End of Dragons might not be enough.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Lily.1935" said

> 1. Revamp of the dungeons, both story and explorable, to act as teachers to the players to understand mechanics in an active situation such as breakbars, projectile blocks, dodging, jumping over attacks, so on and so on.

 

Dungeons are and should remain optional. Putting a full pressure on learning mechanics through dungeons miiiiiight make some sense if they were forced on the players to play through during the leveling process. But making dungeons obligatory in leveling process is something I can't agree with and I'm sure many other players think that as well. Even you now clarify you don't want them to be obligatory. In this case trying to make them a teacher for overal game mechanics is just counterproductive and pretty much pointless.

Are we missing some mechanics [like breakbars] being explained to the players? Then we don't need to revamp whole types of content or gamemodes -literally put them in one of the pop ups during the leveling process on one of the higher levels. Yup, that's all. Easier and more efficient way of informing the players about something they should know, while not forcing them into paths of playing through content they don't enjoy.

Dodging tutorial is marked on the map in the starting areas. I don't know how many players miss it, I know I didn't. Then again, if someone feels it's too easly missable -put it in the early level up pop up, maybe even right on the first log in on the new character seeing how it's something that's unlocked right away.

Projectile block is learned about through reading the skill descriptions, so w/e.

Jumping over attacks is usually (exclusively?) relevant during the group content, in this case it's easy to learn by simply seeing what other players do. Personally I don't think everything needs to be explained right away, for me that's the part of the learning/exploring the game.

 

> 2. Give real rewards for doing the story dungeons that veteran players would want.

 

Dungeons already have their rewards that are also useful for veteran players. I don't see why they should have them increased all of the sudden just because you want people to play the content you want to play.

 

> 3. Strikes every 20 levels starting at level 40 or 45. So like, 40/45, 60/65, 80.

 

Nah. Because why? To cram even more on new player's plate like they have not enough to do already?

You also claim that strikes are unpopular due to their location [in the previous posts]. That's just a baseless claim, they're easly accessible at the stage when they should -according to the devs- be easly accessible. If lower level players want to slap something bigger, they can slap world bosses. Meanwhile you complain about strikes being part of the content that's getting abandoned and then you propose to make the same content, but... for lower level players? I'm sure that will go great.

 

> 4. Leveling strikes should also have rewards veteran players would want.

 

And how exactly would that work while not being hugely disproportionate in regards of content difficulty and rewards while being targetted both at low level and veteran players?

Just no. No leveling strikes. Especially the ones that are supposed to mix completely new players with veteran ones, that just seems like a waste of resources that achieves nothing.

 

> 5. Core Map venders with region based rewards for map areas that are summoned after doing major group events similar to how the Temple of Balthazar meta works with unique rewards to that region. By region I don't mean specific map but like Kryta, Ascalon, shiverpeaks.

 

I don't like timegated npcs, so probably *no, thanks*. Even moreso when they're supposed to be forcefully crammed into earlier zones. :D

 

> 6. More group events in core tyria zones along with Events that literally can't start without a specific number of people at that area.

 

Like what? Also this is gw2 -almost any event can be considered a group event. Trying to lock it behind a specific number of players in earlier zones seems pointless and counterproductive. "New players" won't be "new" indefinitely, it seems to me you're trying to focus on the wrong direction of progressing through the game and linking the gap between the players.

So no.

 

> 7. Give the new players a mount at about level 10 or 15 that they could unlock through a heart that is prompted with mail to the character to tell them to come quick or something similar.

 

Maybe, w/e.

(as long as it doesn't lock regular mounts like you wanted it to be done)

 

> 8. Remove access to the level 80 boost for new players along with experience boosts for them as well. Experience boosts could be given out to them as rewards for doing specific things.

 

I don't see the reason for that, so no. (also already wrote about it, due to the way this game works it's just not a problematic item just because you think it is)

 

> 9. All living world seasons should be bundled with the expansion they follow with no extra charge.

 

While we're at it, also every skin, mount skin and account upgrade should be bundled with it as well!

Income? Pffft! Seriously, I don't have any data about this part and neither do you, so not sure what you're trying to "sell" here, but that just seems like an "idea" based on nothing. What I know though is that it's already free if you're an active player. And new players already have a lot of content to play through even without the LWs to catch up to more current releases. Other than that? We know nothing about numbers in regards of lws sales/active players.

 

> 10. Rewards could be things which were normally gemstore or black lion chest items that rotate every month and are difficult or pricy to acquire in game. Such as unavailable black lion skins or dyes. Or even a PvE equivalent to the gift of Battle.

 

What rewards?

Gemstore items are already being ""rewarded"" by farming a universal currency (gold) and then turning it into another currency (gems).

 

> 11. Rebalance core enemies to be better scaled with the power creep of the game.

 

What power creep? The one that new players don't have access to yet?

No. Ramping up the difficulty level throughout the content is more-or-less k.

 

> 12. A random Dungeon/strike finder or Rolette. Say if a small group of friends are starting a dungeon but can't get people, a random dungeon finder could be good for a vet as they enter it and are put in that group to fill the missing space so they can play the content and the random can get a dungeon or strike.

 

This sounds... weird, so I'm not sure I get it. Basically "let me fill in any free place in any squad for any dungeon/strike"? I don't know about that, seems a bit... random. But as an added option, I have to say that I don't care, I won't use it so it doesn't change anything for me. I also doubt a lot of players would use it at all (at least any more than the current lfg system), but who knows.

I'd be more inclined to add one more tab in dungeon LFG category, where every currently listed dungeon squad would be shown, so you don't have to click through 8 tabs just to see if any dungeon has an active/awaiting party. But still w/e, don't care much about this one.

 

 

[Krzysztof.5973]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"sammokdadd.3602" said:

> > Imagine Making a full topic about something that is not out yet.. Just imagine how a tryhard are you. Jeez

>

> Laughs in legendary runes/sigils

 

I'm sure we will have enough time to bash ANet for next xpack features being underwhelming after they announce them :)

[Chyanne Waters.8719]

I was thinking about after EoD which brings us full circle to Cantha after 9 years. The reason GW2 was made was the next campaign in GW could not have all the abilities of what Anet wanted for the new game because of the GW older engine. So they may bring it to GW2 it was called Utopia, but for GW2 it will be another name of course.

[Hannelore.8153]

> @"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.

 

When HoT released guilds were completely gutted, almost removed from the Core game. All Core players could do is join a guild, that was it. You couldn't even use half the services in the Guild Hall even after you were "Graced" with entering.

 

Guilds that had spent years building everything up lost most of it. And then not only had to start over but had to deal with the extreme costs of the Guild Halls on top of it, which were something like 100x the cost of a max-level guild before HoT. Along with much more expensive banners and other guild services, the playerbase was also fragmented with only half of them even being able to use guilds.

 

This in a game that once touted guilds as its main feature, especially for competitive content. It only got better because eventually they gave HoT away with PoF and the majority of players finally had full access to guilds.

 

The famous words from the devs in response to complaints were "Guilds are a Heart of Thorns feature.". Despite that they had been released with the game years prior and had been a big part of it up to that point, even in PvE settings.

 

So yes, ArenaNet does gut old content and then sell it back as new content. They have a history of it, even.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> So yes, ArenaNet does gut old content and then sell it back as new content. They have a history of it, even.

 

OK ... but that doesn't change my point. I wasn't arguing they never did it such a thing. I also didn't qualify 'gutting' old content. IMO, if old content needs to be 'gutted' to be better and there is a cost associated to that ... that's fine to me. That's ALSO not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Anet restricting players from content just to sell it back to them .. that is NOT what happend with GH development.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> Some of my ideas if you REALLY want to get into specifics about what I think would be good.

 

These are low value changes that wouldn't impact many players in a game that is focused on level 80 content. I also don't see how these are related to EoD.

 

The bottomline is that whatever the changes are .. they better have an impact on revenue ... a positive one. I think any content improvements in the leveling zones are questionable since so little time is spent in those portions of the game compared to endgame.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

Now the idea of the game was > @"Valfar.3761" said:

> The best time I had in GW2 was the HoT expansion. I liked the vertical maps (namely Verdant Brink). I also liked the feeling of "threat"; the mobs were very dangerous and you really had to pay attention. I don't like damage spongey mobs, though. I liked the story. The writing wasn't great but the spectacle set pieces were fun. I think the writers knew that their writing was weak, so they played to the strength of their setpiece spectacles and tried to minimize the amount of character stuff and talking as possible, so there was little filler. The voice acting of Rytlock and Canach was great, though.

>

> The post-launch patches is where they lost me. They removed the danger from the mobs, so they just turned into long, tedious damage sponges that were no fun to fight anymore. The maps weren't interesting to traverse like Verdant Brink. The story also slowed down and the writers were no longer playing to their strengths. Rather than getting to the next setpiece, there is a lot of talking and character stuff and since the writing is bad, well... it's just not enjoyable at all. So I lost interest. Nobody cares about Marjory talking about curtains. People do care about running with an egg while being chased by a spider. I love FFXIV and Trails for their story, but GW2 falls woefully short and I think it's been clear for a long time that GW2 really shouldn't try.

>

> For End of Dragons, if they can make a map like Verdant Brink again, maybe Kaineng being a dense city space that goes up to a very tall height so you can jump off and fall for a long time and open your glider and fly to multiple levels, that'd be cool. Dangerous mobs that aren't damage sponges, so a high time to kill experience where you have to pay attention. Maybe some revamped underwater combat. For the story, minimize the talking and get straight to business, even if it had to be a short campaign.

 

I agree that the writing is very poor. Really I think it just lacks actual storytelling elements...basic ones. Like how to build characters, moving a plot from point A to point B...and of course theme...there's no themes...no lessons, no questions being asked of the audience. Everything is basically exposition dump->exposition dump->exposition dump->Character makes a joke...gets emotional about their past-> exposition dump.

 

It's not easy to write stories, but there are some very basic things that a story requires in order for it to be cohesive in any way. It doesn't help that our character is "The commander" rather than an adventurer. There exist story archetypes where "The commander" should fit a story archetype of "The Ruler." This simply doesn't happen in gw2. Here's an exert with a quick summary of what a rulers story should structure itself as

 

_**The Ruler

jungian-archetypes-the-ruler**_

 

_**Also known as the king, queen, boss, leader, politician, role model, manager, or aristocrat, the Ruler is always at the top of the food chain, and is generally wholly responsible for the atmosphere of the world in which they inhabit. For this reason, it is quite common to either find the benevolent ruler killed or otherwise maimed early on in the story, or the evil dictator, who is the main villain the heroes must overcome by the end. Why is this? Because if the Ruler is available and doing her job properly, there would be no story to tell!**_

 

_**The Ruler is concerned with creating wealth and prosperity, and in order to do that, they must obtain absolute power. By the end of the story, many Heroes may, in fact, be on the path to become Rulers themselves. Unlike the Hero, the Ruler isn’t concerned with a singular purpose—they must weigh the entirety of the community they oversee, and as such, are rarely universally loved. In fact, there may even be a benevolent ruler who appears wholly the villain, simply because they can not grant the requests of their followers. They exert their power as a first course of action, with or without counsel.**_

 

Now, we as player characters simply do not fit into the shoes of a ruler...nor do our goals seem to be this way. If anything we are "hero's" except we don't go on a hero's journey....we could also be considered adventurer's, but we don't follow an adventurer's tale either. Really the story has no structure, doesn't follow one, nor fit any archetype which would definitely help give it a direction of some kind...and with some kind of meaningfulness to the story and its characters. Right now i would literally describe it as being a mess...closest thing it resembles is being a political drama.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > Some of my ideas if you REALLY want to get into specifics about what I think would be good.

>

> These are low value changes that wouldn't impact many players in a game that is focused on level 80 content. I also don't see how these are related to EoD.

>

> The bottomline is that whatever the changes are .. they better have an impact on revenue ... a positive one. I think any content improvements in the leveling zones are questionable since so little time is spent in those portions of the game compared to endgame.

 

The point of the post isn't specific to End of Dragons. Its more about an encompassing problem with the entire game. To which End of dragons is being pushed out as a means to help Guild wars. PoF included mounts to bring people into the game because the people here wouldn't have stopped playing if mounts weren't included. End of Dragons is going to try something to bring new players in and my criticism of their attempts thus far have been that they've missed the mark because of the poor maintenance of their early game. The shared inventory slot and 80 booster where included with some of the PoF purchases, athough not sure all the tiers it was included with, to meet the end goal of getting new players into the new content as quick as possible. The problem with that is GW2 is not a simple game. its complex and requires a lot of knowledge to jump in and play. Much like many other RPGs. Starting players off in the deep end wasn't successful in that attempt so when I say "EoD wont be enough" my perspective comes from this. Arena Net could have the best possible expansion in existence with 5 new dungeons, 2 new raids, 4 strike missions, new maps that hit that nostalgia, but if they don't do something about the early game and the leveling process all the players will be experiencing is the rather underwhelming story and early maps.

 

I'm not sure where y'all are getting this "Taking stuff away" idea. That's just absurd which you've mentioned in an earlier post. To whom am I taking something away? The Level 80 players don't lose access to their mounts anywhere. New rewards become available to new players. New players are given a mount without having to buy an anything. Only thing I'm really advocating for getting rid of is access to the level 80 booster and experience boosters(although not all) to fresh accounts. If you wanted to use one on an Alt, congratulations, YOU would have access to it and the new player would gain access to it after they hit 80 with a character once. Hardly taking anything away. The only forcing I'm doing, which is what I was talking about is forcing the players to level up at least once.

 

The other aspect to that is to make the content more engaging. Dungeons don't have to be hard. In fact I would be against that for the story modes. However having the tools a player needs to learn the game is something they should absolutely do. And rebalancing them and their rewards could bring new and old players to doing them more often. Sometimes PvE players get tired of the same thing. There is a tone of Down time in Guild Wars 2 between seasons. We go story, holiday, story, holiday, story, holiday, and sometimes we skip the story for 4 months. Holidays are great and all, but filling more of that down time with early content which people want to run can help break up the monotony for old players and bridge the gap for new players so they always have something they can do with a good chunk of the community.

 

You think these wouldn't do a lot? i strongly disagree. But I'm also willing to hear others ideas. I'd love to hear what you have to offer as a solution to bridge the ever widening gap between new and old players.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

L80 Boosts and the accompanying Shared Inventory Slot came/comes with any edition of Heart of Thorns and/or Path of Fire.

It does warn that it is 'For Experienced Players'. Although I believe absolute new players should level a character (or 3) naturally, I would not want to be restricted on an alternate account, or restrict those that desire to use the L80 Booster whenever _they_ choose. Same with Mounts.

 

I'm not sure how 'rebalancing' Core content would work. Balance it for vets? New players would be overwhelmed. I remember how difficult the Personal Story seemed when I first started playing. Even with a friend, we kept dying in under-L20 Story chapters.

 

I think the Devs have tried (with the possible exception of break-bars) to provide much information in the Level-up tutorial. It's a shame so few take the time to peruse it. It's understandable; many are eager to play on and see what's next in their adventures in Tyria.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > So yes, ArenaNet does gut old content and then sell it back as new content. They have a history of it, even.

>

> OK ... but that doesn't change my point. I wasn't arguing they never did it such a thing. I also didn't qualify 'gutting' old content. IMO, if old content needs to be 'gutted' to be better and there is a cost associated to that ... that's fine to me. That's ALSO not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Anet restricting players from content just to sell it back to them .. that is NOT what happend with GH development.

 

Please dont talk to WvW players. Alot of WvW felt like they did re-sell old WvW features, with added fact that WvWers should go out of WvW into PvE to get a guild hall. (Not a huge problem imo, but I'm not so purist when it comes to games.)

 

But in the end, its a moot point whether they factually did or didn't, if people feel it was unfair or are labeling it as reselling. I mean, then you can try to say that they didnt because this and that technicality, it doesn't change the reaction players (still) have to the way it happened.

 

 

Similar to what OP here has for ideas of the game. They have ideas for the entire game based on what they feel is fun, which isn't necessarily what other people find fun, nor actually good design for a game cemented on another design all together.

 

This whole focus on the New Player experience was a nightmare last time, where imo ArenaNet got the teaching part quite wrong, and gutted the atmosphere of the early areas doing so. I don't think changing it now again, especially in the way suggested by OP is going to help all that much, and skipping it outright might actually not be a bad thing.

 

Personally I don't think trying to ease people into features over the course of a leveling experience will teach people better. All that is needed is a good introduction whenever you happen upon a new feature.

 

GW1 had that with better labeling. Outposts missions, challenge missions, cities all had their separate icons, as a small example. Of course Gw2 is much more convoluted, with more elements. It might simply need better categorization and labeling of such. Or perhaps as simple as a questionmark or wiki-button at certain features or UI elements that link to the wiki or some such. I dunno if it even needs that, as its real hard for me to imagine not getting into this game.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > > So yes, ArenaNet does gut old content and then sell it back as new content. They have a history of it, even.

> >

> > OK ... but that doesn't change my point. I wasn't arguing they never did it such a thing. I also didn't qualify 'gutting' old content. IMO, if old content needs to be 'gutted' to be better and there is a cost associated to that ... that's fine to me. That's ALSO not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Anet restricting players from content just to sell it back to them .. that is NOT what happend with GH development.

>

> Please dont talk to WvW players. Alot of WvW felt like they did re-sell old WvW features, with added fact that WvWers should go out of WvW into PvE to get a guild hall. (Not a huge problem imo, but I'm not so purist when it comes to games.)

>

> But in the end, its a moot point whether they factually did or didn't, if people feel it was unfair or are labeling it as reselling. I mean, then you can try to say that they didnt because this and that technicality, it doesn't change the reaction players (still) have to the way it happened.

 

Again, I'm not here to argue it did or not. My point is that we KNOW that kind of thing is not desirable.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> You think these wouldn't do a lot? i strongly disagree. But I'm also willing to hear others ideas. I'd love to hear what you have to offer as a solution to bridge the ever widening gap between new and old players.

 

I have no solution because I don't think it's a problem that needs to be addressed. In fact, I think any forced interactions where people don't want them, new or old players ... is just a massive put off. Nothing should be implemented in this game to force interactions between demographics. No one plays this game to be forced to play with people they don't want to play with. Any move to change that will be unacceptable to the core.

 

But ... to be fair, that gap has already been narrowed with fast leveling, expansion of endgame content, reasonably gotten endgame gear. Hell, a player can BUY their way to endgame if they don't want to encounter that gap at all ... you can't get more accommodating than this. SO if this is a problem ... the solution already exists. Even a step further ... NOTHING prevents old players interacting with new ones ... it's just not forced.

 

So really your problem seems rather contrived ... the idea that new/old players don't interact enough ... and that's somehow related to what's wrong with the game.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > You think these wouldn't do a lot? i strongly disagree. But I'm also willing to hear others ideas. I'd love to hear what you have to offer as a solution to bridge the ever widening gap between new and old players.

>

> I have no solution because I don't think it's a problem that needs to be addressed. In fact, I think any forced interactions where people don't want them, new or old players ... is just a massive put off. Nothing should be implemented in this game to force interactions between demographics. No one plays this game to be forced to play with people they don't want to play with. Any move to change that will be unacceptable to the core.

>

> But ... to be fair, that gap has already been narrowed with fast leveling, expansion of endgame content, reasonably gotten endgame gear. Hell, a player can BUY their way to endgame if they don't want to encounter that gap at all ... you can't get more accommodating than this. SO if this is a problem ... the solution already exists. Even a step further ... NOTHING prevents old players interacting with new ones ... it's just not forced.

>

> So really your problem seems rather contrived ... the idea that new/old players don't interact enough ... and that's somehow related to what's wrong with the game.

 

You keep getting hung up on the word 'force' and ignoring the substance of what I and others have said. Look, no one is forcing anyone to play with anyone else. Its giving more options to play with each other. What you see as FORCE isn't something you have to do. You never have to do it. MMO players are fickle. They want their time to be spent meaningfully most the time. Or however they perceive that to be and for many its through in game rewards. Giving that incentive is a step to aid that, whether it be liquid reward or something else, it needs to have repeatable value.

 

The fact is, you think that throwing a new player into end game with absolutely no knowledge of the game is good seems to be where we differ. I look at the experience of an RPG as not just one of building of power but of knowledge. Power can be limited or given out freely, sure, but knowledge comes with time and just throwing someone in end game with know knowledge leaves them woefully prepared for what they're supposed to be doing and struggling against some of the most basic enemies and fights.

 

Leveling isn't a good option because the process is pretty awful. Boosting to 80 is a bad option because they players then have no knowledge of what they're doing or what their class is good at. Either option turns off more new players than retains them. It is an issue. Whether you refuse to acknowledge it or not.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Lily.1935" said:

> > > You think these wouldn't do a lot? i strongly disagree. But I'm also willing to hear others ideas. I'd love to hear what you have to offer as a solution to bridge the ever widening gap between new and old players.

> >

> > I have no solution because I don't think it's a problem that needs to be addressed. In fact, I think any forced interactions where people don't want them, new or old players ... is just a massive put off. Nothing should be implemented in this game to force interactions between demographics. No one plays this game to be forced to play with people they don't want to play with. Any move to change that will be unacceptable to the core.

> >

> > But ... to be fair, that gap has already been narrowed with fast leveling, expansion of endgame content, reasonably gotten endgame gear. Hell, a player can BUY their way to endgame if they don't want to encounter that gap at all ... you can't get more accommodating than this. SO if this is a problem ... the solution already exists. Even a step further ... NOTHING prevents old players interacting with new ones ... it's just not forced.

> >

> > So really your problem seems rather contrived ... the idea that new/old players don't interact enough ... and that's somehow related to what's wrong with the game.

>

> You keep getting hung up on the word 'force' and ignoring the substance of what I and others have said. Look, no one is forcing anyone to play with anyone else. Its giving more options to play with each other. What you see as FORCE isn't something you have to do. You never have to do it. MMO players are fickle. They want their time to be spent meaningfully most the time. Or however they perceive that to be and for many its through in game rewards. Giving that incentive is a step to aid that, whether it be liquid reward or something else, it needs to have repeatable value.

 

EVEN if you give old players more incentive to play lower level content with rewards ... they aren't going to want to do it with new players. That's ALREADY the case with dungeons. If anything, it's not about old or new ... it's about teaming with knowledgable vs. unknowledgable players. Knowledgeable players who are just there for rewards are completely uninterested in teaming unknowledgable ones. More rewards doesn't fix that ... it exacerbates it.

>

> The fact is, you think that throwing a new player into end game with absolutely no knowledge of the game is good seems to be where we differ. I look at the experience of an RPG as not just one of building of power but of knowledge. Power can be limited or given out freely, sure, but knowledge comes with time and just throwing someone in end game with know knowledge leaves them woefully prepared for what they're supposed to be doing and struggling against some of the most basic enemies and fights.

 

It might not be good, but it works. I have YET to play an MMO where I ever got stuck leveling to endgame. Sure, some parts might be hard ... but you don't need an advanced degree to play and learn what you need for these games.

>

> Leveling isn't a good option because the process is pretty awful. Boosting to 80 is a bad option because they players then have no knowledge of what they're doing or what their class is good at. Either option turns off more new players than retains them. It is an issue. Whether you refuse to acknowledge it or not.

 

If that was true, this game and MANY others would have folded much sooner. You are sensationalizing how hard it is for a new players to learn and play this game. The fact this game targets casual players and still exists today is proof that it's NOT a hard game to learn for new players. I was playing with people that didn't even know what their traits did ... that didn't stop us from succeeding in the game. So the bottomline here: You are placing far to much correlation between players knowing how to do stuff and GW2 retaining those players. The threshold for success in this game is designed to be so low that 'not knowing things' is not actually a barrier to being able to complete LOTS of the content in it.

 

You want to talk about some 'gap bridging' between new and veteran players ... but that gap isn't that big and not that deep to enable new players to cross it. It's just not that hard a game.

 

[Lily.1935]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> L80 Boosts and the accompanying Shared Inventory Slot came/comes with any edition of Heart of Thorns and/or Path of Fire.

> It does warn that it is 'For Experienced Players'. Although I believe absolute new players should level a character (or 3) naturally, I would not want to be restricted on an alternate account, or restrict those that desire to use the L80 Booster whenever _they_ choose. Same with Mounts.

>

> I'm not sure how 'rebalancing' Core content would work. Balance it for vets? New players would be overwhelmed. I remember how difficult the Personal Story seemed when I first started playing. Even with a friend, we kept dying in under-L20 Story chapters.

>

> I think the Devs have tried (with the possible exception of break-bars) to provide much information in the Level-up tutorial. It's a shame so few take the time to peruse it. It's understandable; many are eager to play on and see what's next in their adventures in Tyria.

 

Rebalance it for new players to get them to engage with mechanics they will need to know. You don't need to make fights hard to do that. You can have intervals in the fight that trigger a prompt that they have to interact with. Primarily I feel these teaching tools should be in dungeons and potentially strikes, but its possible that's not the best place.

 

The example I keep coming back to which i've mentioned about a dozen times already(I swear to Grenth I don't want to mention this again!) is break bars. Teaching a player how to interact with that will do far more good to teach a player something important than picking up a Ghost buster pack in AC or standing at a panel for 10 minutes in CoE while swarms of golems explode on you ever could. A lot of the mechanics you see in Dungeons are one time use mechanics when they could use more universal designs we see in raids. Having the Spider in AC go into a phase where you need to CC it to prevent some annoying attack(Doesn't need to be a deadly attack) while having a prompt on your screen if you haven't done the fight before that says "Stun the boss" and it highlights the blue break bar as well as the CC skills on your bar for a second could be enough. Is my example perfect? Absolutely not, but its something that could be done in the moment to get players to engage with the mechanics. Suddenly they would know what to do in the future and know "These skills damage the breakbar" and they might get curious about it.

 

Breakbars are especially important in all end game modes of PvE including open world. As is Jumping over AoE, projectile blocks and reflects and the special action key. They can slowly introduce these mechanics and their importance as the dungeons progress in level. Literally it doesn't need to make them harder. The point is to teach, not to punish. Guild Wars 2 is a rather complicated game.

[Obtena.7952]

Honestly, I don't disagree that the game could do somethings to train people better ... but let's not pretend these are HUGE barriers to retaining those players. Sure .. breakbars ... how do you learn that ... well the game doesn't really tell you right ... but no one is saying "I quit because I don't know how to break a bar". /shrug.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I don't know. Do that many new players (or old) visit the Dungeons?

I've only visited a couple. Never raided.

Is instanced group content that popular with new players? With the population overall?

 

I'm not sure adding tutorial messages to the UI would be considered 'rebalancing'. :confused:

[Lily.1935]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> I don't know. Do that many new players (or old) visit the Dungeons?

> I've only visited a couple. Never raided.

> Is instanced group content that popular with new players? With the population overall?

>

> I'm not sure adding tutorial messages to the UI would be considered 'rebalancing'. :confused:

 

Used to be extremely popular and its usually one of the primary draws for new players once they get to the appropriate level.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Instanced group content is/was popular? Doesn't seem to be, if the forums are any indication.

I know dungeon speed runs once were, but they weren't very accommodating to 'new players'.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > I don't know. Do that many new players (or old) visit the Dungeons?

> > I've only visited a couple. Never raided.

> > Is instanced group content that popular with new players? With the population overall?

> >

> > I'm not sure adding tutorial messages to the UI would be considered 'rebalancing'. :confused:

>

> Used to be extremely popular and its usually one of the primary draws for new players once they get to the appropriate level.

 

There are different ways to count "popularity", is it because it's enjoyable, or because it's too rewarding? The peak of dungeon popularity was during the Citadel of Flame Path 1 "farm". But I'm quite sure its popularity was so high because it was very rewarding compared to anything else. Of course this is true for any other content, Silverwastes chest farm, Istan, Auric Basin and other activities that had their popularity inflated due to their extreme rewards.

 

As for dungeons being the primary draw, I don't think dungeons were ever a draw at their appropriate level, and that's because most groups, even a few months after release, were asking for level 80 players to run dungeons and did not accept lower levels.

 

> The shared inventory slot and 80 booster where included with some of the PoF purchases, athough not sure all the tiers it was included with, to meet the end goal of getting new players into the new content as quick as possible.

 

The level 80 booster was given with the release of Heart of Thorns, not Path of Fire. They also added a level 80 booster on the gem store months after the release of Path of Fire.

[mercury ranique.2170]

Claiming you write on behalf of others is poor argumantation. You need a mandate to do so and it does not seem you have one.

That does not mean tha tI do not welcome your argument, but the starting claims just makes it weaker and not stronger. Write it from your own perspective what you would like to be changed and why.

 

I personally disagree with you. There is not much wrong with the older maps and the core maps. I do think the game needs some renewal. I would rather see them do this in new content. A good example would be the intro of a new level 0 tot 80 experience for players with the latest expansion. It gives room for the introduction of new races, looks and backstories, but also with new low level maps. Like in GW1, the new experience can be made more efficient and quicker. the old zones might get deserted except for nostalgic and F2P players, but that should not be a big problem. It is like GW1. With GW2 you can still enjoy GW1 if you want, it is just not maintained and GW2 gives a more modern experience.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > I don't know. Do that many new players (or old) visit the Dungeons?

> > I've only visited a couple. Never raided.

> > Is instanced group content that popular with new players? With the population overall?

> >

> > I'm not sure adding tutorial messages to the UI would be considered 'rebalancing'. :confused:

>

> Used to be extremely popular and its usually one of the primary draws for new players once they get to the appropriate level.

 

Seems like a completely baseless claim to make. From my experience along with new players I know, it's just false as far as making *generalized statements* go. Once again trying to push your opinion by claiming "that's what new players want", so subsequentially "it would totally fix the game/player retention".

That's what you want it to be, but that's false.

[Lily.1935]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> Instanced group content is/was popular? Doesn't seem to be, if the forums are any indication.

> I know dungeon speed runs once were, but they weren't very accommodating to 'new players'.

 

You're right, it wasn't accommodating to new players. When I joined the game just a few months after it released when I hit level 30 I was like "I really want to do a dungeon!" and I was told "No, wait till your level 80.". And its been a common sentiment by new players since I've started. Used to be an officer in a guild as well. We had a cross game guild for NA that was dismantled by the Website due to it not being popular enough. Eventually that guild was converted into a new guild and has since fallen apart. That sentiment you're talking about did still persist even there. The Guild tag was TAW if I remember correctly and was later changed to WARD which I'm still a part of but more for sentimental reasons, but that's a bit off topic.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

So...did you go back and do the Dungeons as a new L80?

Just hitting L80 doesn't make one much less 'new'.

 

It's not really any different with Strikes, Raids, ...any instanced content. If one uses the LFG, one finds many requests for particular advanced-level players.

 

In other words, I'm not sure forcing/offering some special 'training' instanced content will change players expecting/desiring knowledgeable players to join their groups.

[Lily.1935]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> Claiming you write on behalf of others is poor argumantation. You need a mandate to do so and it does not seem you have one.

> That does not mean tha tI do not welcome your argument, but the starting claims just makes it weaker and not stronger. Write it from your own perspective what you would like to be changed and why.

>

> I personally disagree with you. There is not much wrong with the older maps and the core maps. I do think the game needs some renewal. I would rather see them do this in new content. A good example would be the intro of a new level 0 tot 80 experience for players with the latest expansion. It gives room for the introduction of new races, looks and backstories, but also with new low level maps. Like in GW1, the new experience can be made more efficient and quicker. the old zones might get deserted except for nostalgic and F2P players, but that should not be a big problem. It is like GW1. With GW2 you can still enjoy GW1 if you want, it is just not maintained and GW2 gives a more modern experience.

 

First part about the old maps. No, I don't think the old maps have a problem per say. There is an issue with scaling though if you're a max level going back to an old map which can be problematic when doing events for dailies. Having level 80s one shot everything while new players are still getting used to the game. Which is why I said to better adjust the scaling for the power creep of the game. But no, I do not think open world needs to be revamped.

 

The other aspect of open world I mentioned is rewards. I do like the idea of rewards new and old players could work toward that have lasting value in those zones but not locked to a specific zone. I think open world in early zones is good casual fun so having something newbies can do and feel rewarded for and something old players can come back to after a hard day at work or school has some merit to it.

 

Second point you make about new level 1 to 80 zones. ABSOLUTELY! I'm 100% with you on this. I would love new leveling zones for the game with new world events and a new race and/or class to play with in those zones.