages while leveling. Necromancer Advantages: * Hard to kill. Necromancers are very tanky. its less likely you're going to get downed or defeated. * Passive pet farming. You can AFK with pets and be relatively protected. * Powerful shroud traits. * Lots of self buffs. Necromancer Disadvantages: * Lacks a solid melee weapon. * Low AOE pressure without wells and marks. * Low Damage. * Can be slow to tag groups in zergs. * Overly reliant on shroud. * Death shroud has slow use skills that are fairly weak, Life blast being your best attack. Engineer Advantages: * Multiple kits with varying utility allowing for plenty of different means to play. * Lots of AoE skills to strike foes. * Passive Turret farming. You can AFK and have your turrets protect you to some extent and even farm a bit. * Lots of self buffs. * High diversity of utility. Engineer Disadvantages: * Can be a bit on the squishy side. * Can be difficult to use without action cam or a gaming mouse. * Weapons aren't the best while leveling. * Lots of information to take in at once.

> @"Lucio.4190" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"Lucio.4190" said: > > > I wonder if accusing ANet for not caring about the balance, may not be fair. > > > It seems to me like they do care, because they've tried several times but they've listened to wrong people and had a weird way of rebalancing the game... or, they may know something that we don't? Some combinations we haven't tried yet or a build we have underestimated? > > > Something we thought was worthless and haven't shown any interest in trying? > > > On the other hand, the game has existed for 9 years and there's always someone that reads and investigates everything. > > > My point? I actually have no idea what my point is, just throwing some questions. > > > > > > > > > > Wait. When did I say they didn't care? I don't think I mentioned anything about caring or not. > > Sorry, I didn't mean that you did. Some posts in this discussion says that ANet doesn't care and I see the same in other threads too. I also get the feeling that's the common opinion on this forum, that lots of complaints and threads have been written in the subject and nothing has happened. > I don't know. Maybe too much happened instead? > > I apologize for the way I wrote that, it wasn't my intention to sound like I didn't agree. > I play a lot of PvE and sometimes I feel like it's impossible to get further without help. When I first arrived in the Maguuma jungle, It was a lot harder than PoF or central Tyria and it took me a while before rearranging my gear and skills. It's a lot easier now after I've learned how to beat the monsters. > > I agree that there needs some changes on the mechanic, on all game modes. I'm just not sure about how it should be changed and what a good change is. It's Alright. I have ideas. I do think Arena net needs to rebalance old content like dungeons to act as a launch board into fractals and raids and to require them to progress in the personal story but that's a different discuss. I'm not as big on rebalancing open world too much, maybe better scaling for Condi damage and the ferocity changes they did some years ago but beyond that I wouldn't go much further. For classes, which is what this post is primarily about, I'd like to see more viable builds and team compositions in the endgame and mid game content. I do think the balance needs to be split between PvP and PvE a lot more than it is due to just how drastically different mobs interact with players vs how players interact with players. Core classes shouldn't be more than 10% behind their elite specs when it comes to DPS builds or other similar builds the elite spec might run although there is nothing wrong with elite specs having entirely unique roles from their core and I would still encourage that. Although percentages is a bit of an arbitrary thing. There are some classes that lag way behind their elites such as necromancer and thief. Edit: I realize that "its not a problem" is a phrase that both can be interpreted as dismissing a point or as saying "its alright" or "You don't have to worry about it". My intention was to say that its alright, not to be dismissive. So I changed it, sorry, language can be difficult.

> @"scorekeeper.6524" said: > I find I get my diversity fix in PvE by playing different professions. I have power porfessions and condition professions. When I get bored of one I switch to the other. Playing your alts really does mix things up and can keep your interest for a few hours more. Only lasts so long. And not long enough to satisfy the hunger for new builds before stagnation sets in. It also doesn't offer more experimentation as it requires deep dedication to the class to figure that out and even if you get to that point what is most effective is solved. Leaving you wanting. At least it's that way for me

> @"Lucio.4190" said: > I wonder if accusing ANet for not caring about the balance, may not be fair. > It seems to me like they do care, because they've tried several times but they've listened to wrong people and had a weird way of rebalancing the game... or, they may know something that we don't? Some combinations we haven't tried yet or a build we have underestimated? > Something we thought was worthless and haven't shown any interest in trying? > On the other hand, the game has existed for 9 years and there's always someone that reads and investigates everything. > My point? I actually have no idea what my point is, just throwing some questions. > > Wait. When did I say they didn't care? I don't think I mentioned anything about caring or not.