Einlanzer.1627

Biologically, the only crossover that might be possible is human and norn, and there's certainly no guarantee of that.

So I think it's right we don't have "hybrids."

Something that's mildly bothered me for a long time now is what feels like the expansion and overuse of FotM as a "system" to encompass all dungeon-style content. I know this goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the original dungeon content and that's something people complain about a lot, but hear me out.

The first fractals that were released felt like they tied together to create their own immersive dungeon comprised of different abstract settings - like they were supposed to represent hazy/dreamworld echos of odd locations and memories - what you actually imagine the Mists to be comprised of.

Not long afterward, they got conceptually transformed into a dumping ground for all types of 5-man content not directly existing as part of a LW episode (from season 2 on). This broke both the original theming as well as the consistency in design by representing very specific locations telling very specific stories at very specific points in time, which in turn lead to the rationalization of "it's the new dungeon system!" and the abandonment of true world dungeons like the original 8 until raids came along. And now we have raids and fractals and no non-fractal dungeons.

Put simply, I think this was all a mistake. Dungeons like the Molten Facility and the Aetherblade Retreat should have been readded as true dungeons or as story instances instead of becoming fractals. FotM should continue to see expansion but only with theming similar to the original ones. Sunaqua Peak is a perfect example of something that should have been designed as a new independent dungeon with unique achievements and rewards telling a full immersive story like the original dungeons instead of being tossed in as a "new fractal!" And this is something that should have been happening periodically for the last 6 years in place of some of the new open world maps we got.

> @"Timbersword.9014" said:

> I don't think there are too many levels, but in my experience, there are three sore spots for me in the leveling experience:

>

> 1. The first 20 or so levels. Just... slowly gaining one skill after the other before I'm even at my "baseline" for the character. Even brand new to a class, after my first play through, I don't need to be "drip fed" my weapon abilities and my skill slots. Weapon slots especially are pretty quick to grasp with just a few minutes with each weapon on said class.

> 2. Levels 40-60 feel the worst for whatever reason. Like the exp required and the rate of exp acquired is a bit off. I seriously feel like I get more bang for my buck after 60 doing events and the like.

> 3. We open our first trait line at level 21, second at level 45, third at level 71? I feel 71 is just a tad too far down along the road, personally?

>

> Aside from that, the core game play doesn't really change from level 1 to level 80, just feels like character progression doesn't really start until level 20 and some pacing issues in places between there and 80.

> *EDIT* Also, it would help immensely if each specialization just straight up spelled out what it focused on,[ as seen on the wiki](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Specialization)

Yes, and all of those oddities exist because they were trying to distribute unlocks and rewards _across too many levels_. :)

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > **80 levels feels like far too many**

>

> I don't see any problem with the number of levels. The only issue with levels is how they gate personal story with it, especially the idea to block the first instance until you reach level 10, giving players zero motivation to play.

The story doesn't motivate many people to play, lol. The issue with the number of levels is that there's too much fluff and leveling becomes trite instead of exciting.

>

> > **Other/Miscellaneous**

> > - LW1 still not being present in the game in any significant form is a huge issue with a presumed influx of new players that will be forced to skip all the content that introduced most the major characters and so forth. It's hard for me to understand how they have not figured out a simpler way to do at least parts of it in 6 years.

>

> They still don't bundle Season 2 with a purchase to ease the entrance into HOT after Core... expecting a re-release of Season 1 is a fantasy at this point. At the very least they should give players that complete the Core game a -reason- to go to Southsun Cove. Those Young Karka are the first "graduation" enemy, the first tough enemy introduced in this game because we all know core is an absolute joke. Oh and Reef Drakes are also great, but those are much more rare in Southsun

>

The same way mounts were a fantasy? I think Anet knows they need a better solution to LW1 and they've even talked about it openly on the forum. It's just a question of when and how which is taking them FAR too long to solve.

> > - The PS feels extremely outdated and bland; I know they can't afford to dump a ton of time into changing it, but things like removing the awkward dialogue cutscenes could do a lot of good.

>

> If they remove those how do you expect them to tell us the story?

The same way they do in the LW.

> @"Shadowmoon.7986" said:

> Why are there so many " I hate x aspect of the game, so I will try to use steam as an excuse to get it changed" threads? To be honest you do not want anet to mess with leveling system again, they only made it worse when they made the awful "New Player Experience" update. If the old forum existed you could see how it was almost universally panned.

> The only change I would want see is a revert back the vanilla leveling and personal story, and the removal of the new player experience update.

Yes, I actually agree with this. But I still think there are too many levels.

> @"xoxin.8326" said:

> If anything, GW2's leveling is faster than most MMOs. Levels go by fast enough as is and to boot, it almost feels like exp is normalized far more than most games. I don't think this is an issue. Especially when you include tomes of knowledge(which a new player will earn at least a couple of. More if they PvP or take longer to level (daily logins) ) and other level boosts.

>

>

>

>

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that I was complaining about leveling speed when I couldn't have made it more clear that's not what I was complaining about in the OP.

Over the years I've played this game I have literally never bothered with healing power because I have never played a dedicated support/healer.

Question is - is Healing Power _ever_ worth using outside of highly specialized dedicated support builds in raids, etc.?

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > > Some of your points I agree with, but I really don't see why there's anything to be concerned with for the Steam launch. Hundreds of thousands of people coped with the system as it is. New players will either like it or not - I'm not sure any significant overhauls are necessary to appease another influx.

> > >

> > > Some refinements for sure

> > >

> > > - LS1 should have a better recap. The current one has been worthless since it was added and should have been better.

> > > - I fully disagree with account bound story. Story progression is about character immersion and those who do it once, will have scrolls for most non expac areas to quickly enter any map they would normally be gated behind. Account bound story gains next to nothing.

> > > - Level 80 is what it is. That will never be condensed. I agree it is too many, but there's no point wasting thought on something that will never change

> > > - I do like the idea of the other Seasons having titles (LS1 is often known as Scarlet's War fyi)

> > > - Hero panel could prob do with some cleaning up I guess. I don't really give it much thought as I'm OK with it after all these years and don't see it from a new player perspective

> >

> > I wouldn't be too quick to assume anything, really. WoW is doing a (long overdue) level squish this upcoming expansion back to 60. Granted, it's different since the game always raises the level cap, but I think there are a lot of benefits to doing this type of cleanup from time to time and I wouldn't assume it has 0 chance of ever happening.

> >

> > I do kind of think the story should be account bound, but it's one of the weaker opinions I hold out of the above list.

>

> The reason I say it has a zero chance of happenign is because it simply gains little for them to invest time on given the tendrils of levelling ties into so many corners of the game (many are quick to break like dynamic events). It doesn't just affect levelling and events, but so many other parts of the game from stats, armour, weapons, collections, achievements, instances, loot drops - so much is tied into your character being 80 or at various increments that the risk of breaking something significant with the mess of code the game is built upon, is significant. For no real gain that can't be more easily achieved by improving the xp given out. Anet are a tiny company Vs Blizzard and this just isn't something they will consider doing given the time it would take to sort and the sheer volume of stuff on the table (make no mistake, we are talking months if not years to redo the levelling system)

>

> There are benefits I agree, but they are outweighed by the risks and the time and the reallocation of resources. It simply isn't something I could ever see Anet considering let alone implementing. An assumption on my part yes, but one I can state with a rare utmost confidence

I know there's plenty of minutiae involved in taking it on, but I also am not convinced it's as unreasonable as you think it is. I could see it taking a few months to do for sure, but there should be teams working on game systems like this on an ongoing basis anyway. Think about similar things they've done in the past like the overhauls to the wardrobe or skill/trait systems. And I would as a major facet of a core game improvement experience where they addressed things like difficulty tuning, etc.

With that said, I do think the hero panel items have the most bang-to-buck ratio above and if they try to get anything done for the steam rollout it should be that.

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> Some of your points I agree with, but I really don't see why there's anything to be concerned with for the Steam launch. Hundreds of thousands of people coped with the system as it is. New players will either like it or not - I'm not sure any significant overhauls are necessary to appease another influx.

>

> Some refinements for sure

>

> - LS1 should have a better recap. The current one has been worthless since it was added and should have been better.

> - I fully disagree with account bound story. Story progression is about character immersion and those who do it once, will have scrolls for most non expac areas to quickly enter any map they would normally be gated behind. Account bound story gains next to nothing.

> - Level 80 is what it is. That will never be condensed. I agree it is too many, but there's no point wasting thought on something that will never change

> - I do like the idea of the other Seasons having titles (LS1 is often known as Scarlet's War fyi)

> - Hero panel could prob do with some cleaning up I guess. I don't really give it much thought as I'm OK with it after all these years and don't see it from a new player perspective

I wouldn't be too quick to assume anything, really. WoW is doing a (long overdue) level squish this upcoming expansion back to 60. Granted, it's different since the game always raises the level cap, but I think there are a lot of benefits to doing this type of cleanup from time to time and I wouldn't assume it has 0 chance of ever happening.

I do kind of think the story should be account bound, but it's one of the weaker opinions I hold out of the above list.

I'm feeling a little anxious about the upcoming steam rollout as I really want it to do well, but there are several things that feel off to me about the core/leveling experience that I worry about affecting the traction of newer players coming in. I'll admit some of this is easier/more likely to be addressed than others, but I felt I might as well do a full brain dump:

**80 levels feels like far too many**. Imagine if the game had the exact same stat spread and took roughly the same amount of time to reach the cap, but that was compressed to 40 or 50 levels instead of 80 :

- levels feel like more significant milestones

- boosting characters through levels would be far less tedious

- it would feel less intimidating to level a new toon even if it technically takes the same amount of time

- your gear wouldn't get outdated so fast, freeing you up to invest more in experimenting with stats and wardrobe while leveling

- the distribution of hero points/leveling rewards could be much more normalized/streamlined, and would feel more actually rewarding instead of feeling highly random and kind of trite.

- would provide an opportunity to rebalance core as it's really become too simple/easy with all the power creep and scaling adjustments over the years.

- It's a little more reminiscent of GW1, which is something many players appreciate.

**The Hero Panel has some significant UX issues**

- there should be some basic organization/categorization of attributes in the equipment panel so that it's more visually intuitive. Maybe "primary" and "secondary" are outdated concepts, but organizing them into something like "offense", "defense" and "support/utility" categories (as an example) can make it much cleaner and easier to read/consume.

- it feels very clunky that wardrobe is combined with equipment in the equipment panel instead of being separated into its own panel (above build). It requires too many clicks from back and forth navigation. Equipment should open by default, and navigating between equipment and wardrobe should be a single click whereas it's at least two today.

- The build panel is mostly fine, but the training panel is a terrible, confusing mess. There isn't even so much as a summary of what each line is intended to provide and players are railroaded to an excessive degree on what and how they unlock new skills/traits. Again, it was far, far better before the "new player experience" changes and it needs to be revisited and cleaned up.

- Since they gave LW5 a title ("Icebrood Saga") they should probably go back and give the former seasons story titles (potentially still prefixing them as LW2, or so forth, to indentify the difference between LW and expansion stories).

**Other/Miscellaneous**

- Using the same resource to unlock skills and traits in a single panel has always felt odd. Conceptually, this means they compete with each other rather than complementing each other as they are supposed to. Frankly, the launch system of skill points and trait manuals was much, much better. I know it was changed to accommodate elite specs, but it needs to be revisited.

- LW1 still not being present in the game in any significant form is a huge issue with a presumed influx of new players that will be forced to skip all the content that introduced most the major characters and so forth. It's hard for me to understand how they have not figured out a simpler way to do at least parts of it in 6 years.

- Core masteries could really use some additional expansion and refinement.

- HP acquisition is far too backloaded - unlocking new skills and traits takes too long.

- Story progress should probably be account based (other than the PS) since the episodes are repeatable anyway

- I think tracking of NPCs should be better in game than it is. For example, having a minihud for characters that are fighting with you in instances, or a bio section for NPCs in the story journal.

- The POF zones need some aggro/respawn reduction since they are designed as exploration zones and not meta zones.

I'll update if I think of other things.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > There's a ton of problems with Norn as they are now, but how they look is not one of those.

> >

> > Subjective claims are not objective claims.

> True. But then the same can be said about your view. This whole thread is all about purely subjective feelings.

>

Yeah but I never presented my view as if it was objective.

> @"Taylan.2187" said:

> I'm most annoyed by how ridiculous the difference between female and male Norn is. You can make the male characters look like a yoga ball but the females all have to be nicely thin of course! Either allow players to make female Norn characters with Zarya-type butch physique, or synchronize the appearance of the male characters to the female variants so they look less like Santa Claus and more like a tall giant. No reason for the double standard, just seems like basic sexism.

>

> And before someone starts insinuating things, I'm a thin straight guy who's quite fond of thin female characters, I just genuinely think that the double standard is unfair. ^^

Yes, this is actually what bothers me the most as well. I simply cannot play a male norn because their proportions look absurd while female norn just look like tall and slightly less petite humans. I honestly think this is a problem and am not sure why it was ever allowed to go live.

Although that aside I also think it would be cool if they looked a little less like humans overall, with a more gruff/wintry appearance (i.e. a typical fantasy giant race).

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> There's a ton of problems with Norn as they are now, but how they look is not one of those.

Subjective claims are not objective claims.

She submitted a ticket and has not received a response yet. This appears to be a pretty common problem.

Meanwhile, I'm experiencing literally nothing but lag spikes and disconnects.

WTH is going on with this game?

I guess these polls are a little folly really, because people are always going to favor the status quo unless the status quo is exceptionally bad. I still say they would benefit from an update.

Very simple poll here - I find the norn to be a very compelling race but am put off of playing them (males in particular) because of the design of their model. I'm curious who else feels this way.

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > @"Ultramex.1506" said:

> > > > > People just need to get better, no! I'm not saying this as an elite, but someone who is willing to learn from past mistake to improve, dumbing everything down further won't encourage growth.

> > > > > Having trouble beating an enemy? See what you did wrong and learn the enemy attack pattern, for example: smokescale! Either block or double evade and when it use smoke just lure it out!

> > > > > Although i must say, enemies in HoT are easier with range than melee, except for that frog which has been nerfed

> > > >

> > > > There is a large segment of the populace (large, not majority..) that likes to be able to stand still in the game in the middle of areas with enemy creatures without dying while they [fill in blank with alt-tab, message friends, check map etc]

> > > >

> > > > People attach a large significant to dying in game. Because of course reasons.

> > > >

> > > > There are complaints about the aggro range in PoF maps....

> > > >

> > > > It truly seems as if people only want to auto attack and not worry about mechanics or focus.

> > > >

> > > > They just want to move on to the next area.

> > >

> > > PoF aggro range is a bit of pet peeve of mine. It's not at all about difficulty. It's that you can never get out of combat in PoF. There's always another stupid sand eel or forged sniper 2000 units away that for some reason decided it wants to come after you. I don't want things "easier", but I also don't want to be forced to fight 20 mobs due to chain aggro every time I stop to harvest a node!

> >

> > Correct. This is why those zones are largely abandoned and why PoF needs attention much more than HoT does. HoT is perfectly fine IMO - it operates as a proper set of challenging end game zones with tons of meta activity. PoF does not. It's just a bunch of beautiful but fundamentally casual exploration zones all but ruined by excessive aggro and nonstop tedious combat.

> >

> > I don't think it's either realistic or desirable to try to make them more like HoT zones. I think they should be more like core zones, which mostly just means reducing aggro range and maybe mob density in some areas.

>

> I'm not sure I agree that the only issue with PoF is the aggro range. Take that away and change nothing else and you'll still have huge, empty maps with not much going on. Apparently, that's what some players enjoy, but I think the persistent activity of the HoT maps is evidence that players enjoy that sort of group activity.

Yeah, but the issue is there's only so much of that the game can handle. There's a strong argument to be made that the population is already spread too thin with the large number of maps containing significant meta activity with strong rewards. Personally I feel they've overemphasized that with the LW when they should have been balancing it with a combination of dungeons/raids/small group content and more casual solo-oriented zones.

And instead of HoT having nothing but that and PoF having none of it, both expansions should have had a mix of both. But it's too late for that now, so I say keep HoT how it is and pare back PoF a little bit and let it be a bit of a slow/casual region. Hopefully Cantha will be a little more mixed.

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Ultramex.1506" said:

> > > People just need to get better, no! I'm not saying this as an elite, but someone who is willing to learn from past mistake to improve, dumbing everything down further won't encourage growth.

> > > Having trouble beating an enemy? See what you did wrong and learn the enemy attack pattern, for example: smokescale! Either block or double evade and when it use smoke just lure it out!

> > > Although i must say, enemies in HoT are easier with range than melee, except for that frog which has been nerfed

> >

> > There is a large segment of the populace (large, not majority..) that likes to be able to stand still in the game in the middle of areas with enemy creatures without dying while they [fill in blank with alt-tab, message friends, check map etc]

> >

> > People attach a large significant to dying in game. Because of course reasons.

> >

> > There are complaints about the aggro range in PoF maps....

> >

> > It truly seems as if people only want to auto attack and not worry about mechanics or focus.

> >

> > They just want to move on to the next area.

>

> PoF aggro range is a bit of pet peeve of mine. It's not at all about difficulty. It's that you can never get out of combat in PoF. There's always another stupid sand eel or forged sniper 2000 units away that for some reason decided it wants to come after you. I don't want things "easier", but I also don't want to be forced to fight 20 mobs due to chain aggro every time I stop to harvest a node!

Correct. This is why those zones are largely abandoned and why PoF needs attention much more than HoT does. HoT is perfectly fine IMO - it operates as a proper set of challenging end game zones with tons of meta activity. PoF does not. It's just a bunch of beautiful but fundamentally casual exploration zones all but ruined by excessive aggro and nonstop tedious combat.

I don't think it's either realistic or desirable to try to make them more like HoT zones. I think they should be more like core zones, which mostly just means reducing aggro range and maybe mob density in some areas.

Yeah, I think part of the problem is the core game is too easy now after years of balance creep and scaling adjustments. And I think this is an issue. For anyone who doesn't really suck, combat feels very, very bland and uninteresting all the way from 1-80.

Honestly, I kind of think they should reduce the # of levels to 50 or so, slow down the leveling speed a little, and really tighten up monster stats and AI throughout core. I think it would be a manageable effort and would do the game a lot of good.

I don't actually have a problem with HoT's difficulty. I kind of have a problem with PoF's difficulty because the maps are designed more for casual exploration than they are for coordinated meta efforts. So if either expansion needs a nerf, it's PoF.

I also think they really dropped the ball by not spending some time polishing the core experience before rolling out to steam.

> @"BlackBullWings.2734" said:

> welp it's not impossible, fractals can pretty much cover any historical point in the game :)

> I was always hoping for a fractal series spanning over pre-destroyed Orr and Arah.

>

> Visions of the Past could be a great candidate for implementing this as well but they seem like they're meant to be directly tied to the story.

>

> I'm guessing they've never done anything with it because the city itself pre-destruction, might be kind of hard to envision or they feel they can't do it justice. It's kind of one of those things where they're probably afraid to touch it because they feel that the player's imagination is going to be better than what they push out. Or not. It may just be the fact that they would likely have to create a ton of assets for it.

>

>

I really think FotM has been misused in this way - I would rather see this as a full time travel expansion or LW series than as a series of fractals.

> @"Strider.7849" said:

> The only changes that staff needs is another aoe DPS and an increase in damage for meteor. I mentioned it in the past but I'll say it again, if they took staff air 5 and replaced it with air 4 (removing that trash aoe swiftness skill which is outdated/useless) then made a new skill for air 5, such as a storm similar to that of glyphs lightning storm, staff would be in a good place.

This isn't a bad idea, but I ALSO think water and earth have significant problems in that they give up far, far too much damage to provide the utility they do. This is also something that's outdated in their design.

Yeah I don't think 1500 range would actually address much. The problem is the whole design of the staff set and it really needs a comprehensive rework. The attunements are overly-specialized. Fire is strong but is slow and clunky while the other three are both clunky AND weak giving up far too much damage to provide various utility.

That said, maybe should make staff 1500, scepter 1200 and dagger 900 given how many attrition and gap close problems eles have.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Taril.8619" said:

> > > snip

> > >

> >

> > Focusing so much on things that can provide direct monetization is probably the main area Anet has gone wrong. Build templates are perhaps the best example of what a fiasco that can cause. That isn't how it works for a large number of reasons. The gem store needs to support the game, not the other way around.

> >

> Perhaps gem store sales aren't enough. We don't know; we don't have Anet's internal financials and/or business plan.

> >You focus on making a quality game with lots to offer everyone who buys it, and people will spend money it provided there are opportunities for them to do so - and there are plenty. Perhaps too many at this point. Ever heard of analysis paralysis, or too much choice?

> This assumes that these opportunities are what the majority of the player base wants. This also assumes that Anet isn't already focusing on making a quality game with lost to offer everyone who buys it. Their metrics tells them what sells and what doesn't sell and where they can make the most profit to satisfy their shareholders because, at the end of the day, it's the shareholders who really matter, not the players.

>

Kharmin, you love to cite Anet's "metrics" to rationalize whatever status quo, and this is little more than an appeal to authority. For one, you don't know what metrics Anet uses or whether or not they are any good. Marketing people and CEOs alike are just people - they make mistakes constantly, they have weak baselines, ignore confounding variables, etc., and commonly undermine themselves without ever realizing it. Many people said to defend the lack of mounts before Anet eventually determined they were worth adding to the game.

Your comment on shareholders vs players doesn't make sense - in particular because trying excessively to please shareholders with shortsighted "visions" surrounding profit is precisely what sinks a lot of companies. In truth, their focus should be neither players nor shareholders - it should be the product they've invested in and creatively thinking through all the ways in which they can make better and more accessible.

I think 8 years ago if they had had a more solid vision for the game and the direction they were going and spent the first two years building toward that vision, it would have been much more successful. Instead they made all kinds of mistakes like propping up a ton of temporary content, overemphasizing the most poorly received part of the game (story), ignoring systems that were delivered but left unrefined, and pivoting directions repeatedly - something the game has never and likely will never full recover from.

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> snip

>

Focusing so much on things that can provide direct monetization is probably the main area Anet has gone wrong. Build templates are perhaps the best example of what a fiasco that can cause. That isn't how it works for a large number of reasons. The gem store needs to support the game, not the other way around. You focus on making a quality game with lots to offer everyone who buys it, and people will spend money it provided there are opportunities for them to do so - and there are plenty. Perhaps too many at this point. Ever heard of analysis paralysis, or too much choice?

Otherwise, what this whole post amounts to is "I want them to work on things I want them to work on and not on things I don't". I won't fault you for that because that's what literally everyone including myself does, but at least own up to it instead of hiding behind the "efficiency" argument. I'm also not sure what sort of poll you conducted to determine that players would be angry if they didn't fully build out a playable race to match the original 5 perfectly. I would suspect many people would be happy to have new races to play as whether or not they were forcefully retrofitted to be as complete as the existing 5 are.

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Taril.8619" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > Everyone acts like new races are impossible

> > >

> > > It's not impossible in the sense that it's too technically advanced for the game.

> > >

> > > It's impossible because of the sheer amount of work it would require to implement to the same standard as the existing playable races.

> > >

> > > Such a massive task is not cost effective for ANet to work on. Just like it's not cost effective for them to work on armour skins because they take too much effort and resources to develop, despite these also being directly monetized.

> > >

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > It's my favorite when people say "it would be too hard" as if games like GW2 are going to do well by being lazy and not tackling new dev that is wanted by a large % of players, or as if they don't spend months working on a single new small map with content that you play through in a couple of hours.

> > >

> > > Actually, games like GW2 are only going to do well by being efficient with their resource allocation.

> > >

> > > Putting in the ginormous amount of work to introduce a new playable race, which means making male and female models of every single piece of armour and outfit in the entire game as well as developing a level 10-30 Personal Story for the race at the very least.

> > >

> > > This is without even talking about the "Extra" stuff that would make the race seem complete, such as a main city, several zones based off their location (Including various thematic Hearts), additional 40-80 story tie in to make the whole personal story actually make any sense at all (Bearing in mind a lot of the PS revolves around following the guidance of a member of Destiny's Edge)

> > >

> > > All this... And exactly how many people would even care about a new race? Especially when the [vast majority](https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics) of people play Human characters.

> > >

> > > **THEN** you have to consider which race to actually add. People have asked for Skritt, Quaggan, Kodan, Tengu, Largo, Ogre etc.

> >

> > So, is the solution to just never add anything new to the game other than flashy skins and charge $20 for them? Winning strategy!

>

> Tell me where I said that.

>

> The solution is to add things that are efficient uses of resources.

>

> Adding new features that lead to additional monetization (Such as Gliders and Mounts), adding content that is monetized (Living World/Expansions) or implementing things that promote an expansion (Such as E-Specs)

>

> Adding new races can be a draw to purchasing a particular expansion. But the resource cost is extremely high and metrics show that the popularity of such a thing is low. Low enough that simply having Combat Tonics should satisfy the few people who don't prefer playing Human characters.

>

> It is the same for many things that **could** be worked on. Such as buffing all the trash tier core weapons, reworking core specializations so they aren't full of garbage, adding literally anything to PvP/WvW, creating more Raids etc. These things are not worth the resource costs either because they require too much work or because their popularity/capacity to be monetized is low.

I really don't think people making this argument are thinking all the way through it. Suggesting they should only work on things that are an "efficient use of resources" is basically suggesting they never do anything outside the box or expand the game's various systems into new directions. Also, how exactly are you quantifying what is efficient and what is not? Do you think designing a new LW map with multiple metas efficient? Is it substantially easier to do than adding a new playable race? Let's try to break that down.

Regardless- are new maps and new skins and maybe an occasional new elite spec all you want out of this game long term? I disagree vehemently that that's the right way to handle a game like GW2. While there's no way for me to prove it, I'd stake a fortune that GW2 would hang on to players better if they put more resources into things that folks like you call "inefficient" - new animations, new weapons, new skills, new races, new systems like henchment, etc. The list goes on.