End of Dragons might not be enough.

[Lily.1935]

This is something I and plenty of others have been thinking about for a long time and I'm not the first to write about it. Guild Wars 2 has a retention problem and the constantly shifting priorities and inconsistency of the developers leaves little confidence in the players here or new players coming in. Its upsetting as I, and those of us with the heaviest of criticisms for this game, actually do love this game and want to see it thrive. However with the Current Living world story capturing very little imagination from the players as the expansion announcement has just Blown anything it can offer out of the water, or at least it seems that way. The situation to me looks like End of Dragons is a desperate move by the developers to retain what they have of the community.

 

Don't mistake me. I'm excited for EoD as much as anyone else but I can't help but feel it just wont offer enough. Elite specializations and new Maps and story are one thing, but if that's all it would offer that could have been offered in a Living world pack(or saga), although with less fanfare. Arena net needs to do some major work for the players in all game modes and this is a monumental task I'm skeptical of arena net's ability to deliver on that. I feel as if the company of Arena net need to shift their philosophy of the game from their new toy in old toy forgotten and really go back and take a long hard look at the systems and modes of play they have now and really buckle down to refine those to a silver polish. Arena net has been so quick to abandon content and to not keep old content up to date that content like WvW and PvP become stale while PvE is fragmented into a thousand different directions across dozens of maps.

 

We have a fairly fragmented experience with guild wars right now and that's not the only issue. The game not only does a poor job of bringing new players in but the high level of convenience it drops into their lap outright distorts and breaks the experience of the new players. I have my own philosophies on what would make Guild Wars 2 a much better game, but all my ideas start with fixing the core game and the foundational game modes. Alliances, Guild vs Guild, revitalization of old PvP game modes that have been mostly abandoned, updating core maps to better compensate for the power creep of character, updating the dungeons to act as a teaching tool to aid players to getting used to end game content and offering something new for veteran players to return to them, weaving strikes into the leveling process where they would serve the players best, forcing the players to learn and engage with the world which would mean removing those parasitic items in the gemstore such as the level 80 booster, experience boosters and waypoint unlock which robe the player from experiencing the game. Those items could still exist but if they do they should be rewards to dedicated players.

 

The leveling process itself should be looked at as well. In my opinion the leveling process is worse and less meaningful than it was at and near the launch of the game. It wasn't perfect but it made you try things out. Noting other aspects of the leveling process I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80. I'd suggest a leveling mount that was, say 50% faster than player speed, maybe less that had no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players so they could get that mount fix new players crave. Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign.

 

Advertising is another major weakness of the game. Word of mouth isn't good enough. Arena net needs to show what the potential players are missing.

 

I could go on for days about this topic. I want EoD to succeed. I do, and I think it'll be well received among the fans. And I know Anet has stated that it wont be the last expansion to come, however I just can't trust that. Arena net has broken promises before, some minor others major and we can't just trust them at their word. New features I do believe are needed, such as a new race, but that doesn't address many of the core issues. There are problems in all game modes across all content in those game modes. Glaring problems. And like it or not those problems are going to be some of the earliest things new players are going to face. They're unlikely to ever get to the new shiny thing you want to show them so the first impression needs to be treated with just as much importance as the shiny new thing.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

 

> The leveling process itself should be looked at as well. In my opinion the leveling process is worse and less meaningful than it was at and near the launch of the game. It wasn't perfect but it made you try things out. Noting other aspects of the leveling process I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80. I'd suggest a leveling mount that was, say 50% faster than player speed, maybe less that had no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players so they could get that mount fix new players crave. Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign.

>

I cannot disagree more. GW2 is so very alt-friendly, that locking out mounts that are currently account-wide would (IMO) detract from one of the more significant attractions to the game. What is the actual purpose that you are trying to serve with this suggestion? It almost seems as if it is another veiled whine about mounts in core zones.

 

[yoni.7015]

For me, End of Dragons would be enough. I don’t need them to change core maps or dungeons. I enjoy them just fine how they are. And there is absolutely no need for a leveling mount.

[Randulf.7614]

They didn't say it wasn't the last expansion, they said it wasn't the end of the story. If no more expansions came, there'd be no broken promises, no going back off their word.

 

As for EoD, I'll approach it with medium to low expectations. They're usually pretty good with expansions, but their run on Living Story means I'd be unsurprised if it didn't live up to much. I think EoD biggest issue is that in going to Cantha, people will have preconceptions. Those should really be left at the door. Factions was a divisive campaign at its time (when I joined the franchise just after it released, all people were doing was moaning about it), yet with sections that are still fondly remembered. This is almost certainly going to emulate almost nothing from any good memories players have of it, in the same way PoF shared very little with Nightfall and a corner of Prophecies beyond a couple of monuments. I'll be happy with a good, meaty, quality expansion that takes the best of both HoT and PoF.

 

There's merit in some retro polish of older content certainly, but Anet does not look back. It prefers to look forward to the next step. It wont break the game not to do so, but it would be welcomed by many if they did

 

As for how it brings new players in, it is no worse than other MMO. If anything it is more accessible beyond the point of it's poor communication of how much content players need to buy for the full experience. That's something it needs to do better with. Adevrtising an 8 year old, non AAA game seems unlikely though beyond putting it on Steam to do its thing there

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

It is an opportunity to role out more stuff for all the game modes. Living Story is pretty just PvE plus extra reward tracks.

 

I hope to see a new BL for WvW and another map like EBG in addition to it.

 

New siege would be awesome. Meaningful events to help take objectives would be welcome too so long as they are done right.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

>

> > The leveling process itself should be looked at as well. In my opinion the leveling process is worse and less meaningful than it was at and near the launch of the game. It wasn't perfect but it made you try things out. Noting other aspects of the leveling process I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80. I'd suggest a leveling mount that was, say 50% faster than player speed, maybe less that had no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players so they could get that mount fix new players crave. Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign.

> >

> I cannot disagree more. GW2 is so very alt-friendly, that locking out mounts that are currently account-wide would (IMO) detract from one of the more significant attractions to the game. What is the actual purpose that you are trying to serve with this suggestion? It almost seems as if it is another veiled whine about mounts in core zones.

>

 

Its a difference in interest. GW2 at the beginning was less structured and each character had its own story and relevance. After they redesigned the leveling experience (in like idk 2015?) this has felt less relevant and was more structured, so that right now you blitz past. For some thats actually a plus for other it ruined that original longer starting experience. Mounts make this even more obvious, and accountbound "character" achievements make each new character way more accessible but each character also has less of a personal story.

 

For some that personal story part of each character is more important than the accessibility. Forothers its the other way around.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> >

> > > The leveling process itself should be looked at as well. In my opinion the leveling process is worse and less meaningful than it was at and near the launch of the game. It wasn't perfect but it made you try things out. Noting other aspects of the leveling process I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80. I'd suggest a leveling mount that was, say 50% faster than player speed, maybe less that had no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players so they could get that mount fix new players crave. Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign.

> > >

> > I cannot disagree more. GW2 is so very alt-friendly, that locking out mounts that are currently account-wide would (IMO) detract from one of the more significant attractions to the game. What is the actual purpose that you are trying to serve with this suggestion? It almost seems as if it is another veiled whine about mounts in core zones.

> >

>

> Its a difference in interest. GW2 at the beginning was less structured and each character had its own story and relevance. After they redesigned the leveling experience (in like idk 2015?) this has felt less relevant and was more structured, so that right now you blitz past. For some thats actually a plus for other it ruined that original longer starting experience. Mounts make this even more obvious, and accountbound "character" achievements make each new character way more accessible but each character also has less of a personal story.

>

> For some that personal story part of each character is more important than the accessibility. Forothers its the other way around.

 

If players don't want to speed through progression, they have that option. No one is forcing players to use mounts to level. To me, it seemed the proposal was to prevent any character from using mounts until they reach max level. If I have 20 characters, I may not want to level them all to 80. Why should I be prevented from using the account-wide mounts on those characters?

 

Again, to me this point seems like someone is vexed about players having access to mounts and wants to have Anet clamp down on them for whatever reason. To me, if a player chooses to use or not use mounts to level their characters that has no significant impact on other players' ability to play how they want and level characters however they want to level them.

[Veprovina.4876]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > >

> > > > The leveling process itself should be looked at as well. In my opinion the leveling process is worse and less meaningful than it was at and near the launch of the game. It wasn't perfect but it made you try things out. Noting other aspects of the leveling process I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80. I'd suggest a leveling mount that was, say 50% faster than player speed, maybe less that had no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players so they could get that mount fix new players crave. Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign.

> > > >

> > > I cannot disagree more. GW2 is so very alt-friendly, that locking out mounts that are currently account-wide would (IMO) detract from one of the more significant attractions to the game. What is the actual purpose that you are trying to serve with this suggestion? It almost seems as if it is another veiled whine about mounts in core zones.

> > >

> >

> > Its a difference in interest. GW2 at the beginning was less structured and each character had its own story and relevance. After they redesigned the leveling experience (in like idk 2015?) this has felt less relevant and was more structured, so that right now you blitz past. For some thats actually a plus for other it ruined that original longer starting experience. Mounts make this even more obvious, and accountbound "character" achievements make each new character way more accessible but each character also has less of a personal story.

> >

> > For some that personal story part of each character is more important than the accessibility. Forothers its the other way around.

>

> If players don't want to speed through progression, they have that option. No one is forcing players to use mounts to level. To me, it seemed the proposal was to prevent any character from using mounts until they reach max level. If I have 20 characters, I may not want to level them all to 80. Why should I be prevented from using the account-wide mounts on those characters?

>

> Again, to me this point seems like someone is vexed about players having access to mounts and wants to have Anet clamp down on them for whatever reason. To me, if a player chooses to use or not use mounts to level their characters that has no significant impact on other players' ability to play how they want and level characters however they want to level them.

 

I agree with you there.

 

I mean, how hard is it really to *not* use mounts when you're leveling if your goal is to experience the slow relaxed leveling process right? Just stroll around Tyria, it's still beautiful as ever, take in the scenery and play. If someone can't bring themselfves to not press that X every 2 seconds, then they're not interested in slow leveling anyway in which case, just use mounts to level your alts. No reason to lock them behind lvl 80 because someone can't bring themselves not to use them.

 

On the flip side and how "mounts ruin other players experience"? They don't. I'm playing with a friend, story with a new character. He has a new account, i have mounts. Not once was our fun ruined by someone jumping around on a raptor or flying on a skyscale. And i've never actually heard someone in game complain that their fun is ruined or that they can't level because someone else has mounts. It's useless to impose some arbitrary restrictions to mounts when someone already unlocked them.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

>Guild Wars 2 has a retention problem and the constantly shifting priorities and inconsistency of the developers leaves little confidence in the players here or new players coming in.

 

I doubt most of the new players coming in know much -if anything- about developers' "*constantly shifting priorities and incosistency*", so I'm not sure that's a huge problem here. Considering I even understood correctly what you mean by that.

 

>Its upsetting as I, and those of us with the heaviest of criticisms for this game, actually do love this game and want to see it thrive. However with the Current Living world story capturing very little imagination from the players as the expansion announcement has just Blown anything it can offer out of the water, or at least it seems that way. The situation to me looks like End of Dragons is a desperate move by the developers to retain what they have of the community.

 

I mean... as much as the current episode with drms is hugely underwhelming/boring/uneventful for me, I don't think EoD is some "desperate move", it's just... an expansion. And its role as well as the reasoning behind releasing it is probably the same as any other expansion. I see it less of a "desperate move" and more of a "it's still worth making an expansion/content for this game/playerbase".

 

> Don't mistake me. I'm excited for EoD as much as anyone else but I can't help but feel it just wont offer enough.

 

We literally *won't know until we know* (which will be near/after the release). I don't see the purpose of doomsaying like this when we barely have any knowledge what it will contain.

 

>Elite specializations and new Maps and story are one thing, but if that's all it would offer that could have been offered in a Living world pack(or saga), although with less fanfare. Arena net needs to do some major work for the players in all game modes and this is a monumental task I'm skeptical of arena net's ability to deliver on that. I feel as if the company of Arena net need to shift their philosophy of the game from their new toy in old toy forgotten and really go back and take a long hard look at the systems and modes of play they have now and really buckle down to refine those to a silver polish. Arena net has been so quick to abandon content and to not keep old content up to date that content like WvW and PvP become stale while PvE is fragmented into a thousand different directions across dozens of maps.

 

More content will pretty much always result in *fragmenting population*. If people want to have options, then that seems to be inevitable.

 

>The game not only does a poor job of bringing new players in but the high level of convenience it drops into their lap outright distorts and breaks the experience of the new players. I have my own philosophies on what would make Guild Wars 2 a much better game, but all my ideas start with fixing the core game and the foundational game modes. Alliances, Guild vs Guild, revitalization of old PvP game modes that have been mostly abandoned, updating core maps to better compensate for the power creep of character, updating the dungeons to act as a teaching tool to aid players to getting used to end game content and offering something new for veteran players to return to them, weaving strikes into the leveling process where they would serve the players best, forcing the players to learn and engage with the world which would mean removing those parasitic items in the gemstore such as the level 80 booster, experience boosters and waypoint unlock which robe the player from experiencing the game.

 

I disagree, never bought any of those "high level of convenience parasitic items" and I'm playing perfectly fine, same as I was playing perfectly fine when I was starting. Typically making it slightly easier to catch up as the game progresses further from the starting zones isn't anything out of ordinary. Not to mention that someone can literally play one character and then dump the tomes into alts, which renders lvl80 boosters pretty much useless. If a new player wants to skip the introductory content by boosting the character to 80, it's their choice -and from what I've seen, in a lot of cases they go back to creating another character to level up in a more traditional way because 0->80 jump just gives them too many new things to learn/worry about. Waypoint unlock... I see that as something completely redundant, but might just be me.

 

>Those items could still exist but if they do they should be rewards to dedicated players.

 

The thing is that most "dedicated players" won't even need those items at that point. So... nah.

 

> The leveling process itself should be looked at as well. In my opinion the leveling process is worse and less meaningful than it was at and near the launch of the game. It wasn't perfect but it made you try things out.

 

Pretty sure it "made you try things out" as much as it does now. *The leveling process* is an introduction to the game and it's most basic mechanics, I'm not sure what else people would expect from it.

 

>Noting other aspects of the leveling process I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80. I'd suggest a leveling mount that was, say 50% faster than player speed, maybe less that had no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players so they could get that mount fix new players crave. Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign.

 

I don't see the point in that. New players don't have them unlocked right away anyways. Old players mostly aren't interested in jogging around on foot after playing with all of those mechanics unlocked. And if they are... That's an option for them, literally just don't use the mount if you wan't to fell like you don't have them. Suddenly locking players out of account-wide unlocks is just weird and pointless.

 

The "mount part of advertising campaign"(?) is: play the game and unlock the mount on a higher level!

You don't need some 50% newb-mount for that.

 

> Advertising is another major weakness of the game. Word of mouth isn't good enough. Arena net needs to show what the potential players are missing.

 

Yes. But my guess is that the budget does what budgets do. They'll probably advertise more nearing the release of the EoD, but -again- no way to know until we see it.

 

>And I know Anet has stated that it wont be the last expansion to come

 

Pretty sure that's not what they said. They said it's not the end of the story, which doesn't directly point at another expansion. It can be another season of LW or any similar content to that, which would expand the game, push the lore/story forward, but not in the form of an expansion.

[Obtena.7952]

I have to admit, I couldn't get through the whole OP ... but I can say that anything Anet would do that would restrict players abilities to play the content they have in the new expansion would severely diminish faith that Anet can deliver meaningful, new content. That includes access to mounts. In otherwords ... if Anet needs to take something away just to give it back as 'content' ... there is a BIG problem.

 

Sure, there are lots of problems with GW2 for numerous reasons ... but if anyone thinks those problems can and should be solved with expansions ... you don't really understand what people who play this game DESPITE those problems are wanting from the game to begin with. People need to stop setting themselves up to be disappointed all the time ... because it means you will ALWAYS be disappointed.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> I have to admit, I couldn't get through the whole OP ... but I can say that anything Anet would do that would restrict players abilities to play the content they have in the new expansion would severely diminish faith that Anet can deliver meaningful, new content. That includes access to mounts. In otherwords ... if Anet needs to take something away just to give it back as 'content' ... there is a BIG problem.

>

> Sure, there are lots of problems with GW2 for numerous reasons ... but if anyone thinks those problems can and should be solved with expansions ... you don't really understand what people who play this game DESPITE those problems are wanting from the game to begin with. People need to stop setting themselves up to be disappointed all the time ... because it means you will ALWAYS be disappointed.

 

I never mentioned restricting players from playing the new content in the expansion. I even mentioned a new race which would bring new players and old players into starting zones.

[Lily.1935]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

>

> > The leveling process itself should be looked at as well. In my opinion the leveling process is worse and less meaningful than it was at and near the launch of the game. It wasn't perfect but it made you try things out. Noting other aspects of the leveling process I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80. I'd suggest a leveling mount that was, say 50% faster than player speed, maybe less that had no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players so they could get that mount fix new players crave. Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign.

> >

> I cannot disagree more. GW2 is so very alt-friendly, that locking out mounts that are currently account-wide would (IMO) detract from one of the more significant attractions to the game. What is the actual purpose that you are trying to serve with this suggestion? It almost seems as if it is another veiled whine about mounts in core zones.

>

 

Player engagement and retention. First impressions are everything and GW2 has a difficult time keeping players in the game. Many MMO channels will recommend GW2 as a game with a caveat, that Guild Wars 2 is a good side MMO, that it isn't as solid of a main MMO. Yes "Oh you can pick it up later and not be obsolete even years later." But that's a double edged sword.

 

I also don't have a problem with mounts as a concept. I think they're fun and I even don't have a problem with them in low level zones. The issues I see with mounts is that it tunnel visions players to skip the leveling process, skip one of the expansions and go straight to path of fire. You might not see this as an issue but that is months of content largely ignored.

 

We on the forums are ultra fans. We are super invested into the game. So in order to see these issues we need to get out of our own headspace and look at how the experience translates for a new player. What systems which sound great might actually be hurting the game? I know for a fact as well that new players will sabotage their own enjoyment for convenience without even realizing it. This isn't a condemnation of them or us at all so don't misread that. It is something arena net should take note of as unpopular as my perspective on these issues might be.

[Lily.1935]

> @"yoni.7015" said:

> For me, End of Dragons would be enough. I don’t need them to change core maps or dungeons. I enjoy them just fine how they are. And there is absolutely no need for a leveling mount.

 

We are all established players here. End of Dragons will satisfy us for a while, including myself. However just having a solid expansion isn't enough when the core systems do not translate well for new player experiences or bridge the ever widening gap between us and the novices. I've played with a dozen or so new players and played with them while leveling and boosting. They always want to boost to get the mount and their enjoyment of the game dies in a few weeks to a month, always. This seems to be true for even players who say they "Really enjoy Guild Wars 2". This is anecdotal evidence of course, so take my experience with a grain of salt if you must. But I'd ask you to at least considered this experience.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I find it unlikely new players use the offered L80 Boost, jump to Path of Fire, unlock the Raptor (much less all other Mounts), and _stay_ in Path of Fire, or any post Core content.

It's not easy to tackle L80 content right off the bat.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > I have to admit, I couldn't get through the whole OP ... but I can say that anything Anet would do that would restrict players abilities to play the content they have in the new expansion would severely diminish faith that Anet can deliver meaningful, new content. That includes access to mounts. In otherwords ... if Anet needs to take something away just to give it back as 'content' ... there is a BIG problem.

> >

> > Sure, there are lots of problems with GW2 for numerous reasons ... but if anyone thinks those problems can and should be solved with expansions ... you don't really understand what people who play this game DESPITE those problems are wanting from the game to begin with. People need to stop setting themselves up to be disappointed all the time ... because it means you will ALWAYS be disappointed.

>

> I never mentioned restricting players from playing the new content in the expansion. I even mentioned a new race which would bring new players and old players into starting zones.

 

No, but you DID mention about locking people out from mounts until they reach level 80 ... which is the restriction of player abilities I'm talking about.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > I have to admit, I couldn't get through the whole OP ... but I can say that anything Anet would do that would restrict players abilities to play the content they have in the new expansion would severely diminish faith that Anet can deliver meaningful, new content. That includes access to mounts. In otherwords ... if Anet needs to take something away just to give it back as 'content' ... there is a BIG problem.

> > >

> > > Sure, there are lots of problems with GW2 for numerous reasons ... but if anyone thinks those problems can and should be solved with expansions ... you don't really understand what people who play this game DESPITE those problems are wanting from the game to begin with. People need to stop setting themselves up to be disappointed all the time ... because it means you will ALWAYS be disappointed.

> >

> > I never mentioned restricting players from playing the new content in the expansion. I even mentioned a new race which would bring new players and old players into starting zones.

>

> No, but you DID mention about locking people out from mounts until they reach level 80 ... which is the restriction of player abilities I'm talking about.

 

They're already locked out of mounts until 80.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> I find it unlikely new players use the offered L80 Boost, jump to Path of Fire, unlock the Raptor (much less all other Mounts), and _stay_ in Path of Fire, or any post Core content.

> It's not easy to tackle L80 content right off the bat.

 

They do. That's been my experience. More so they unlock Raptor, springer, skimmer and maybe jackal if they decide to complete PoF. If they play longer than a month they might go back to HoT but this hasn't been my experience.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > I have to admit, I couldn't get through the whole OP ... but I can say that anything Anet would do that would restrict players abilities to play the content they have in the new expansion would severely diminish faith that Anet can deliver meaningful, new content. That includes access to mounts. In otherwords ... if Anet needs to take something away just to give it back as 'content' ... there is a BIG problem.

> > > >

> > > > Sure, there are lots of problems with GW2 for numerous reasons ... but if anyone thinks those problems can and should be solved with expansions ... you don't really understand what people who play this game DESPITE those problems are wanting from the game to begin with. People need to stop setting themselves up to be disappointed all the time ... because it means you will ALWAYS be disappointed.

> > >

> > > I never mentioned restricting players from playing the new content in the expansion. I even mentioned a new race which would bring new players and old players into starting zones.

> >

> > No, but you DID mention about locking people out from mounts until they reach level 80 ... which is the restriction of player abilities I'm talking about.

>

> They're already locked out of mounts until 80.

 

No, they're not. Making an alt doesn't lock you out of using the mounts.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"yoni.7015" said:

> > For me, End of Dragons would be enough. I don’t need them to change core maps or dungeons. I enjoy them just fine how they are. And there is absolutely no need for a leveling mount.

>

>They always want to boost to get the mount and their enjoyment of the game dies in a few weeks to a month, always.

 

...also your theory about a hypothetical *player enjoyment dying out after a month* being connected to the mount unlock (or lack of some kind of low level mount) seems pretty random to me. I'm not sure how you went from *point a* to *point b*.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > I find it unlikely new players use the offered L80 Boost, jump to Path of Fire, unlock the Raptor (much less all other Mounts), and _stay_ in Path of Fire, or any post Core content.

> > It's not easy to tackle L80 content right off the bat.

>

> They do. That's been my experience. More so they unlock Raptor, springer, skimmer and maybe jackal if they decide to complete PoF. If they play longer than a month they might go back to HoT but this hasn't been my experience.

 

Meanwhile my experience consists of players holding off from using their lvl80 boosts if only for the reason of having no idea which class they'll enjoy and want to play. I've seen situations in which they:

a) ask before boosting and pretty much everyone tells them to level up their first character "normally"

b) boost, get overwhelmed and create another character to level up "manually"

c) if informed and willing to do it, they boost to get the mount and then go back to playing regularly with raptor for added mobility. Which... I don't really have a problem with and not sure why anyone else would.

[yoni.7015]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"yoni.7015" said:

> > For me, End of Dragons would be enough. I don’t need them to change core maps or dungeons. I enjoy them just fine how they are. And there is absolutely no need for a leveling mount.

>

> We are all established players here. End of Dragons will satisfy us for a while, including myself. However just having a solid expansion isn't enough when the core systems do not translate well for new player experiences or bridge the ever widening gap between us and the novices. I've played with a dozen or so new players and played with them while leveling and boosting. They always want to boost to get the mount and their enjoyment of the game dies in a few weeks to a month, always. This seems to be true for even players who say they "Really enjoy Guild Wars 2". This is anecdotal evidence of course, so take my experience with a grain of salt if you must. But I'd ask you to at least considered this experience.

 

I have different experiences with new players.

 

[Lily.1935]

> @"yoni.7015" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > @"yoni.7015" said:

> > > For me, End of Dragons would be enough. I don’t need them to change core maps or dungeons. I enjoy them just fine how they are. And there is absolutely no need for a leveling mount.

> >

> > We are all established players here. End of Dragons will satisfy us for a while, including myself. However just having a solid expansion isn't enough when the core systems do not translate well for new player experiences or bridge the ever widening gap between us and the novices. I've played with a dozen or so new players and played with them while leveling and boosting. They always want to boost to get the mount and their enjoyment of the game dies in a few weeks to a month, always. This seems to be true for even players who say they "Really enjoy Guild Wars 2". This is anecdotal evidence of course, so take my experience with a grain of salt if you must. But I'd ask you to at least considered this experience.

>

> I have different experiences with new players.

>

 

Oh I'm sure, my experience isn't universal. However, I'd still ask to consider it.

[Shadowmoon.7986]

I feel like it wont be enough because there is no xpac selling feature. Gliding, especs and challenging group content were the selling points of hot. Pof was mounts. I have a scary feeling DRM were going to be the feature, replayable story missions. Ls2 had progressively more difficult encounters both in the solo story instances, but also in map wide DT and SW. Ls3 ditched mapwide metas for more explorable maps, similar to PoF.

[Randulf.7614]

> @"Shadowmoon.7986" said:

> I feel like it wont be enough because there is no xpac selling feature. Gliding, especs and challenging group content were the selling points of hot. Pof was mounts. I have a scary feeling DRM were going to be the feature, replayable story missions. Ls2 had progressively more difficult encounters both in the solo story instances, but also in map wide DT and SW. Ls3 ditched mapwide metas for more explorable maps, similar to PoF.

 

That will be something to concern ourselves with or discuss when they start announcing features for it. Right now, we don't know that there isn't an expac selling feature, because nothing except Cantha has been announced and they said they aren't sharing any more info just yet

[Hypnowulf.7403]

Let's look at a few key points, here.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...] Guild Wars 2 has a retention problem [...]

 

What a point to open on. It invites two very important questions.

 

_Does Guild Wars 2 have a retention problem?_ That'd be the first one. The thing is though is that the answer to that mightn't really matter. So a better question to ask then is: _If Guild Wars 2 has a retention problem, does that matter?_

 

This isn't a subscription MMO. The number of overall players doesn't really matter so long as those players are profitable, I think that ArenaNet shot themself in the foot by being too bizzarely kind with allowing one to convert coins to gems. That was a silly move from an economic standpoint. I appreciate it for its kindness because empathy is awesome, it's just that in a world like this where so many people are self-interested, you'll find that far too many won't spend money if they can grind and get the same result, or better.

 

So this leads us to the only question that truly matters here: _Does Guild Wars 2 have a profitability problem?_

 

Yes. Yes it does. This is something they're trying to figure out as an ongoing process. I wonder if it would help them by removing the ability to convert gold to gems, I think that it might. Either that or perhaps have some kind of fee involved. I appreciate the generosity but they're just too small for that kind of generosity. It means that not enough people will spend money. I've sometimes spent beyond my means as I know that NCSoft is eyeing ArenaNet due to this, they've done managerial reshuffles in order to try to make Guild Wars 2 profitable.

 

So what else can be done to make Guild Wars 2 profitable?

 

You could appeal to another audience. There's one country out there with a very large audience for online gaming that's quite economically stable: China. Isn't it interesting that the next expansion is going to Cantha? That's a very intelligent choice. I applaud it. It's not a setting I'm personally interested in as I'm more drawn to characters of the non-human persuasion, but I understand that they need money to stay afloat and NCSoft can be a greedy, bloated thing of a thing.

 

So long as I'm able to interact with dragons, I'll be happy at the end of the day. I'm easy to please in that regard, I suppose, but then how many games have we had of late where we've been able to interact with intelligent dragons? I mean, you could count Skyrim from 2011, but there were all of one in that that you could hold a very short conversation with and that dragon was Paarthurnax.

 

Plus, I prefer six-limbed dragons. I know there's a shortage of those in Cantha but I'll make do. So long as I can have Jorms and Aurene about, I'm happy. Aurene at a push, I suppose... We'd have to see, as I am very fond of Jormag. As I said, I'm easy to please and I've spent a lot of money on this game. I know though that what I offer is a drop in the ocean compared to what would appease NCSoft so... Cantha for China!

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...] the constantly shifting priorities and inconsistency of the developers [...]

 

This is, again, to do with the attempt to make ArenaNet profitable before NCSoft gives them the boot. I think they're on a good path right now, though. I certainly haven't lost any confidence in them. Like I said, I think that Cantha to draw in a Chinese audience is very much a clever choice. It could be the shot in the arm that Guild Wars 2 needs.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...] or new players coming in.

 

I'm not convinced of that, really. I've never seen a game where new players coming in have any sense of the economics or internal politics of the game itself, nor will they until they become a part of the old-guard. It's only really a certain facet of the old-guard that gets embroiled with this.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...] capturing very little imagination [...]

 

Speak for yourself.

 

The current storyline, from LWS4 onward, is the most interested I've been in Guild Wars 2 for quite, quite some time. The intrigue, mystery, and shenanigans surrounding the Elder Dragons and the torment is quite compelling for me.

 

I know this is divisive—but that's what it is, divisive. There are those who loathe the current storyline, and those who see it as the best ArenaNet has ever written. Again, the former tends to be of a certain facet of the old-guard that doesn't want anything to ever evolve or change. Everything must remain in absolute stasis. It's a bizarre behavioural quirk I've seen in many a certain kind of MMO player.

 

It's a strange desire, I think, to want to be frozen in time and yet to also want more content. What is this content to look like if it doesn't evolve and change? Times change, and both ArenaNet and Guild Wars 2 changes with them.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> The situation to me looks like End of Dragons is a desperate move by the developers to retain what they have of the community.

 

Strong disagree. It looks like an attempt to expand the Guild Wars 2 audience by attracting Chinese players. It's a smart move. It also doesn't do anything to alienate most existing players, either. So that it can work to appease most of the existing community whilst expanding into a new audience? I'd say that's a good move.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> Don't mistake me. I'm excited for EoD as much as anyone else but I can't help but feel it just wont offer enough.

 

What are you looking for? I mean, what are you actually looking for? What desire or need have you, so strong, that must be sated? What is it you really seek? I worry this is going to come down to raids or PvP, which have historically proven to be unprofitable, toxic, and even unhealthy in the case of raid addictions.

 

Of course, I might be barking up the wrong tree. So let's read on...

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [New content is] one thing [...]

 

I'm confused by what you're saying here. The edit is mine to illustrate this point. New content is new content, a lot of players are going to have fun running a number of their characters through this content as it's going to be, well, new content. When you buy a new video game, that's new content. It's going to be about PvP or raids again, isn't it?

 

I have this sinking feeling...

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> 2Arena net needs to do some major work for the players in all game modes and this is a monumental task I'm skeptical of arena net's ability to deliver on that.

 

What does this actually mean? What is it you want? You aren't actually saying anything. I mean, you've said a lot but I can't ascertain what it is you actually seek. I mean, yes, you've made it clear a number of times now that you fear ArenaNet's ability to deliver "it," but it's like you're almost afraid to tell us what "it" is.

 

Which game modes? In what way? How would they achieve this? Details are very important.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> I feel as if the company of Arena net need to shift their philosophy of the game from their new toy in old toy forgotten and really go back and take a long hard look at the systems and modes of play they have now and really buckle down to refine those to a silver polish.

 

What does _that_ actually mean? This is very political. I mean, it's words! It's a lot of words! What does it mean? You aren't really asking questions or posing solutions. It's just a lot of oration with no real goal.

 

Why is it a toy now? Why was it not a toy before? Which systems? Which modes of play?

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> Arena net has been so quick to abandon content [...]

 

_What content?_

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> We have a fairly fragmented experience with guild wars right now [...]

 

Do we? How so? Can you explain that? How is it "fragmented?" How could it not be so? I don't see it as fragmented. It might not be what you want, but that doesn't mean it's fragmented. This is really just a lot of words.

 

If you're upset that people don't play the unpopular forms of content, you would be better served by just saying that and exploring why those forms of content are unpopular in the first place. If the content you want to have more players in it doesn't, that means that it has no audience and it isn't profitable for ArenaNet to develop.

 

I'm just taking shots in the dark here though as this is all very vague.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> The game not only does a poor job of bringing new players in but the high level of convenience it drops into their lap outright distorts and breaks the experience of the new players.

 

What does _that_ mean? You say these things but you don't extrapolate upon them. I mean, for the first part, we have to examine whether the game does do a poor job at introducing itself to new players. I wouldn't say it does in my opinion. I was actually surprised upon returning to the game to find out that the beginning is a much more structured, guided experience. They don't overload you by letting you into the city immediately, and they even teach players how to dodge-roll now.

 

What's actually so bad about it? You'll need to cover your thoughts and positions as to where the introduction is lacking in any given way.

 

The only barrier to entry that I can think of right now is that engineer is a bit complex if a player chooses that as their first class. I'd give you that, but beyond that I'm really at a loss as to what there could be that negatively impacts new players.

 

The next statmenet is a truly bizarre one to me. A high level of convenience is bad? It pains me a little as it sounds almost like saying that accessibility is bad—accessibility is never bad. It's almost like you're saying that you feel that those coming into the game have too much, that they're allowed to do whatever they like to enjoy themselves... and that this is somehow bad? Why is being able to play a game your way bad?

 

I'm sorry if you feel misconstrued here but I'm trying to understand. The vagueness really doesn't help you.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> I have my own philosophies on what would make Guild Wars 2 a much better game, but all my ideas start with fixing the core game and the foundational game modes.

 

Okay: _What are your philosophies?_

 

It'd be nice if you could tell us how to fix the things that are wrong with Guild Wars 2.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [i want PvP]

 

That's basically all the next section says. I'm sorry, it isn't a popular mode. It isn't a profitable one. They tried. It failed. It was a failed effort. It's entitled to expect them to devote resources and manpower to something that only a tiny minority of those who're playing the game actually engage in. What have you for recompense? What amount can you offer commensurate to what they would have to do to meet your desires? Are you willing to fund this new PvP revitalisation out of pocket?

 

All of this just to get to where I had a strong suspicion it was going to—I knew it was going to be about PvP or raids, and the entitlement that some players feel toward that which just doesn't bring in any money. I'm sorry, but ArenaNet is a business. I know it sucks. I'm socialist, so I get it. I know capitalism sucks. So we're faced with the very inevitable and unavoidable truth that they have to do what's profitable.

 

If they don't, NCSoft—their owner—will eat them alive.

 

Do you want a repeat of City of Heroes?

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [i want harder content]

 

I discussed this in another thread. This can't happen. Operant conditioning chambers—also known as Skinner boxes—never work out. It's because this addiction is a drug, and like with any drug you're always going to need a bigger hit. Today it's harder content, but what does that mean? It means bigger numbers. You want the enemies to have those, which in turn means that to get your dopamine buzz you'll want bigger numbers to reward you for your efforts.

 

What happens then is that the game becomes too easy for you. Why do you think that they haven't added new armour tiers? It's because they seem to understand this, they have that awareness. Whenever an MMO does this, it gets to the point where they're unable to increase the difficulty or the rewards enough to sate the addicted. This makes their addicted players angry, so they end up stuck between putting ever-increasing resources into this problem or appealing to new customer demographics.

 

The more you get the game that you want, the less that new players can play it because it becomes inaccessible. This is why your prior statement was confusing, you talk as though you want it to be inaccessible. I think you'll find that most don't want that, that's why it isn't profitable. I'm sorry that it isn't, but it isn't.

 

They can't fix the "power creep," because no hardcore group out there wants just harder content. If they did? They could fix it themself! It's easy! Use weaker armour, use very odd builds which are unlikely to succeed. It isn't difficulty you seek, it's difficulty that implies better rewards. This becomes a cycle of difficulty and reward that's unsustainable. Every MMO developer has had to come to this conclusion.

 

ArenaNet has chosen to break this cycle. Heh. Sorry. It's true, though.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [i want the game to coach players into joining our operant conditioning chamber]

 

That's never going to happen for the reasons I just went over. I can see your angle now so at this point I'm just spelling it out. It was a lot of noise and empty words to get to this point, but this is your angle. You want your dopamine hit, via PvP or raids, via haves and have-nots. It's not popular! It's not profitable! You have to accept this.

 

ArenaNet isn't coaching new players to get addicted to operant conditioning systems because it just isn't profitable. World of Warcraft was the flash in a pan magic that worked all but once, and only because people believed it had to be that way.

 

Now we all know better. The MMOs that have survived are those which are very friendly to both solo/small group and casual play.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...] weaving strikes into the leveling process where they would serve the players best,

 

Except strikes aren't popular. The only ones that get played regularly are the easiest ones that can be soloed. It was the last gasp from the voices in ArenaNet who're ardent raid fans. Yes, ArenaNet has raid fans amongst its number but the undeniable truth is is that this content is not popular. Hard strikes aren't played. Try to find a strike group for any strike that can't be soloed!

 

This has _nothing_ to do with players needing to be coached and _everything_ to do with how it just isn't popular. The majority don't like it. As I've said and I'll say again: The only MMOs that have survived are those that have become friendly to solo/small group play and casuals. You don't have to like it, you're not obliged to give ArenaNet your patronage, but you're also not entitled to be entitled. You're not profitable.

 

If you were profitable, the game would be all about strikes and raids. The evidence can be found easily, here. Like I said, there are people like you within ArenaNet fighting for this, but it's not profitable, and they're having to face that too. Raids and strikes would sink ArenaNet. We'd all just go elsewhere if that was the only option and the game would lose 99 per cent of its audience overnight.

 

Please let me stress one more time that this isn't hyperbole or exaggeration: If these could be successful, they would've been successful. If they could be profitable, they would've already been profitable. They're not.

 

The harder strikes will be retooled to be soloable soon too, and they'll be quietly dropped as a failed experiment.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...] forcing the players [...]

 

_Noap._ Stop right there. You aren't entitled to demand that other players be forced to do what you like. Yes, that's how MMOs used to work, but to say this until I'm blue in the face—_that isn't profitable_. If it were, there'd be loads of operant conditioning chamber MMOs still alive, still addicting you, still trying to give you your dopamine hit.

 

It's not ethical or empathetic to try to get others hooked on your addiction either, by the way. "Force the players" is the number one way any game will fail. I was confused ealrier about why you'd demand that people not be able to play as they want to, and here we are. Addiction. It's always addiction. It's unhealthy, you know? And it's unfair to expect others to join you in that addiction. It's wrong. I'm very passionate about this.

 

I'm passionate about this because in chasing this magical unicorn, World of Warcraft resulted in suicides, loss of life, and even mothers letting their children starve. This is what an addiction does. An operant conditioning chamber is no different than any horrible drug. You lose sight of your life, your friends, your family, nothing matters beyond the addiction. No one should be "forced" into that.

 

I'd say more, but I'm afraid I'd have stronger words than I'd be permitted to use here. I don't like encouraging addictions, especially not by force. Please just accept that these addictions need to die.

 

I mean, all of the games that catered to these addictions have either moved on or died. Have you played WildStar recently?

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...] if they do they should be rewards to dedicated players.

 

Everything should be for the haves, nothing for the have-nots. That's going to be very profitable... Well, not really.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [the old levelling process] made you try things out.

 

No... It really, really didn't. It just forced you to find a cookie-cutter build that was best suited to grinding through it. If you really want to try things out... _Try things out!_ You don't need an impetus. You have an imagination, use it. There are myriad madcap builds hardcore players have left untapped that would give them more challenge, variety, difficulty, and whatnot.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...] I'd personally lock the player out of the PoF mounts and gliding until they reach level 80.

 

_To what end?_ What would this accomplish? This is about dopamine again, isn't it? This is just more haves vs. have-nots. You want to prolong the status of the haves as long as possible in order to feel social superiority. That'd give you a dopamine buzz. The thing is? Feeding these addictions? It's not profitable! You talk a lot of empty words about the ongoing survival of ArenaNet, yet you want them to do everything that would alienate thier most profitable demographics. This is manipulative entitlement, it's framing the unprofitable desires of a minority as everything but.

 

This would actively hurt the game. What about those new players you mentioned? Oh, they'd all be happy, would they, if when they started playing all mounts and gliding were shunted up to 80 and locked there? Oh yes, that'd make them happy. I'm being very sarcastic here if that isn't obvious... It would alienate them, they'd leave.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...] no flashy abilities that was available to level 1-79 players [...]

 

Which is just another appeal to being a have and forcing other players to be have-nots to feed your addiction, to get that dopamine buzz of social superiority. Not only is this unhealthy for you, it's unethical, it's unfair, and it's _not profitable_.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> Could even be used as a part of the advertising campaign.

 

How do you imagine this would go? Let's try...

 

"As a part of its new initiative... Guild Wars 2 has locked everything fun behind the highest level of the game! You could glide at a much earlier level before, you could also have mounts with cool traversal abilities earlier too! Now you can't. Because hardcore players don't want you to. And we think that hardcore players know what you want!"

 

That'd go down well with new players, I'm sure.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> Advertising is another major weakness of the game.

 

Everyone has to be told what to think by advertising. That worked out well for CD Projekt RED.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> I want EoD to succeed.

 

Do you? Do you really? I don't know if you know what you want. That's the problem. You have this weird disconnect and you don't seem to realise how unprofitable all of your demands are. The sad truth is is that End of Dragons would have a greater chance of success if it did the opposite of everything you've said.

 

From an empathetic perspective? I don't like anything you've laid out.

 

Enforcing a system of haves vs. have-nots so a minority can feel socially superior? Forcing players to wait arbitrarily to get things you have? Forcing players to get addicted to operant conditioning chamber schemes? Forcing players to group when they don't want to? Spending money on PvP systems that only a minority play?

 

How will any of that "save" End of Dragons?

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> Arena net has broken promises before [...]

 

ArenaNet has been a lot of different people. Execs, artists, writers, programmers, janitors, you name it. A number of reshuffles and big firing events have occurred. I was actually surprised that a certain exec whom I was never that fond of got fired too... So if they made those promises, you can't hold ArenaNet accountable. That's not how that works. They may not even know of the promises you think they've made. They're going to do whatever's best for the company.

 

Hopefully that aligns with that I want from the game—but even if it doesn't? That's fine. I mean, I'll just stop playing and giving them money. I won't demand that they develop the game I want. I mean, I want the narrative to play out in a way where Jormag—and even Primordus, if possible—are okay. I like dragons. Even if they kill Jormag, though? It'd hurt me. I'd say that, yes. What I wouldn't do is demand that they tell the story that I want.

 

I may not agree, but I wouldn't demand. That's the difference. I don't feel entitled to demand that they do what I want. They have to do whatever keeps them afloat. There are people at ArenaNet who have fairly stable jobs. I'm fond of a good number of them, especially on the creative team, so of course I want it to stay that way regardless of my feelings. I'd rather they have jobs than spare my feelings. That's more important.

 

I've been told, in a roundabout way, that I needn't worry about the upcoming story. I won't hold them to that though because they might not have the authority to stay true to it if they get an executive mandate to change things. If there's a reshuffle, it may just entirely change the story. I can't make demands. They do what they think is best.

 

That's the thing. I've seen promises too but I understand this.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> There are problems in all game modes across all content in those game modes.

 

Repeatedly stating something doesn't make it true, especially after coming clean with what you mean by that.

 

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> Glaring problems. And like it or not those problems are going to be some of the earliest things new players are going to face.

 

Repeatedly stating something doesn't make it true, especially after coming clean with what you mean by that.

 

I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek by repeating myself. Really though, what you want doesn't benefit new players in the least. It's actively detrimental to their health since you want to get them addicted to your drug.

 

I think I'll leave it at that.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > I have to admit, I couldn't get through the whole OP ... but I can say that anything Anet would do that would restrict players abilities to play the content they have in the new expansion would severely diminish faith that Anet can deliver meaningful, new content. That includes access to mounts. In otherwords ... if Anet needs to take something away just to give it back as 'content' ... there is a BIG problem.

> > > >

> > > > Sure, there are lots of problems with GW2 for numerous reasons ... but if anyone thinks those problems can and should be solved with expansions ... you don't really understand what people who play this game DESPITE those problems are wanting from the game to begin with. People need to stop setting themselves up to be disappointed all the time ... because it means you will ALWAYS be disappointed.

> > >

> > > I never mentioned restricting players from playing the new content in the expansion. I even mentioned a new race which would bring new players and old players into starting zones.

> >

> > No, but you DID mention about locking people out from mounts until they reach level 80 ... which is the restriction of player abilities I'm talking about.

>

> They're already locked out of mounts until 80.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'locked out' so I'm just going to leave this alone cause I'm not sure how to respond to it. Your thread is difficult to digest; if I had to sum up with one sentence:

 

You are worried EoD won't be successful, but it's speculative.

 

Almost seems like you are trying to convince Anet you're on to something to make it sound like they should come to you for the answers to fix whatever you are worried about before it even happens. I don't really see a need to worry ... the people that are still here that await EoD aren't frankly probably not expecting a whole lot more than what we already seen in the other two expansions. I don't see why anyone would expect more and I can only think your worry is based on some fear that if Anet doesn't do more than what they did in the other expansions, it's a wrap up. I don't think that's the case because all's we want is some of the same expansions.