Einlanzer.1627

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > I wasn't just including elite specs in my observation/analysis. I think it was an issue with the original class design that was noticeable by level 10.

> It wasn't, unless you're talking now about something else than you were talking in your first post. You were specifically talking about the "ongoing class development", and how you didn't like how they did it with elite specs. You can't however say that it was a problem "noticeable by level 10" when there was no class development yet in the game at this point. The class design up until HoT _was_ very "sandboxy". In fact, it still is - elite specs instead of just adding new weapons and traitlines limited that original feel a little, but didn't actually _change_ it.

>

> > I was just making the point that elite specs helped crystalize it as a long-term issue when it could (and should IMO) have gone in the other direction.

> Like you said, up until that point it could have gone in a different direction. Until that happened, you had no way of knowing which direction would it go. Thus saying that you could have any inkling about it, or that this ultimately chosen path could make people quit in the first half a year of the game, would make all those people genuine prophets. And i don't think there's enough genuine prophets in this world (much less playing GW2) to make any visible impact on this game's population.

>

Incorrect, because players knew what the class system looked like at that time, and how it looked at the time was much like how it looks now with elite specs. You're trying way too hard to puncture microscopic holes in this part of my comment for... what reason, exactly?

> @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

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

> > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

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

> > > > > > No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to actually provide counter-arguments instead of trying to derail the thread.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have never seen any official count of active players from launch until today.

> > > >

> > > > Fine, here:

> > > > https://inanage.com/2018/02/05/estimating-gw2s-population/

> > > >

> > >

> > > Quote from that article: "Look, the numbers and the quotes **can be massaged to basically say whatever you want**. What is considerably **more objective is what ArenaNet does**."

> > >

> > > It begs the question; Does $44M means 44M players spending $1 each OR 44 players spending $1M each?

> > >

> > > Bottom line; the "data" you've provided doesn't support your claim.

> > >

> > > One fact is true, based solely in my observation; If the content is fun to play and very rewarding and it's not a complete waste of time (i.e. Dragonfall), players will stay and play that content. It really has nothing to do with the "fundamental problems" the main topic had specified. Despite the poor options in builds and the existence of Elite specs, players still play in Dragonfall, which means, those aren't "fundamental problems".

> >

> > The context for that discussion was about trying to extrapolate the exact number of active players now based on current revenue, not trying to prove that there was a large falloff after launch, which there obviously and factually was. At any rate, just because some commenter said that doesn't mean it's true. Again, we can extrapolate reasonable conclusions from reasonable data points. Suggesting that a revenue dropoff that large is because of players continuing to play but spending that much less vs way fewer players playing and therefore not spending anything is an absurdist position.

> >

> > You people really like grasping at straws.

>

> You provided that source, not me. Now that I pointed that it doesn't support your claim, it suddenly became "doesn't mean it's true". You then just debunked your own argument by using a source that you claim to be not true.

It does support my claim, and I never suggested otherwise. But I don't really need any support for my claim anyway because this isn't a court case. It's not my problem if you can't see that something that is obviously true is true.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

>

> > 3. Posting on the board means you are an active player....

> How can you even say this? There are several posters in the last few months who specifically stated that they aren't playing because of what Anet has done with templates. But that's fine; keep making things up.

>

"Active player" means you have almost certainly played in the last 1-2 years. I'm not sure what's so confusing or radical about this.

> @"KeoLegend.5132" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"KeoLegend.5132" said:

> > > Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

> >

> > Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

>

> Nah you are completely wrong.

> Your argument is senseless and your reasons are too personal to be accepted as a scientific evidence. You said 9 out of 10 friends of yours had dropped the game.

> Well, in my case, of 10 friends, 5 of them is playing GW2 because of me and love the system aswell. So your argument is a bit irrelevant on numbers.

>

> Sure, the numbers dropped. Its part of a natural process and sometimes part of a bad decision of a game design. You are simply putting everyone that quit the game on the same bag of (i didn't like the trait system), and seeing that everyone else in here disagrees with you only show how "alone" you are in your statements.

>

> Traits and specs are FINE as they are. We prefer balance over quantity. And im with the majority of the players here. If GW2 decides to do a 180ª and attend your demands , thats when the playerbase will really drop low.

Man there about a dozen different levels of hyperbole & bad logic here.

1. When did you and your friends start playing? I said 9 in 10. I didn't say literally 9 out of 10. I have a friends list of about 60 people, and am in 5 guilds going back to the beginning of the game. Fewer than 20% of the people in any of those buckets have logged in in the last several years. Refusing to believe there was a huge falloff after launch is akin to refusing to believe that we landed on the moon.

2. I'm not putting everyone in the same bag. I'm stating an opinion on something I feel plays a large responsibility, even if people are unaware of it, of that retention failure.

3. Posting on the board means you are an active player, which means you are part of the 1 and 10 that didn't lose interest in the game quickly, which means you are biased toward how the game works today, as are most of the other active posters on this board. Duh.

4. Balance and quantity are two different things. Experienced game designers know you don't hamstring development over balance concerns because balance is never "good enough" - it's always in movement and always iterative. Being too conservative with player options due to balance concerns is a terrible status quo that leads to player disengagement.

5. There was no demand here, only the start of a discussion.

> @"Hashberry.4510" said:

> You always have some interesting points, then get stuck in these minor arguments. Maybe let that one go?

Hahhah. That's true. I always feel dragged into them but clearly I derive some enjoyment from participating in them or else I wouldn't let myself get dragged into them.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"KeoLegend.5132" said:

> > > Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

> >

> > Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

>

> Maybe or not ... the question is if they would come back if it was changed ... that's an experiment not worth the risk to perform.

>

> I actually don't see the dichotomy you present ... there are LOTS of builds that accomplish 'success' in the game without being put 'on-the-rail' so to speak. It's only metapushing players that enforce that philosophy that cause the actual game design to be challenged. The game itself is IMO, well designed to allow a wide range of 'do what you want' players to win doing what they want.

I disagree, because of things like not even being able to customize your weapon skills, or having no real opportunities for class "advancement" outside of just HP grinding out one of the two elite specs at your disposal. I think your first point is definitely salient - there's always risk with overhauling something that's been in place for years. But sometimes I think it's really important, especially since it's really starting to feel like GW2 doesn't have that much to lose.

> @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

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

> > > > No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to actually provide counter-arguments instead of trying to derail the thread.

> > >

> > > I have never seen any official count of active players from launch until today.

> >

> > Fine, here:

> > https://inanage.com/2018/02/05/estimating-gw2s-population/

> >

>

> Quote from that article: "Look, the numbers and the quotes **can be massaged to basically say whatever you want**. What is considerably **more objective is what ArenaNet does**."

>

> It begs the question; Does $44M means 44M players spending $1 each OR 44 players spending $1M each?

>

> Bottom line; the "data" you've provided doesn't support your claim.

>

> One fact is true, based solely in my observation; If the content is fun to play and very rewarding and it's not a complete waste of time (i.e. Dragonfall), players will stay and play that content. It really has nothing to do with the "fundamental problems" the main topic had specified. Despite the poor options in builds and the existence of Elite specs, players still play in Dragonfall, which means, those aren't "fundamental problems".

The context for that discussion was about trying to extrapolate the exact number of active players now based on current revenue, not trying to prove that there was a large falloff after launch, which there obviously and factually was. At any rate, just because some commenter said that doesn't mean it's true. Again, we can extrapolate reasonable conclusions from reasonable data points. Suggesting that a revenue dropoff that large is because of players continuing to play but spending that much less vs way fewer players playing and therefore not spending anything is an absurdist position.

You people really like grasping at straws.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

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

> > > > Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

> > > That part is definitely true. The game does have 11 million accounts, but i would be surprised if there was even a million (or _half_ a million) of people still playing it. You definitely would need some data to support the thesis that even a significant portion of all those people that left did so due to the problem you outlined.

> > > In the meantime, i wonder, how many players left due to the bad balance the freeform build system caused, and how those two groups of players would compare.

> >

> > I'm not suggesting it's the only reason people left ( I doubt many of them would even be able to drum up a specific reason or list of reasons), but I definitely think this dichotomy contributed heavily to a general sense of confusion or a feeling that something was off - the class design was building toward an end game similar to WoW, but there is no end-game similar to WoW. Either the world needed to be more linear and contained, or the class design needed to be less so.

> One think i forgot to mention (and something i think you completely missed yourself). Notice, that the "9 in 10 of the people you know (that) bought the game at launch (and) dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months" did that before first elite spec even happened. They did that when the game was still doing exactly what you want now. There was no "dichotomy" then, so it's impossible for it to contribute (heavily or no) to "a general sense of confusion or a feeling that something was off". If people really felt like that at all, it was 100% due to something _else_.

> So, you might want to rethink your whole premise.

>

I wasn't just including elite specs in my observation/analysis. I think it was an issue with the original class design that was noticeable by level 10. I was just making the point that elite specs helped crystalize it as a long-term issue when it could (and should IMO) have gone in the other direction.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> >Ugh I get so tired of this nonsense in these threads.

> Some of us get tired of hyperbole and "game is dying" threads as well as ones that purport to know what the "fundamental" problem with the game has been from release. Granted, you have a point to make and an argument to support and that's fine, but when you start making claims with no basis of fact, then you should expect to be called out on them.

>

"and, IMO, is likely a major reason why the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives."

There are two parts to my original post - an observation of a fact that didn't really need to be supported but was anyway, and the clear expression of an opinion on something that might be behind that fact. I didn't say the game was dying. I didn't, in your words, "make a claim with no basis of fact". Nor am I attempting to write a new scientific theory for peer review here, meaning I'm under no obligation to prove squat to you or anyone else in this thread. I was just starting a discussion.

You just read it into my post and then reacted emotionally with a diversionary argument. Interacting on forums is always the same. I don't know why I do it.

> @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known.

>

> That claim is neither obvious nor universally known. That claim is so subjective that it can easily be debunked by another subjective observation. For instance, I can also make a claim that your claim is false because there were tons of players in Dragonfall participating in the event at the same time a large group of players doing the Maguuma HP runs. Without an official numbers from ArenaNet, we can only speculate.

>

>

.......................................................................

no.

Apart from anecdotal evidence and common sense, there are also a ton of data points that can be referenced to piece together a reasonably accurate conclusion. That's how science works. It's called inference. Ugh I get so tired of this nonsense in these threads.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to actually provide counter-arguments instead of trying to derail the thread.

>

> I have never seen any official count of active players from launch until today.

Fine, here:

https://inanage.com/2018/02/05/estimating-gw2s-population/

> @"ShadowGryphon.6257" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"ShadowGryphon.6257" said:

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

> > > > Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

> > >

> > > Actually it's not "intuitive". You're using anecdotes as proof.

> > > To provide hard evidence to support you assertion isn't a ridiculous request because it's up to you to prove your point, not us.

> > > Have people left the game? sure it's not uncommon and happens to all games but to say "the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives." based solely on 9 out 10 people you know and few others you've spoken with is hardly a solid foundation for your assertion.

> > > So yes, hyperbole is an apt description.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Only if you're living with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears.

>

> So you expect people to prove your point for you.

> Got it.

> done here.

No. Demanding "hard proof" For something that is intuitively true is a diversionary tactic used to undermine an opponent's position in the absence of stronger counter-arguments. GW2 having a fraction of the number of active players it had at launch isn't something I need to prove - it's something that's both obvious and universally known. What I need is for people to contribute to the discussion instead of trying to derail the thread with illogical nonsense.

> @"ShadowGryphon.6257" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

>

> Actually it's not "intuitive". You're using anecdotes as proof.

> To provide hard evidence to support you assertion isn't a ridiculous request because it's up to you to prove your point, not us.

> Have people left the game? sure it's not uncommon and happens to all games but to say "the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives." based solely on 9 out 10 people you know and few others you've spoken with is hardly a solid foundation for your assertion.

> So yes, hyperbole is an apt description.

>

>

Only if you're living with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

> That part is definitely true. The game does have 11 million accounts, but i would be surprised if there was even a million (or _half_ a million) of people still playing it. You definitely would need some data to support the thesis that even a significant portion of all those people that left did so due to the problem you outlined.

> In the meantime, i wonder, how many players left due to the bad balance the freeform build system caused, and how those two groups of players would compare.

>

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > Again, the balance issues you and I commonly talk about revolve around combat mechanics that are largely independent of class design. Class design is basically used to fine tune them.

> A lot of stuff we've discussed in the past was strongly tied to the freeform building associated with gear (and multitude of stat sets existing), for example. Which, true, is not part of a class design, but is still part of the stuff you are talking in this thread.

>

I'm not suggesting it's the only reason people left ( I doubt many of them would even be able to drum up a specific reason or list of reasons), but I definitely think this dichotomy contributed heavily to a general sense of confusion or a feeling that something was off - the class design was building toward an end game similar to WoW, but there is no end-game similar to WoW. Either the world needed to be more linear and contained, or the class design needed to be less so.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.

> The old, pre-elite spec design let you combine anything with anything, giving you a multitude of choices. Adding new things in that design increases the complexity with each addition, until you reach the point when noone can really control it anymore. Balancing such a system gets exponentially difficult with the number of options you have.

>

> (with 5 traitlines, 3 traitline slots, 3 choices per slot, each with 3 possible options, you end up with 196830 combinations)

>

> The new design limits that however - you can't combine two elite specs together, you can't use elite spec weapons with core buidls or other elite specs. Moreover, since the elite specs ar most of the time superior to core builds, they are actually culling a lot of options you had before - there's no need to check for all possible combinations of 3 core traitlines, for example, if you know that the last of the three traitlines picked will be an elite spec one. That makes things somewhat easier. It's still a mess, though.

>

> (adding two elite traitlines to the mix, and assuming we will be using them, even though the total number of traitlines jumped from 5 to 7, we only end up with twice the number of combinations - 393660. If we just added two _normal_ traitlines, the total would be at 688905 combinations.

>

> Now, imagine how easier to balance it would be if you had only _one_ traitline slot, with 5 (or 7) traitlines to pick from. **135 (or 189)** combinations instead of 196830, 393660 or 688905.

>

> And that's only when considering traitlines alone. All that gets multiplied by the amount of choices we need to make for weapons, armor, runes, skills...

>

> In the end, if you end up with thousands of choices, there's no way they will all end up being equal. The more choices, the greater disparity between top, average and bottom. The more choices, the harder to balance all of them, and the harder to keep making sure some will not end up gamebreaking (especially in a way that may not be fun for anyone) or completely useless.

>

>

>

Again, the balance issues you and I commonly talk about revolve around combat mechanics that are largely independent of class design. Class design is basically used to fine tune them.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

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

> > > > > @"KeoLegend.5132" said:

> > > > > Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

> > > >

> > > > Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

> > >

> > > Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

> >

> > I don't really need to.

>

> Then you're only arguing hyperbole.

Except that 9 in 10 of the people that I know bought the game at launch dropped it within 6 months and then never picked it up again, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"KeoLegend.5132" said:

> > > Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

> >

> > Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

>

> Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

I don't really need to.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

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

> > > > So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.

> > > One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

> > >

> > > Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

> > >

> > > In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us _too much_ of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

> > >

> > > (in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

> > >

> >

> > I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.

>

> And that's the fundamental problem with your suggestion. Balance and class design go hand in hand. More choice/variety leads to less choice/variety

No, they don't. They overlap to some extent, but they are fundamentally different things. As an example, how the various attributes work to set things like damage floors and ceilings, and how boons create additive or multiplicative effects of that, is something that is in no way directly tied to specific classes and therefore has little to do with class design, which is largely conceptual in comparison. Yes, it helps to inform class design, but, fundamentally, the game mechanics are separate.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.

> One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

>

> Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

>

> In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us _too much_ of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

>

> (in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

>

I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things. The reason you see such a large gap between average and top players has little to do with class design and everything to do with combat mechanics and the various algorithms between damage, defense, boons, etc. Put simply, there's not enough rubber banding in the way the mechanics work. This isn't a class problem, it's an overall system problem.

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> This isn't really the sort of decision you make 7 years into a game with thousands of players fully invested in their characters.

>

> I like the system as it is and find it works just fine, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want to see a major overhaul like this at such a stage of the games life.

>

> > @"KeoLegend.5132" said:

> > Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

>

> I agree with this

The "overhaul" I'm suggesting is not as significant as you seem to think it is. I don't think existing options need to be removed, rather, the system should be reworked to be more flexible.

> @"KeoLegend.5132" said:

> Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

This isn't a complaint about something new - it's something that's been an issue from day one and, IMO, is likely a major reason why the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives.

This is it in a nutshell: **Class design more closely mirrors an on-rails RPG experience while overall game design more closely mirrors a sandbox RPG experience.**

I've long felt they over-compensated for "too much imbalance" in GW1 by over-engineering classes in GW2 when the game isn't really designed with that in mind - utilizing an end-game of horizontal growth and fashion wars. While everyone seems to love elite specs (probably just because they've been to date the only significant offering for class expansions), my opinion is this was conceptually the wrong way to tackle ongoing class development - it maintained and even reinforced the on-rails approach while the game was simultaneously moving in even more of a "do whatever you want!" direction. This is a bad dichotomy. A sandbox RPG experience that focuses on horizontal growth needs to unshackle these kinds of constraints and allow players to experiment in all kinds of ways. This is a big part of the reason why, in my view, Path of Exile ended up spiking in popularity after Diablo 3 was sort of a letdown.

So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that it's time for a system refresh - can the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much broader mechanism to continue expanding classes. There are really all kinds of ways they could do this to expanding weapon types, expanding weapon skills within weapon types, having loadout packages that resemble elite specs but are more balanced with core abilities so they can be mixed-and-matched, and allowing players to level multiple classes on the same toon.

They arguably need to just drop the notion of elite specs and just take class development in a different direction altogether, including introducing new weapon types. I'm hoping there's some announcement regarding that for the upcoming balance patch.

> @"sevenDEADLY.5281" said:

> Honestly without new elite specs or meaningful masteries (not extremely zone prohibited masteries like "raven lock") then they've 100% failed at delivering "expansion-like" content in this "saga."

>

> HoT added gliding along with masteries that are useful in almost every single zone in the game. Gliding can be utilized almost anywhere. PoF added mounts which again are fun and can be used in almost every single zone in the game. So far the masteries released in this saga can be used in.... the latest map and ONLY the latest map.

>

> Elite specs were an amazing addition to the game to add onto our current characters and mix up some build diversity without having to roll completely new characters just to play a new "class". If elite specs are being abandoned now, that leaves almost nothing to look forward to in the future for something new an exciting to change up our current characters.

Yeah they couldn't even be bothered to update the character login screen. This game's leadership and delivery structure has always been problematic, but it really seems to be over the hill at this point.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > If a player spreads out their commitment across all 6 maps (without home nodes). It's possible to acquire the entire set of materials and magic within 3-4 days when starting from 0 if gathering as far as the cap allows. This does not factor in for currency exchanges in later maps, which can potentially speed up this process even more.

> >

> > Heh .. only 3-4 days for a full set. Back when rings were introduced it took 10 days for a single ring.

>

> Exactly, and it required one to play fractals. Guild Missions for accessory. It's amazing to me how the easier arenanet make the gear acquisition, the more players complain that it's to hard.

This actually mirrors a lot of things in society and how human psychology works. The smaller a problem becomes, the louder and more emotional people get about it. A lot of modern social movements are rooted in this phenomenon.