Constructs and Mechanics that lead to the Death of the Game.

[Tazer.2157]

I agree a 100 % with the above post. In ESO I simply talk and interact more with the other players. It’s not simply because of the lack of waypoints, but also because of the class trilogy that game has. In gw2 everything has become a Zerg fest. You get on the train, clear a map and then get off the train without even talking to a single individual. Every map plays that way. HoT is a little different where you actually need help from other players for some hero challenges. Sadly they didn’t carry that concept forward.

[Super Hayes.6890]

My biggest problem with no way points:

 

Hey bro, you logging on tonight? Yeah man, wanna team up? Oh, you're in Istan... sorry, I'm up in Drizzlewood atm. I don't have enough time tonight to get to you. Maybe next time...

 

If anything, I wouldn't mind an option to disable waypoints for when I feel like walking around and randomly teaming up with whoever I encounter. The biggest limitation preventing a change of this nature is the already established playerbase since 2012. Removing waypoints cannot happen without punching the game's population in the gut. We would lose so many players over something like that. I think this idea warrants discussion in a Guild Wars 3 maybe. I mean, the next time I log on the OP has inspired me to roam without waypoints for a bit. Sounds fun, but I will probably WP at some point before logging out. Also, what happens when you die? Long walk back from home base?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Tazer.2157" said:

> I agree a 100 % with the above post. In ESO I simply talk and interact more with the other players. It’s not simply because of the lack of waypoints, but also because of the class trilogy that game has. In gw2 everything has become a Zerg fest. You get on the train, clear a map and then get off the train without even talking to a single individual. Every map plays that way. HoT is a little different where you actually need help from other players for some hero challenges. Sadly they didn’t carry that concept forward.

 

I'm glad someone agrees with me here. Like you point out it might even be more than the mechanics i listed in the OP. It could even be that self-sufficient build design adds to that amplification process of instant gratification. Because healers or tanks aren't necessary in most content, we don't seek out others who are proficient in those areas to help us achieve goals...and so on top of those other mechanics, even the zerg's that technically bring people together, are a mishmash of people that only need additional people to complete content rather than their personal specialty's that make their interaction worth socializing over.

 

Just as a personal example of what i said above, i was invited to a guild a while back because i was a very proficient roamer way back in the day, so much so that i met other proficient roamers, and with them we were discovered by a guild leader that basically put all of us together to make a GvG team. This to me i would consider a positive social interaction cycle that lead to meaningful experiences, and those interactions happened because of how WvW back then encouraged social interaction in the game mode.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

The Devs specifically created the game (at launch) to forego needing certain roles (healers/tanks) to alleviate the need to 'wait to play and have fun'. Though searching for a needed Profession does necessitate 'social interaction', it certainly has downsides: possibly waiting for some time before being able to 'have fun actually playing the game'.

 

Now that we do, sort of, have those kinds of Profession roles, a lot of laments show up in the forums about unpleasant 'social interactions' regarding said (necessary to complete content) roles.

 

Not sure if that's such a great thing. /shrug

[blp.3489]

Is there a way that you can send chat messages while moving? So far I have had to stop doing anything else while I type a message. Several times I have got clobbered while typing a message as all my reflexive combat responses and movement were going into the chat box. I would be much less inclined to chat if I had to spend more of my time moving due to lack of waypoints.

[Swagger.1459]

The facts...

 

The state of the game has zero to do with waypoints, mounts, convenience items and things.

 

The devs are not removing waypoints, mounts, convenience items and things.

 

Players obviously do interact at all times throughout the game.

 

If a player is unhappy with the level of interaction between random strangers inside the game, then take matters into your own hands and build up a guild with like-minded players to interact and play with...

 

It’s not the devs job to do the actual building of communities, it’s the players responsibility to do so through the tools that were already provided by the developers... So make a guild, lead community events, use discord, use the forums to advertise your guild and guild run events, pop a commander tag in pve and wvw... Take it upon yourselves, because the devs aren’t going to do it for you.

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > Just bring honest here.

>

> Your "honesty" isn't constructive. I'm just here pointing out the possibility that systems Anet has created is killing their own game.

And i have already pointed out to you, that your assumptions do not match the game as it was, and as it is. You might want to first rethink them, and start again, because at this point you have no argument at all. All your whole theory is based on the

 

- waypoints

- ???

- Profit!

 

principle. And that hardly encourages anyone to treat it seriously.

 

> Decreasing playerbase reports, Low marketing presence and decrease in sales all point to this, I'm just putting the pieces together.

You may be putting pieces together, but you have no idea how they _connect_ together. And of course even if you make a correct assumption about the state of the game (i'm not going into a discussion about whether it _is_ correct now), the connections you think it has with waypoints are based on your lack of knowledge about game - they are completely false.

 

> Maybe you have a different theory to explain why the game is dying? Or perhaps you don't believe the game is dying at all.

Perhaps it is - but you can't seriously analyze that and find the reasons why it is so, if you start basing your theories on **false** assumptions.

 

 

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Solanum.6983" said:

> > I mean by that logic we should get rid of mounts as well.

>

> And you would be correct.

> You can look at WvW to see how mounts have destroyed the game mode there

 

Wait, what? If anything mounts move us closer to removing ABL and getting a better and bigger map. Mounts might not have been launched in the best shape but it was still an answer to the question of run speed across classes. Mounts if anything aided in the issue you brought up of allowing more scouting and better communication.

 

Outside of that the premise that slowing down in game travel would not lead to more people discussing things in chat, it would lead to more wasted game time as you have to travel to where you need to be to play the game. Older MMOs that were sub-based used slow mode travel to keep people in game longer but it meant less actual game play. We want people to be active in game, not tabbing out while the move from point A to B.

 

[Tazer.2157]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Tazer.2157" said:

> > I agree a 100 % with the above post. In ESO I simply talk and interact more with the other players. It’s not simply because of the lack of waypoints, but also because of the class trilogy that game has. In gw2 everything has become a Zerg fest. You get on the train, clear a map and then get off the train without even talking to a single individual. Every map plays that way. HoT is a little different where you actually need help from other players for some hero challenges. Sadly they didn’t carry that concept forward.

>

> I'm glad someone agrees with me here. Like you point out it might even be more than the mechanics i listed in the OP. It could even be that self-sufficient build design adds to that amplification process of instant gratification. Because healers or tanks aren't necessary in most content, we don't seek out others who are proficient in those areas to help us achieve goals...and so on top of those other mechanics, even the zerg's that technically bring people together, are a mishmash of people that only need additional people to complete content rather than their personal specialty's that make their interaction worth socializing over.

>

> Just as a personal example of what i said above, i was invited to a guild a while back because i was a very proficient roamer way back in the day, so much so that i met other proficient roamers, and with them we were discovered by a guild leader that basically put all of us together to make a GvG team. This to me i would consider a positive social interaction cycle that lead to meaningful experiences, and those interactions happened because of how WvW back then encouraged social interaction in the game mode.

 

Nicely put. Everyone is just another player and since content is relatively easy there is no need to remember players who know their way around dungeons/fractals or play their roles well, anyone will do. And the next day we just find someone else to fill the spot with LFG. This is compounded with the lack of unique gear in game. As gear does nothing other than add stats, every berserker warrior is the same, every alacrity renegade is the same, etc. Every player shares the same mastery points as well. At the end we have a game where there is very little choice for playstyles. On a positive note, other MMOs are in development and we will be spoiled with choice.

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Tazer.2157" said:

> > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > > @"Tazer.2157" said:

> > > I agree a 100 % with the above post. In ESO I simply talk and interact more with the other players. It’s not simply because of the lack of waypoints, but also because of the class trilogy that game has. In gw2 everything has become a Zerg fest. You get on the train, clear a map and then get off the train without even talking to a single individual. Every map plays that way. HoT is a little different where you actually need help from other players for some hero challenges. Sadly they didn’t carry that concept forward.

> >

> > I'm glad someone agrees with me here. Like you point out it might even be more than the mechanics i listed in the OP. It could even be that self-sufficient build design adds to that amplification process of instant gratification. Because healers or tanks aren't necessary in most content, we don't seek out others who are proficient in those areas to help us achieve goals...and so on top of those other mechanics, even the zerg's that technically bring people together, are a mishmash of people that only need additional people to complete content rather than their personal specialty's that make their interaction worth socializing over.

> >

> > Just as a personal example of what i said above, i was invited to a guild a while back because i was a very proficient roamer way back in the day, so much so that i met other proficient roamers, and with them we were discovered by a guild leader that basically put all of us together to make a GvG team. This to me i would consider a positive social interaction cycle that lead to meaningful experiences, and those interactions happened because of how WvW back then encouraged social interaction in the game mode.

>

> Nicely put. Everyone is just another player and since content is relatively easy there is no need to remember players who know their way around dungeons/fractals or play their roles well, anyone will do. And the next day we just find someone else to fill the spot with LFG. This is compounded with the lack of unique gear in game. As gear does nothing other than add stats, every berserker warrior is the same, every alacrity renegade is the same, etc. Every player shares the same mastery points as well. At the end we have a game where there is very little choice for playstyles. On a positive note, other MMOs are in development and we will be spoiled with choice.

>

 

Play ESO as well, and would have to say I interact even less with people there due to the trinity being in place and their LFG system creating teams with DPS/Tanks & Heals. So why would you say you interact with people more there than here? Not certain I can see the tie in or why you would interact with others more. Only thing that would come to mind is a post dungeon chat if anyone wanted to swap drops they gained.

[Zok.4956]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> In this game there are a large set of mechanics that in the short term lead to instant player satisfaction (instant gratification) but over the long term, are detrimental on a macro-scale level. The way these mechanics allow for instant gratification create artificial constructs, which end up self ful-filling and further leading to the enrichment of said constructs.

>

> There are a large number of mechanics to talk about, but the big one I'm going to focus on for this discussion are waypoints, and subsequent mechanics that are effected by having waypoints existing in the game.

 

You write about "the game" but it seems that you ignore large parts of the game because you obviously only write about Openworld PvE.

 

Every game is (more or less) dying after its release. This game is 8 years old. If waypoints would have such a big impact, the game would already be dead.

 

GW2 was designed differently than other games. The interaction with other players happens in the Openworld during map exploration, when players ask for help in map chat, when there are events, the so called "Living breathing world", which was/is a core feature of GW2. The basic design idea for the game was, that players should be happy to see other players at events, doing hearts, etc. (as an example: a consequence of this design idea is the absence of loot stealing in GW2).

 

Waypoints (which in the past had to be unlocked first during map exploration) were a faster way to travel those maps that were already explored, so a player could be be faster at events, where the interaction with other players happens.

 

GW2 has a lot of problems, but waypoints are not a part of them.

 

I think your theory is so biased (Maslow's hammer) that your conlusions are wrong. If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything like a nail.

 

[Luthan.5236]

There is a lot of social interaction and WPs make it easier to get together - and you can announce if some mob spawns near a certain WP in chat. Removing waypoints would make the game less convenient -> and a different playerbase (hardcore players) might start do dominate it.

 

I see a lot of social interaction. I just have been in Lake Doric for Daily S3 today. And people asked stuff (about the clockwork achievement and which events were needed for it) and got answers - and some mentor/commander tagged up to show where there are events.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Rauderi.8706" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Fun fact - your first diagram does _not_ represent the "interaction density" as it was in the core game. That density was always concentrated around major metaevents and farms, or other key places like dungeon entrances, and those often did not match the waypoint spread. This has remained true even now, at maps with much, much lower waypoint numbers (and built around other forms of transport, like mounts or gliding/leylines). In fact, it would be way closer to your _waypointless_ picture.

> >

> > So, it seems the very basis on which you built your whole thesis is false.

>

> Specifically, the game draws attention to dynamic events, guiding the population into interactions.

>

> Waypoints are an abstraction of a previous system of flight-points that would visually carry the player from place to place. Ugh, I still remember going AFK in WoW when taking a flight out from Moonglade or whatever it was. Literally 10 minutes. Someone programmed a Bejeweled clone in lua to help people be not bored on flights. GW2's waypoints remove the excess waiting so players spend more time engaged with the game. (Now if their other events/bosses would come off the clock a bit...) It does seem the devs noticed something about waypoint density and changed their stance on it from HoT on up, because we have fewer of them now.

>

> If there needs to be discussion of a macro-level system causing agony in the game, it's probably how the megaserver assigns players and how the players abuse taxiing to leave other maps bare of participation.

 

Alderaan, going from the main space port on the Imp side to the farthest waypoint out, you could literally walk your dog, walk yourself, wash your hands and make a sandwich, and still not be there. Yeah, that wasn't all that engaging, especially coming around to the thousandth time you had to do it.

[Seera.5916]

Home instances: people advertise coming in and farming their home instances.

 

Which can lead to "Where did you get that node?" or "Where did you get that cat?" [The various home instance cats that you do various things for in the rest of the game].

 

The home instance nodes give you very few items per day. You'd have to farm other players' home instances or still farm the stuff yourself if you want to get any amount of the item. It's not harming the game. I should know, I have a few.

 

It sounds to me like you've never gotten a home instance node or farmed one.

 

Please actually research the items you're saying are ruining the game.

 

You failed to prove that waypoints and mounts reduce the social aspect of the game. So please stop claiming that it does. I've only seen actual proof that it would lessen the social experience if there were fewer waypoints and no mounts.

 

This game was designed so you spend more time actually doing the content and not waiting for others or from getting to point A to point B once you've already explored the area or gotten a mount. Yes, this means that more players stop playing sooner than in other games, but this game is designed such that players can take a break and come back when things get added to the game that they want to do.

[Obtena.7952]

Interesting theory about leading to death of the game ... except for the fact that the game is 8 years old with the things you say will kill it ... which is already not bad for a game still being developed. I mean, not really a theory you could ever prove so I don't ever really get the point of the thread ... you think Anet will remove waypoints and mounts? You think there will be a shift in player behaviour because of proposing this theory? Likely ... neither.

 

Seriously, if anything my social interaction is going to DECREASE if the game is going to force me to run around all over the place. I simply don't have time to type and chat if I have to press WASD for 10 minutes instead of using a waypoint.

[ancientoak.4258]

Now some practical info from someone who has been playing since 2012 (and gw 1 since 2006). People were much more talkative in the premount age, when waypoints where the only fast travel. So this theoretical study is debunked. People just dont talk as much in chat compared to the past. It has been a thing that i noticed especially since 2017 (when mounts were released). Are people more in hypermode by mount use? Absulutely. With only waypoints people would stand still to pause and chat, with all the fast mounts people hop all over the map without stopping, so less talk. Could increased use of voice chat also be a reason? Absolutely. Or have people become less social over the last years, in this age of smartphones and 'social media',in my experience yes, on the street exactly the same. Less real social interaction, more distracted by earlier mentioned. I hope the EOD expansion will bring some chill places in the game to hang out, with minigames like polymok, instead of dynamic events and speed races. That could dehaste the players, and make them more Social again ;)

Last, Guildwars 2 is not one in a dozen other mmos, who lean on the old time investment principle, instead of effort gameplay (like singleplayer games). Thats why i love this game, i dont 'Live' in this game, i play a game, and go back to daily life. Comparing apples and oranges in this case does not work.

[battledrone.8315]

WoD was super grindy, cataclysm was the big convenience pack. and less convenience always annoys a lot of people .

SPECIALLY if it is something they have paid and/or worked for

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Seera.5916" said:

>I've only seen actual proof that it would lessen the social experience if there were fewer waypoints and no mounts.

 

And what proof would that be exactly?

 

The way i "proved" (it's not actually proof btw, it's a hypothesis) that waypoints mounts, and other features take away social interaction is by explaining how taking away the time it takes from point A to point B eliminates interactions that could have occurred along the way. This is shown in a mockup network map that illustrates that behavior.

 

The mockup network map i drew itself is just a terribly drawn approximation. if i had the drawing skills, the regions of interaction would look more like a river that forks out into capillaries, like these population and interaction density map...



 

rather than a [contour map](https://support.goldensoftware.com/hc/article_attachments/360034201934/DualColorscale.jpg) where the path most people travel on from Point A to Point B would have the highest interaction density, forking off towards area's of interest like events, hearts etc, which would have less interaction density then the main pathways.

 

> This game was designed so you spend more time actually doing the content and not waiting for others

 

This has been said multiple times in the thread. I understand that is the point of the waypoints and the mounts etc... Having some waypoints in the game is actually perfectly okay, and i said as much in the OP. My point was that having TOO much convenience starts an amplification process...where the effects of having too much convenience compounds those densities into tighter and tighter regions...and the conclusion of that compounding would be that there would no longer be any reason for people to interact with other people...because why would they when everything can be done right now, by yourself, in an instant.

 

I backcheck these hypothesis with in game observations...from what i observe in most cases, is that interaction is incredibly low, where population densities are very high (like Lions Arch) which is not normal...it's not normal for hundreds of people to be standing completly silent and completly still for hours without saying anything to anyone.

 

Now, people have proposed many things to explain this, such as that "everyone is in discord" or "everyone is in guild chats" or some other reasoning to dismiss the fact that people aren't interacting in any medium other than those that are impossible to measure with any accuracy. That is not proof...it's unfalsifiable to say that people are using discord more than they are using public chats because one can't actually prove that to be the case.

 

Edit: Also as a continuation of the above thought, is that there should be places that you would expect there to be a higher population density than what is actually present in the game. These are places like The Human Starter area for example, which, according to some statistics, is the most commonly picked race among new players. However, this location, although it does have slightly more people than other surrounding areas, is drastically lower than what one would expect it to be. You can actually compare this to other games where it actually matches with the expectation like WoW's Goldshire. The two places don't seem to be any different to each other in design, in fact both seem nearly exactly the same...with a tavern, a few houses, and an outdoor centralized square...except one of them is completely devoid of interaction and people, while the other is so crowded it's hard to understand why there is such a massive difference between these two, seemingly similar starter zones.

 

[Seera.5916]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> >I've only seen actual proof that it would lessen the social experience if there were fewer waypoints and no mounts.

>

> And what proof would that be exactly?

>

> The way i "proved" (it's not actually proof btw, it's a hypothesis) that waypoints mounts, and other features take away social interaction is by explaining how taking away the time it takes from point A to point B eliminates interactions that could have occurred along the way. This is shown in a mockup network map that illustrates that behavior.

>

> The mockup network map i drew itself is just a terribly drawn approximation. if i had the drawing skills, the regions of interaction would look more like a river that forks out into capillaries, like these population and interaction density map...

>

> rather than a [contour map](https://support.goldensoftware.com/hc/article_attachments/360034201934/DualColorscale.jpg) where the path most people travel on from Point A to Point B would have the highest interaction density, forking off towards area's of interest like events, hearts etc, which would have less interaction density then the main pathways.

>

> > This game was designed so you spend more time actually doing the content and not waiting for others

>

> This has been said multiple times in the thread. I understand that is the point of the waypoints and the mounts etc... Having some waypoints in the game is actually perfectly okay, and i said as much in the OP. My point was that having TOO much convenience starts an amplification process...where the effects of having too much convenience compounds those densities into tighter and tighter regions...and the conclusion of that compounding would be that there would no longer be any reason for people to interact with other people...because why would they when everything can be done right now, by yourself, in an instant.

>

> I backcheck these hypothesis with in game observations...from what i observe in most cases, is that interaction is incredibly low, where population densities are very high (like Lions Arch) which is not normal...it's not normal for hundreds of people to be standing completly silent and completly still for hours without saying anything to anyone.

>

> Now, people have proposed many things to explain this, such as that "everyone is in discord" or "everyone is in guild chats" or some other reasoning to dismiss the fact that people aren't interacting in any medium other than those that are impossible to measure with any accuracy. That is not proof...it's unfalsifiable to say that people are using discord more than they are using public chats because one can't actually prove that to be the case.

>

> Edit: Also as a continuation of the above thought, is that there should be places that you would expect there to be a higher population density than what is actually present in the game. These are places like The Human Starter area for example, which, according to some statistics, is the most commonly picked race among new players. However, this location, although it does have slightly more people than other surrounding areas, is drastically lower than what one would expect it to be. You can actually compare this to other games where it actually matches with the expectation like WoW's Goldshire. The two places don't seem to be any different to each other in design, in fact both seem nearly exactly the same...with a tavern, a few houses, and an outdoor centralized square...except one of them is completely devoid of interaction and people, while the other is so crowded it's hard to understand why there is such a massive difference between these two, seemingly similar starter zones.

>

 

You haven't proved that the waypoints are the reason. Yet others have come up with other reasons and given proof.

 

When people have pointed out that removing the waypoints would cause them to be less social. Yet no one's come forth to say the opposite.

 

Or more, you haven't proven that the problem you're presenting is worse than the solution you're suggesting. When there's been multiple people posting that your suggestion would actually make the problem you're presenting worse.

 

No one's claiming more players are in Discord chat than game chat. Just that one reason for people not chatting while going from point a to point b is that many do use voice chat services. Because you can't say that it's not a safer way to communicate while playing with others than using an in game keyboard chat. And since those services are much more stable and easier to set up and many are free, a lot of communities have moved to using Discord. It wouldn't surprise me if this was a majority of players.

 

As for the starter map population, unlike in many games, players are free to go to whatever starter map they want to. They aren't forced to stay in their starter area for several levels. With the only exception being literal new players who haven't unlocked Lion's Arch and would have to traverse more dangerous maps to get there (not that it's not possible to do so).

 

It's totally possible for you to spend hours in a location in an MMO game in this day and age and not see any conversation made. Doesn't mean it isn't happening. Even in Lion's Arch or any other racial city. There are even a few of us who can go several hours without participating in a conversation, I'm one of them. I'm an introvert. Conversations drain me. It has to be a pretty good conversation going on for me to participate. I'll spend time just watching a conversation if it's interesting but not enough for me to join in.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Seera.5916" said:

> You haven't proved that the waypoints are the reason.

 

I just said that my Post is not "proof" it is a hypothesis.

 

>Yet others have come up with other reasons and given proof.

 

And no, there has been no "proof" given. there have been others that disagree with the hypothesis, but an opinion or differing view on the subject is not "proof"

 

> Or more, you haven't proven that the problem you're presenting is worse than the solution you're suggesting.

 

I'm actually not presenting a solution. I'm posing a hypothesis.

 

> No one's claiming more players are in Discord chat than game chat.

 

I think a number of people have said this in the thread already so far.

 

> Just that one reason for people not chatting while going from point a to point b is that many do use voice chat services. Because you can't say that it's not a safer way >to communicate while playing with others than using an in game keyboard chat. And since those services are much more stable and easier to set up and many are >free, a lot of communities have moved to using Discord. It wouldn't surprise me if this was a majority of players.

 

Thing is about this solution is that you can't actually show that this is the case. In a practical sense it's impossible to measure the amount of people that use discord or guild chat rather than the in-game chat functions. That's why the discord argument, even if it COULD be true, is unfalsifiable...and can't be shown to be true. What you CAN in practice measure is the amount of interactions you observe while in an area in the game.

 

> As for the starter map population, unlike in many games, players are free to go to whatever starter map they want to. They aren't forced to stay in their starter area for several levels. With the only exception being literal new players who haven't unlocked Lion's Arch and would have to traverse more dangerous maps to get there (not that it's not possible to do so).

 

This part of your post is confusing because the starter zones are designed no different than WoW. You really can't go much further than your starter zone if you are at a low level....so you are forced to stay in this starter zone until you level up enough to wear the gear and defeat the enemies that are higher levels than you. I also believe that you miss constantly just like WoW against mobs that are a higher level than you (can't remember it's been ages since i've played a low level character...if someone wants to clarify that.)

 

In addition If what you said were actually true, than other starter areas would have a similarly large number of players...again this is not the case. The human starter area on average is the most populated starter area by a "significant margin", and the human starter area itself doesn't have much people to begin with.

 

I can go in game right now and count how many people are in each starter area's town to give you a clue as to how low this density of people are, and i can then tell you if these people are even interacting within a 10-15 minute timeframe

Village of Shaemor = 9 People - 1 Interaction (conversation)

Soren Draa = 1 Person - 0 Interaction

Village of Smokestead = 4 Perople - 0 Interaction

Gate of Horncall = 2 People - 0 Interaction

Village of Astorea = 8 People - 1 Interaction (Party)

 

>

>There are even a few of us who can go several hours without participating in a conversation, I'm one of them. I'm an introvert. Conversations drain me. It has to be a >pretty good conversation going on for me to participate. I'll spend time just watching a conversation if it's interesting but not enough for me to join in.

 

This has nothing to do with who you are personally or how you on a personal level interact with people. My post is about macroscopic societal behaviors. The entire society is not introvert like you...they aren't extroverts either. There are a plethora of different kinds of people...the study is about how these interactions in totality work together to make macroscopic behaviors.

[Seera.5916]

So you have access to the game's chat logs and can see whispers and guild chats or other chat systems which you may not be able to see?! You can't tell me exactly how many conversations are going on in a single map unless you're a moderator and you'd probably be bound by all kinds of contracts and NDA's to not reveal that information. Really drops your credibility down when you claim stuff like that, especially when you're getting on people for saying most or many. You can state we can't prove something and then use something you can't prove as evidence.

 

Your hypothesis is wrong. As I've seen more people say that without these conveniences in the game, they'd be less social than they are in game already. Meaning the conveniences increase their social interactions in game. I've yet to see a single person in this thread state that they would talk more if the conveniences are removed/reduced.

 

I know I'd be less likely to go help out someone who called out in map chat for help if it was going to take me more than a minute or two to get to them. I don't tend to play for extended periods of time anymore and I want to make progress towards my goals when I play. Without the closeness of waypoints, going to help someone might mean giving up on meaningful progress towards my goal. Which would reduce the chances of me going to help. The willingness of people to go help out would likely go down for similar reasons. That's not to say no one would go help, but maybe instead of 10 people, only 5 show up (numbers chosen at random for illustration purposes and not indicative of the reduction in willingness).

 

In a game with thousands of players, I'm sure there are hundreds who can go a few hours in game without socializing. 200 players out of 200,000 is 0.1%. 200 out of 2000 is 10%. Both 10% and 0.1% are relatively low percentages and therefore in the realm of possible. Accounting for non-public chats or conversations taking place outside of the game (discord, etc), I'd say it's fair to assume that there are likely hundreds of players appearing to be silent in game because we can't see/hear their conversations. Even in places such as Lion's Arch.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> >I've only seen actual proof that it would lessen the social experience if there were fewer waypoints and no mounts.

>

> And what proof would that be exactly?

>

> The way i "proved" (it's not actually proof btw, it's a hypothesis) that waypoints mounts, and other features take away social interaction is by explaining how taking away the time it takes from point A to point B eliminates interactions that could have occurred along the way. This is shown in a mockup network map that illustrates that behavior.

And we have already told you that your original example targetting waypoints as the primary problem _does not actuall match the state of the game as it was at any point in time_.

 

Hint: changes in waypoint distribution from core to HoT to PoF to Saga (with less and less waypoints per map for every iteration) had done absolutely _nothing_ about "density of interactions". If anything, that density is _lower_ now than it was originally. So, obviously, the factors you claim are not as important as you think, and you have overlooked something (or a lot of somethings) far more impactful.

 

> I backcheck these hypothesis with in game observations...from what i observe in most cases, is that interaction is incredibly low, where population densities are very high (like Lions Arch) which is not normal...it's not normal for hundreds of people to be standing completly silent and completly still for hours without saying anything to anyone.

Nothing to do with waypoints.

(and yes, it is completely normal, seeing as 90% of those players are likely afk at the moment)

 

> Edit: Also as a continuation of the above thought, is that there should be places that you would expect there to be a higher population density than what is actually present in the game. These are places like The Human Starter area for example, which, according to some statistics, is the most commonly picked race among new players. However, this location, although it does have slightly more people than other surrounding areas, is drastically lower than what one would expect it to be. You can actually compare this to other games where it actually matches with the expectation like WoW's Goldshire. The two places don't seem to be any different to each other in design, in fact both seem nearly exactly the same...with a tavern, a few houses, and an outdoor centralized square...except one of them is completely devoid of interaction and people, while the other is so crowded it's hard to understand why there is such a massive difference between these two, seemingly similar starter zones.

 

That's actually simple. There's _nothing_ there. Those taverns and plaza? They have no function at all. There _are_ people around, but not there - they are at the nearby "hearts" areas. Move just slighly away from that starting place, and you will see them.

By the way - ironically, that starting place has a waypoint, which means that, according to your own assumptions, that density should be higher. So, again, it seems there's some major flaw in the very basis of your reasoning.

 

Also, another simple reason - yes, humans are the race picked the most among new players, and generally the race played the most. Notice, though, how this game doesn't seem to have any significant influx of new players at all, so obviously player density in starting areas would not be high. It _was_ very high in the first years of the game, though, when we still had a lot of new players around.

 

> I just said that my Post is not "proof" it is a hypothesis.

Then your hypothesis is wrong (as any hypothesis that does not match reality). Try a new one.

[Zok.4956]

> @"ancientoak.4258" said:

> Now some practical info from someone who has been playing since 2012 (and gw 1 since 2006). People were much more talkative in the premount age, when waypoints where the only fast travel. So this theoretical study is debunked. People just dont talk as much in chat compared to the past. It has been a thing that i noticed especially since 2017 (when mounts were released).

 

People were also much more talkaktive in the pre-Megaserver age when there still were servers/worlds in the OpenWorld.

 

Before the Megaservers all OpenWorld-Maps belonged to a Server/World and all players on a map where on the same server/world. I do remember how strangers from the same server in the OpenWorld became friends over time. And I do remember players asking and recruting in map chat to help our server in WvW. This and several other things resulted in the forming of server-communities, server-identities and a lot of social interaction before the Megaservers.

 

This server-communities were mostly destroyed when the Megaservers were created in 2014 and the servers/worlds were removed from PvE. And together with the language barrier (non-english speaking players were thrown together with english-speaking) it lead to a big decrease in community/chat/social interactivity in OpenWorld maps.

 

With the Megaservers the only place were a server/world still existed was WvW.

 

And then this server-communities in WvW were further destroyed when Anet introduced the linking-system in WvW in 2016. Two or more WvW-servers/worlds were thrown together for 2 months under the name of the bigger server and then ripped apart and thrown together with other servers for the next 2 months. etc. etc. Over the time this destroyed most server-communities/identities a lot. The vanishing server-communities/identities were replaced more and more over the years by guild-communities/identities and this results now in the fact, that the transfer of one or two bigger WvW-guilds between servers can make or break a server and there is nothing the remaining free (not guild bound) players on that server can do anything about this guild-domination.

 

P.S. And, of course, a lot of WvW-players already left WvW (and GW2) and several WvW-communities faded, after Anet introduced the Desert Borderlands in WvW with HoT in 2015.

 

[Zok.4956]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > You haven't proved that the waypoints are the reason.

>

> I just said that my Post is not "proof" it is a hypothesis.

>

> >Yet others have come up with other reasons and given proof.

>

> And no, there has been no "proof" given. there have been others that disagree with the hypothesis, but an opinion or differing view on the subject is not "proof"

 

I get it, it seems you are in love with your theory and your statistical/mathematical/societal "toy" (and you want to find a use case for it, so you apply it to GW2).

 

Your theory/hypothesis is based on your research and knowledge of GW2. Several other have stated (and gave examples/arguments) that your research/knowledge of GW2 is wrong/incomplete and not sufficient enough to base a solid theory/hypothesis about GW2 on this research/knowledge.

 

And yet you did not really respond to this arguments and give any "proof" or "evidence" or "arguments", why you believe that your research/knowledge/view of GW2 is correct and that of others in this discussion is not correct.

 

>My post is about macroscopic societal behaviors. The entire society is not introvert like you...they aren't extroverts either. There are a plethora of different kinds of people...the study is about how these interactions in totality work together to make macroscopic behaviors.

 

And again you make biased assumptions (here: about the "society" in GW2) and you base your theory/arguments on this biased assumptions. How do you know how the ratio between introverted and extroverted players in this game is and that it doesn't matter for this topic? There are a lot of reasons why GW2 attracts some players more than other players (as does every other game) and why different games attract different players and player types.

 

Bias in research (and to make sure to avoid it) is an important issue because it can render any results/theories based on that research useless and false.

 

If you want your theory/hypothesis taken seriously, you should show some evidence/proof/signs that you are not biased too much and that you know what you talk about (which is: GW2).

 

[Zok.4956]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > As for the starter map population, unlike in many games, players are free to go to whatever starter map they want to. They aren't forced to stay in their starter area for several levels. With the only exception being literal new players who haven't unlocked Lion's Arch and would have to traverse more dangerous maps to get there (not that it's not possible to do so).

>

> This part of your post is confusing because the starter zones are designed no different than WoW. You really can't go much further than your starter zone if you are at a low level....so you are forced to stay in this starter zone until you level up enough to wear the gear and defeat the enemies that are higher levels than you.

 

I do not know (and I do not care about) the starter zones in WoW. In GW2 you can waypoint as a low level character to all starter areas.

 

And even without that you can go much further than the starter areas as a low level character. In the past, before I was 80 with my first character, I had a lot of fun exploring high-level maps as a low-level character trying not to get one-shotted from random mobs. GW2 differs to other games and gives players much more freedom in the game to do the things they have fun with, without a fixed, mandatory guide/path.

 

 

> In addition If what you said were actually true, than other starter areas would have a similarly large number of players...again this is not the case. The human starter area on average is the most populated starter area by a "significant margin", and the human starter area itself doesn't have much people to begin with.

>

>

> I can go in game right now and count how many people are in each starter area's town to give you a clue as to how low this density of people are

 

Your statement is just plain wrong. You can not count how many players are in each starter area's town because the maps are too big to check and to count every corner of the map at nearly the same time and there are also multiple instances of each map and you can not see how many map instances exist and how many players are in each instance. And it also happens that a map instance is actually "full" (you can not join a friend on that map instance) but it still seems empty.