Astralporing.1957

> @"lokh.2695" said: > ANet has moved on, sorry, can't go back and fix things when there are 3693372165 new things to put into the game. And that's why the game is in the state it is now, unfortunately.

> @"Tanek.5983" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > They might also go and fix the gear shooter pads. Although there's no hurry, they have only been bugged for years now. > > Are they? That might explain why I can't get to the diving goggles. I thought my asura just didn't weigh enough. :) Yes. They work inconsistently now - among other reasons it is because they are now affected by any speed bonuses you might have (which, for example, makes attempting this JP on any build with passive speed bonus - so, for example, any chronomancer - way, way harder than it's supposed to be). They also seem to have some other quirks, but i am not quite sure where they come from. Basically - they originally were shooting you forward a fixed distance, so all you had to worry about was to get the direction right. Now that distance is _not_ fixed, and can be different depending on situation. Unfortunately, the rest of JP didn't adjust for that, which means the gears can now shoot you too far, or too short, and thus drop you down, and possibly kill you. That's especially true at the later part - there are a few key gears just before the top of airship baloon that require high precision of that jump, or you fall all the way down (with predictable consequences). And it's not something you have a lot of control over (you can try to use weapon switch to stop too long jump, but in case of a too short one you're just dead, and that's it).

> @"Super Hayes.6890" said: > They should make offers to some of the people they let go. It's not like the communication was any better in the past. At some points it was probably even worse.

They might also go and fix the gear shooter pads. Although there's no hurry, they have only been bugged for years now.

> @"lare.5129" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > In theory, sure, seeing as only second gen weapons and trinkets require MCs (which is less than a half of them, although is still quite a significant part). > I check it on practice. MC was used only for trinkets, and 1 weapon from T2. Armor sets, all 3 back, and T1 weapons dont eat MC. > so 4 trinkets and one t2 wepon rast 1250 coins. Per 7 year earned a lot off m-coins+ from dayli login, mf daili, cms+t4 most each day) and sell them on market time to time then price start be more than 1g. > I see only one real sync for m-coins, if person craft ALL t2 weapons. Yes, in this way m-coins will be not enough. > In other way, to craft pvp/wvw leg set, backs, and t1 I don't see any issue with coins, no matter that the price 1 gold or 50 gold. How did you get enough _clovers_ for them? 40+ legendaries would require a ton (correct me, but i don;t think there are any that do not need clovers), and they aren't really all that easy to obtain either, if you _don't_ use the MC to clover conversion.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > No, i don;t think we have any sort of agreement on either of those points. > > So the price cap fights inflation? For one, it lowers demand on the abovecap items at the abovecap price, because not everyone is going to be willing to go off-market for it (so, some people withhold from buying, while others sell at the cap - those transactions, while rare, do happen). And that does hold back the price at least a little bit - i am quite sure that without the cap it would be higher than what it is now at grey market. I also think, that just knowing that there _is_ a cap, and that this cap has never been changed (and there seems to be no indication it might change) is in itself a stabilizing factor on market. Yes, even if it does not directly impact anything except for a few items. People do know that there are limits, and that can definitely influence their behaviour to a degree. So i will definitely not agree with claim that the cap doesn't help at all. > > The price cap prevents prices from from breaching itself in the grey market? Like i said, it almost certainly at least partially holds them back. I also find the claim that "rare, expensive, frivolous items have positive effect on the production of every other item" to be completely unsubstantiated.

> @"lare.5129" said: > Honestly though most leg item not requre m-coins. As owner of 40+ leg items I know this. In theory, sure, seeing as only second gen weapons and trinkets require MCs (which is less than a half of them, although is still quite a significant part). Of course, that's only if you can supply all the mystic clover requirements (that most of the remaining legendaries have) by other means. As the owner of 40+ legendaries, i am sure you have used MCs for clovers for at least some of them, possibly even for most.

> @"Vavume.8065" said: > > @"Khisanth.2948" said: > > Now the only thing you have actually accomplished is force people to spend more time doing the things they don't want just to get to the things they do want. > > Exactly, as I said players need to be punished, doing something they do not want to do achieves this. All that results in is players that _stop doing stuff_. This kind of "punishment" does not make things more dangerous. It makes them more annoying and less fun.

I would weight the amount of PvE stuff versus the expansion price. The expansion you propose would probably need to be extremely cheap in order for me to even consider buying it.

No, i don;t think we have any sort of agreement on either of those points.

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > Ehh...i think you need to go back and understand how scientific method works. Sorry not trying to be rude. Firstly, you never hold ANYTHING in a science to be 100% true ever because there will always be a margin of error in experiments (Experiments are done via orders of accuracy, where the only way of getting 100% accuracy is by doing an experiment an infinite number of times) . And yet you do. You take the hypothesis based on your observed data, and claim it holds true for _all_ data. > Secondly, you do not need to explain away things you can not measure. Things that _cannot_ be measured. This is not the same as "things that **you** cannot measure". And it just so happens that things you ignore _are_ measurable. The data to do so exists. We simply lack _access_ to that data. > In science you don't explain away the theory of the bearded man in the sky everytime we talk about protons and neutrons. Sure, but the existence of _Discord_ (and other third-party channels) as well as in-game private channels of communications is not a matter of belief - it's a provable fact. The theories are based on what you can measure...and that's as far as the theory will go to address a phenomenon Things you can not measure in theory or in practicality is what's called unfalsifiable... The things _you_ were unable to measure _are_ measurable in theory however. You can't ignore them simply because you, personally, lack the data. > Not exactly true. Because you can go looking at a streamer's chat logs can give you data to reference. But, in general the only person you have to make a reliable measurement is yourself, ...one can think of clever ways to get non-bias data , and or you of course can collaborate with others to get that number, which realistically you can do. (Send picture of your chat box, send over for analysis. Done.) Since you're only finding a universal proportionality, you don't have to interview complete strangers, you can go about and ask your friends for snaps. ...you do realize, that what you're doing now is create a heavily biased set of data - and without even knowing that it's biased, or the direction of the bias, so you can't even try to correct it. Based on this kind of data, depending on the bias i could probably "prove" _anything_ about social interactions, including things that would be completely contradictory. This kind of data gathering is completely worthless. You've just failed at the very basis of data analysis. That's an **F** right here. Try harder next time. > Here in gw2 we don't need 5 sigma's of accuracy to talk about a forum post...you just include margins of error based on how rigorous the experiment was. So, how big do you think the margin of error would be in this case? (hint: it may be bigger than you think it is) You can't claim you follow the scientific method, when you build your theory on biased data and guesstimates (especially ones that are based solely on your preconceptions).

My experience with recent LS maps tell me, that less waypoints do not "encourage players to travel to locations on the maps with other players, who may help them get back up if they become downed". Quite the opposite - they even more strongly enforce the "every player for themself" attitude. I do not personally care about the narrative behind the "resurrection/trawel points", or what form would they take, but i sure hope they will be _more_ common in the new expansion.

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > Counting the actual number of interactions you can actually measure is not unfalsifiable. It's empirical... because you can actually measure it. This is scientific method 101... Ignoring things you can't personally see and assuming they don't exist is _not_ part of a scientific method though. Specifically, when you make a theory based on observed data, that theory applies only to the part you can observe - you can't automatically assume it will hold true when you include the parts you couldn't observe. You'd need to make a reasonable explanation why the unobserved data would not impact you results first - and you didn't do that. You claimed that this unobserved data is irrelevant, _without_ explaining why it is so. That's highly unscientific. > No it's not reasonable. Again you can't measure it to within any accuracy. Actually, no. Discord does exist, and conversations do happen there. That's a fact, not a belief. Sure, you can't measure them easily (which, by the way, doesn't mean you _can't_ measure them - it just means _you_, personally, don't have easy access to the right tools for that), but they _do_ exist, and you can't simply ignore them. At least not when you're talking about social interactions. > > We can estimate forum/reddit users to active players because there have been enough companies who have released active player data to base those calculations off of. I've yet to see any official data for number of public vs private chats and they would always be lower on private since they wouldn't be able to account for third party chat systems. > > You can actually figure out the proportionality by averaging out how often you see say chats in proportion to map chats, in proportion to guild chats in proportion to whisper chats etc. You could do that, if you had access to that kind of data - but you _don't_ have that for anyone that is not yourself. > If in a 24 hour time period, observe 500 map chat entries, 100 say chat entries, 50 guild chat entries and 10 whisper chat entries, you can with ever increasing accuracy show that as a common proportionality between the different mediums and as a proportion of all entries as a whole...That's not something that only a company with dev controls can do...anyone anywhere can figure that one out...in fact I'm inclined to do it myself. Those proportions will be different for each player, though - you can't "average" that data based only on your personal experience. Well, you can, but it will apply only to you, it won't be something you could extrapolate on the entire playerbase.

> @"knite.1542" said: > > @"Nightcore.5621" said: > > Buy 20 gw2 accounts when they on 50%sale. Now u have 100s of mystic coins for free evey 30 Day doin nothing. Thats 440 evey 30 Day just to login in > > I don't understand some people's concept of free. It comes from the constant exposure to the marketing strategies of the "buy x of y, get one free" style.

> @"Ashen.2907" said: > The owner of the product gets to decide what is, "sufficient revenue." Anet have stated that the method mentioned did not meet that internal metric. Sure, and like i said, for a business no revenue is sufficient if you have means to earn more. No business will ever willingly pass on an opportunity to earn more money (unless, of course, that would cost them even more in the long run).

> @"Khisanth.2948" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > It's not dead, and there are no signs that would point to it closing down anytime soon. In fact, in that regard it's doing now better than a year ago, when for a while it looked _really_ bad, with massive layoffs, third expansion apparently cancelled, the highest point of a major reveal event being funko toys, and devs (and major management figures) leaving left and right to greener pastures. Since that time the situation has stabilized somewhat, and the game seems like it is getting back on track again. > > > > That saying, while it's not dead, and not in danger of dying soon, it's also no longer _growing_. And, while nothing points to this situation getting any worse in the future, it doesn't point to it getting any _better_ either. > > Isn't a theoretical upcoming a expansion a sign pointing to better? Maybe, although at this point i think that its value lies not in possibly making the game better, but in stopping the slide towards oblivion. So far, no expansion caused the game to increase player count compared to the previous high state - it only temporarily recoups the losses suffered in the time between expacs. To change that, i believe far more changes would be necessary. Or an expansion that would be on a completely new level compared to HoT and PoF. So far i haven't seen any signs pointing out to EoD having even a chance of being such a qualitative game-changer.

> @"Ashen.2907" said: > Because the method you mention would not generate sufficient revenue. It's actually not about "sufficient" revenue. GW1 for example was doing perfectly fine without any RNG in its cashshop. It is about "moar money". The allure of significantly more income is irresistible to any business. Or, you could say that for any business no revenue is "sufficient" if you could earn more.

> @"DeanBB.4268" said: > All the stuff discussed here has zero affect on new players Most of the issues i brought up indeed have no _direct_ impact on the new players (some, like bad advertising, and the game not being popular among the streamers _do_, because they severely reduce the reach of the game. The same with the resource management problems - while a well-marketed expansion is often a good oportunity to reach to new players, a badly marketed, or _cancelled_ one is not). The remaining ones however still have some _indirect_ impact. Specifically, the word of mouth kind of impact. The less current players are content and happy, and the more likely they are to speak badly of the game (even if they still keep playing it), the more likely it is they'll discourage any potential new comers. And some of the issues i brought up may not directly prevent players from joining, but still result in them _leaving_ very fast.

It's not dead, and there are no signs that would point to it closing down anytime soon. In fact, in that regard it's doing now better than a year ago, when for a while it looked _really_ bad, with massive layoffs, third expansion apparently cancelled, the highest point of a major reveal event being funko toys, and devs (and major management figures) leaving left and right to greener pastures. Since that time the situation has stabilized somewhat, and the game seems like it is getting back on track again. That saying, while it's not dead, and not in danger of dying soon, it's also no longer _growing_. And, while nothing points to this situation getting any worse in the future, it doesn't point to it getting any _better_ either. (Although there _are_ some worrying parts - for example, this game currently doesn't have a game director, and we were not even informed officially that the previous one left - we learned it through other channels. And notice - he left a _full year ago_. And he left shortly after replacing the _previous_ game director, which left the company before. That previous director was also the company boss - and i'm quite sure we don;t really know who replaced him at that position either - although at least him leaving _was_ an official info. Like i said, that was a really bad and worrying season for the game)

> @"Smoosh.2718" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > If your idea of a bard is someone shouting loudly while waving a banner around, i definitely don't want to hear you singing. > > Isnt that what some singers do anyway? Perhaps, but i would not call them _bards_. And I wouldn't want to hear them singing either

> @"Sobx.1758" said: > It seems you misunderstood quite a bit from the quotes @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" provided as well as the meaning of reaching an equilibrium which isn't an equivalent of the price remaining the same throughout the years. > Seriously, at the very same quote they've literally said "nor is it unnatural for them to increase in price as wealthy players continue to accumulate more wealth.". https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Mystic-Coins-again/page/2#post6157178 Here you have something more about this - they were clearly expecting the price to _stabilize_ and **hit a ceiling**. That was from May 2016, btw. When the price was around 50s still. Sure, over half a year later, when the price was over double that and still climbing even after they added some more sources for MCs to the game, they might have been explaining it a little more cautiously, but that constant rise in value doesn't seem to have been their original intention at all. At best it might have been trying to find a reasonable explanation for their original failure.

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > I think you misinterpreted what he said. He said exactly what you just said, that because veteran players have access to those tomes, they will use them on alts to skip straight to the higher level endgame zones. This cuts the densities of possible interactions and the population density just as it does waypoints. Like i said, veterans aren't usually interested in low-level interaction anyway. They will be skipping that content regardless, tomes or no tomes. Even without tomes, they would likely be out of starting areas in 15 mins to half an hour tops anyway, and would not bother interacting with anyone while there. > Now Tomes of knowledge like he points out takes away social interaction. They don't. Someone keen on powerleveling fast to 80 would not be interested in those interactions anyway. They would just slow the leveling process down. >The problem is universal among nearly every region in the game, so there must be more universal problems that exist here, not just the Tomes of Knowledge. And now you start to think. Yes, there's a ton of reasons behind why the game is as it is. You can't pin all of this to only a few singular things. > > > The main reason why new player areas aren't flooded with players is, in my opinion, much simpler - it's because this game _does not have many new players_. > > Wow. It's so simple why hasn't anyone thought of this yet? Oh, i'm quite sure a lot of players are completely aware of this. They are not the ones trying to find convoluted explanations for this though. > > But aside that this is one of the few things i can agree with you on, i would at least appreciate your view on that....why exactly does the game not have new players? I doubt there's any real consensus on that - ask anyone, and you will get a different answer each time. If I were to point the reasons i think might be responsible, i'd mention - a severe lack of communication between devs and community - Anet being very, very bad at advertising (to the point where some of their ad campaings are memes now). - lack of a developer vision for the game (there seems to be no longterm, coherent plan about the direction for the game, and no set target group. Instead the whole planning seems to be made of a lot of short-term plans for individual parts of the game, that do not work well together, and are subject to frequent changes) - (partially tied to the above) tendency to start new projects, only to abandon them after a while - systemic inability to admit to mistakes, which (coupled with the previous point) doesn't help with fixing old problems. - game apparently not being all that good content for streaming - game lacking any seriousl long-term engagement content for the midtier players (or at least one that isn;t already abandoned - dungeons were pretty much ok for this, fractals were partially good as well before they were shifted more towards the hardcore players) - the combat/build/gear system that turns even small skill differences between players into massive gaps in effectiveness, which results in a balance mess, and causes massive rifts in the game community ah yes, also: - some problems in resource management, that resulted several times in game's history in many months of content droughts, one expansion abandonment, and a small case of massive layoffs. - I also tend to have a lot of problems with gemshop and how it is managed (and how its existence negatively impacts the game), but these may be just my personal issues. i would also say, that those are definitely not all, including some that are probably totally invisible to me, but important to some other players. Compared to those, things like waypoints and tomes of knowledge are pretty much insignificant.

> @"Feilou.7395" said: > This is rather obvious. Other games don't have tomes of knowledge. New players don't have access to those yet. It's something veterans use to level up their new characters - but veteran players even without those are going to play more efficiently, and skip a lot of initial content. I could easily get from 1 to 80 in like 2 days of my playing session without using any "shortcuts" like crafting xp, tomes , level-up scrolls etc. And i wouldn't even be trying hard. New players are not capable of doing that - they lack the experience, gear, gold, and access to tomes/birthday leveling scrolls veterans have. They aren't able to make any shortcuts. Well, with the notable exception of level-80 boost item, which is probably not something completely new players should have access to. The main reason why new player areas aren't flooded with players is, in my opinion, much simpler - it's because this game _does not have many new players_. Which, obviously, is a significant problem on its own - just one that has no relation whatsoever to stuff brought up by OP.

> @"lare.5129" said: > joined yesterday for bone for non kp squads, to get fun and check how it looks. 12 starts, 0 kills. Yes. And _that_ is the issue. Groups asking for KPs is not a problem - it's a _solution_ to a problem. The best (even if deeply flawed) solution community managed to come up with. It may not be available for everyone, that's true, but at least it helps _some_ players. Of course, that solution makes the whole idea of "stepping stone to raids" seem quite ridiculous, but that's not players' fault.

I'm quite sure it has always been subpar in PvE