zealex.9410 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > It's barely enough, and honestly i find myself playing less and less of the game... > > > Sure you have a lot of distractions added that mask the lack of content, like really stretched out collections and achievements that soak up more time than the end-result is worth. > > > > > > But i'll elaborate: > > > **Story-wise** i think it's slow, at this point, barring the "content droughts" pre and post HoT, the current Living World cadence is the slowest ever. And LWS3 was feeling slow already. I think they've backed themselves into a corner in Season 3. Raising the level of expectation to having a new map with each episode is obviously going to make things slower for them. > > > I'd rather have something between season 2 and season 3. > > > I'd revise the releases having Chapters+ Episodes inside the Living World Seasons. > > > Chapters would have the ~3 month cadence and include a new map. Episodes would feature mostly only story beats with a few new items, and maybe increasing the explorable areas in the already released map (like with Dry Top). This should allow more frequent "Episodes" (maybe back to the monthly or bi-weekly releases) and a more developed story (assuming that adding story points isn't that hard, and that the writing team has the ability to get stuff prepared beforehand). > > > > > > > Thats basically se4 but with more updates. > > Id rather see the number of maps drop to 2 or so per year (one every 5 or so months) while the rest of the story further expands these maps/ takes place in already existing ones and bring new events in the maps (maybe small changes) and story. > > In a way it's still close to S4. They have proven they can do an whole episode in 2 months for S3. Having 3 months to complete the map would allow leeway to finish the smaller story episodes. > And yes, one of my points with that "suggestion" would be that it would be less chained to the new maps, allowing us to revisit old ones. > I've also even "suggested" in the past that if keeping the current cadence and release format i'd rather that now and again, they take the story into old maps, and use the resources available that allow them to create whole new ones to rework the old maps, and refresh them to the current content. I guess im not understanding it well enough. We already have a 3 months cadence per map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashabhi.1365 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 There are a couple of schools of thought on this issue... There is tons of content. Having said that, there's maybe a third of it that I enjoy. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to do even at a third. There's tons of stuff I haven't done yet, and there's WvW and PvP that I'm absolutely horrid at, but I try occasionally. The pace of the Living Story is fine, and believe it or not, dailies are good when I don't feel like concentrating very hard. Yeah, there's plenty of content. All it takes is the desire to go do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDchiaScrub.3241 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 If you only play one game mode then no. Given it was shipped with three-ish ones then yes if you partake in all of them. Heck unlimited content if you RP (lol). D: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhyse.8179 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 Content? Yes. Balance/Bugfixes/General support? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blocki.4931 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 Barely enough for me. I'm simply used to having faster and bigger patches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthe.3578 Posted August 17, 2018 Author Share Posted August 17, 2018 Its good to see the majority of players are satisfied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidarrock.5692 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 For my amount of playtime, it is just enough. While I can push through a LS episode in one night, tackling the whole map(events, bounties, map currency, achievements, etc...) takes enough time to keep me busy for awhile. Plus, I still have plenty to finish off in HoT and PoF. And if I get bored with PvE, I'm down for WvW. But I'd say I play less than 10 hours a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamy Lu.3865 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 More than enough ! I have a busy real life. Since beginning of the game, ongoing achievements - on hold at about 80% completion status - are piling up. Each new living story increases the pile. This is mainly because when there is a new LS, I don't feel the need to rush at doing everything within the hours after download. Instead, I like to take my time. On one side, to have all those unfinished achievements is good, because I always have something to do, but on the other side, I am close to the limit where it could become frustrating to never finish anything. I am always excited at a new upcoming episode (for me, new area to explore is the point), but at same time, the feeling is also: "oh no, not already". :3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinVec.3621 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 > @"Amaranthe.3578" said: > Its good to see the majority of players are satisfied Just wanted to note that voting for "Yes,more than enough." does not universally equate to the voter being satisfied. The poll is asking if we feel the game supplies enough new content (which I feel it does so I voted as such) rather than asking if we feel the game supplies enough _fun/satisfying_ new content. As it is inquiring about our opinions of a measure of only quantity ("supplies enough new content") not of a measure of quantity and quality ("supplies enough fun/enjoyable new content"), my vote reflects my opinion as the question was posed. If the poll were asking if we feel the game supplies enough fun/enjoyable new content, I'd vote 'Not no way, not no how!' as I am rather unsatisfied with the quality and type of the content that is being and has been added for quite a long time now. So from a quantity perspective, yes, I feel there is more than enough new content being added to the game. From a quality and fun perspective, no, not at all - but that isn't what is being polled about (and if it is, it isn't worded properly to reflect that being what the poll is asking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorani.7205 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 Objectively, there is more than enough content in the game to be able to keep a player busy, if he has a bunch of characters, has all the expansions and plays all the game modes. Subjectively, it looks differently: - PvE has been focusing on the extreme ends of the spectrum (repetitive grind & farm content on one side and elitists Raids and high level Fractals on the other side) - WvW has been stale for years and PvP's balance & meta game leave you a very narrow corridor to be successful in Does GW2 provide enough areas of play for me to play in? Yes. Does it cater to my gaming needs (fun, time slots, difficulty etc.)? It is OK to play, but does not excite me any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silencer.3875 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 This game is packed full of a ton of content! Anet is always adding new and fun things as well. If you're like me and work and have a family, the content takes quite awhile to complete. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenrai Senshi.2017 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 The amount of content is good, but it also feels very samey. New areas feel like just another collection of meta/farming events, which all start to feel very similar to each other after a while. I guess there's only so many ways to spin a yarn before patterns start to emerge. I feel like GW2 needs something new or fresh regarding the game's mechanics to breathe some excitement back into it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugo.4705 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 Depends on type of content. More than enough for episodes, open world and fractals. But not enough for guilds: just one more guild hall, ability to race in guild hall and more decos will be suficient. WvW: ok maybe one more map. PvP: more than enough for the numbers of arenas not okay for the balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carighan.6758 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 For an essentially free game, the quantity is **way more than enough**. The issue is with the **quality**, IMO. I'd rather have less, specifically I don't see the need for a new zone every episode if it means the zones are of the shoddy quality we've seen repeatedly. Ember Bay, Lake Doric, Bitterfrost Frontier, Siren's Landing, Domain of Istan, Domain of Kourna, even the Isles to a degree... these zones all *could* have been great, but not if they're being churned out as forgettable mini-content for a single episode. They waste great settings and ideas on minimal setpieces. I'd rather have only a single - but giant - zone for a whole season, but Dry Top style it gets explored/expanded each new release. The big upsides would be: * Use of mostly the same art assets, cuts development cost, allowing more polish. * Singular settings keeps the story from jumping all over the place shedding the context every time like we have right now. * Large zone allows more than 1 set of events to be viably placed there without feeling cramped, in turn allowing a *proper* long-lasting zone design. * Less zones overall means more ability to re-balance zone events later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killermanjaro.5670 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 I'm between "just enough" and "more than enough", I'd say a comfortable amount. There's enough that I'm happy, but not so much that I feel I have to play everyday in order to keep up with it all, which is perfect for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > Depends on what content you like and what type of player you are. Breaking it down I'd say: > > > > > > > > - ultra hardcore 6+ hours per day game time -> by far not enough unless the player finds ways to extend longevity with crafting multiple legendarys, running content multiple times, etc. > > > > > > > > - hardcore 3+ hours per day -> will still reach the boundaries of what can be done. If not achievement hunting, definitely not enough content > > > > > > > > - gamer 1-2 hours per day -> barely enough content, will have to take breaks and let content catch up > > > > > > > > - semi-casual gamer with a couple of nights per week game time -> game should be fine content wise > > > > > > > > - ultra-casual gamer with a couple of hours per week top -> have you left core Tyria yet? > > > > > > I think you make a big mistake here in linking hardcore/casual to time played. A player can play 6+ hours a day and still be casual. Hardcore or casual refers more to how deep you are into the more difficult content like raiding and higher level fractals and PvP modes. The term for a player who plays a lot but isn't a hardcore player would be a dedicated player. I easily play 4 hours a day most days but I don't consider myself hardcore because I don't care about the harder content in this game. I just do stuff like map completion, crafting, some collections and masteries. > > > > > > But to be hardcore I'd have to dive into the meta and git gud. Although I like to have some sense to my builds, I am not interested in going hardcore in this game. For me to be interested in that the classes and combat in general would have to be more interesting to me and I don't really see them making such big changes. > > > > > > > > > > I was using the term in relation to time spent in game. Reason being simple: more time spent is likely directly affecting content consumed which directly relates to this topic. Sure there might be a ton of people semi-afk in town just chatting with friends who do not consume content as fast as others, I'd wager those are in the minority though. > > > > > Hardcore Gamer > > > Someone who plays video games as a primary hobby. They tend to spend large amounts of time playing games, often in excess of two or three hours a day. > > > > > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hardcore%20Gamer > > > > You can call yourself dedicated if it makes you feel better, besides being a different term, it changes nothing in relation to time spent and content consumed (and using a less stigmatic term). I've personally never assumed hardcore gamers to have to "get gud", it was always a function of time spent (both for the term hardcore as well as casual) for me. > > Well it's not about what makes me feel better but I know there are people who play a lot of hours and do not consume content as fast. Casual players often go through content more slowly because they are no so driven to get from A to B but are more about the journey than the destination. So that's why the comparison purely on time spent is too simplistic. > > The irony is that if you keep reading the explanation of a hardcore gamer that you linked there, you see exactly what I am talking about. It confirms that challenge is a key element of hardcore games. > > You really should read more than just the first couple of lines. Again, I explained how I used the term and how I feel it will apply to a vast majority of players. Yes, time is not the only constant, it is the most reliable to separate the biggest majority and categorize gamers. The unique snowflake cases of casual players who spend tons of time in-game yet are so casual that the term might apply will be a strong minority. Time spent on just about anything often correlates to commitment, that's a fact of life. So again, you can call yourself dedicated and it might even apply to you personally, overall though for people who spend a serious majority of time on a video game, you can consider them hardcore at x amount of hours per day. On the topic of reading comprehension, if you need to go into details of a definition to find loopholes as to why a certain term might or might not apply to you, you are looking for ways out. Or do you feel just as close to stigmas in that definition as being out of shape and with poor hygene? Even casual as term does not fit your x hours per day approach: > casual > ˈkaʒjʊəl/ > adjective > adjective: casual > > 1. > relaxed and unconcerned. > 2. > not regular or permanent > 3. > happening by chance; accidental. > Playing daily over 2-3 hours is definitely not casual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gehenna.3625 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > Depends on what content you like and what type of player you are. Breaking it down I'd say: > > > > > > > > > > - ultra hardcore 6+ hours per day game time -> by far not enough unless the player finds ways to extend longevity with crafting multiple legendarys, running content multiple times, etc. > > > > > > > > > > - hardcore 3+ hours per day -> will still reach the boundaries of what can be done. If not achievement hunting, definitely not enough content > > > > > > > > > > - gamer 1-2 hours per day -> barely enough content, will have to take breaks and let content catch up > > > > > > > > > > - semi-casual gamer with a couple of nights per week game time -> game should be fine content wise > > > > > > > > > > - ultra-casual gamer with a couple of hours per week top -> have you left core Tyria yet? > > > > > > > > I think you make a big mistake here in linking hardcore/casual to time played. A player can play 6+ hours a day and still be casual. Hardcore or casual refers more to how deep you are into the more difficult content like raiding and higher level fractals and PvP modes. The term for a player who plays a lot but isn't a hardcore player would be a dedicated player. I easily play 4 hours a day most days but I don't consider myself hardcore because I don't care about the harder content in this game. I just do stuff like map completion, crafting, some collections and masteries. > > > > > > > > But to be hardcore I'd have to dive into the meta and git gud. Although I like to have some sense to my builds, I am not interested in going hardcore in this game. For me to be interested in that the classes and combat in general would have to be more interesting to me and I don't really see them making such big changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was using the term in relation to time spent in game. Reason being simple: more time spent is likely directly affecting content consumed which directly relates to this topic. Sure there might be a ton of people semi-afk in town just chatting with friends who do not consume content as fast as others, I'd wager those are in the minority though. > > > > > > > Hardcore Gamer > > > > Someone who plays video games as a primary hobby. They tend to spend large amounts of time playing games, often in excess of two or three hours a day. > > > > > > > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hardcore%20Gamer > > > > > > You can call yourself dedicated if it makes you feel better, besides being a different term, it changes nothing in relation to time spent and content consumed (and using a less stigmatic term). I've personally never assumed hardcore gamers to have to "get gud", it was always a function of time spent (both for the term hardcore as well as casual) for me. > > > > Well it's not about what makes me feel better but I know there are people who play a lot of hours and do not consume content as fast. Casual players often go through content more slowly because they are no so driven to get from A to B but are more about the journey than the destination. So that's why the comparison purely on time spent is too simplistic. > > > > The irony is that if you keep reading the explanation of a hardcore gamer that you linked there, you see exactly what I am talking about. It confirms that challenge is a key element of hardcore games. > > > > You really should read more than just the first couple of lines. > > Again, I explained how I used the term and how I feel it will apply to a vast majority of players. Yes, time is not the only constant, it is the most reliable to separate the biggest majority and categorize gamers. The unique snowflake cases of casual players who spend tons of time in-game yet are so casual that the term might apply will be a strong minority. Time spent on just about anything often correlates to commitment, that's a fact of life. > > So again, you can call yourself dedicated and it might even apply to you personally, overall though for people who spend a serious majority of time on a video game, you can consider them hardcore at x amount of hours per day. > > On the topic of reading comprehension, if you need to go into details of a definition to find loopholes as to why a certain term might or might not apply to you, you are looking for ways out. Or do you feel just as close to stigmas in that definition as being out of shape and with poor hygene? > > Even casual as term does not fit your x hours per day approach: > > casual > > ˈkaʒjʊəl/ > > adjective > > adjective: casual > > > > 1. > > relaxed and unconcerned. > > 2. > > not regular or permanent > > 3. > > happening by chance; accidental. > > > > Playing daily over 2-3 hours is definitely not casual. Here's the thing. When dictionaries give 3 meanings, it generally means it can be used in 3 different ways. So you should again read more carefully and understand that this means that there are different ways of using the term. I use the first meaning (relaxed and unconcerned) and you take the second one (not regular or permanent). So that's why we feel differently about the meaning of the word. But the word itself should not be the focus, because discussing that will not end. We are both right, but in a different way. That will simply never be resolved as a discussion point. So let's talk about what's behind the terms for us rather than the words themselves. You see, we can play the definition game all day but **the actual point that matters is that time played is not a sufficient indicator by itself** , at least in my view, because the speed of consumption of content varies wildly and so does the choice of content. Also replay value matters a lot. So whatever you want to call it, it's too simplistic to just talk about time played. It's a one-dimensional comparison in a multi-dimensional situation. It simply falls short of reality and your assertion that it fits most players is nothing more than an assumption that I do not share. So even if we take your definition, just for the sake of the argument, that hardcore is just about time played, then my point is and has been that that is too simplistic a view because I do not believe that people consume content roughly at the same speed and not everybody is interested in all of the content that is available. So to me it's important that next to the dimension of time played, you also consider the speed of content consumption per hour if you will and you have to consider the fact that a lot of players only play certain parts of the content. This matter of playstyle and choice of content greatly affects how much content you consume and how quickly you need more content. So call it what you want to but time played is too simplistic a measurement in my view and I think that I've made it clear why I feel that way. It's just my view on the situation but if you feel that choice of content, speed of playing content and replay value can be ignored, then that's our disagreement more than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > Depends on what content you like and what type of player you are. Breaking it down I'd say: > > > > > > > > > > > > - ultra hardcore 6+ hours per day game time -> by far not enough unless the player finds ways to extend longevity with crafting multiple legendarys, running content multiple times, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > - hardcore 3+ hours per day -> will still reach the boundaries of what can be done. If not achievement hunting, definitely not enough content > > > > > > > > > > > > - gamer 1-2 hours per day -> barely enough content, will have to take breaks and let content catch up > > > > > > > > > > > > - semi-casual gamer with a couple of nights per week game time -> game should be fine content wise > > > > > > > > > > > > - ultra-casual gamer with a couple of hours per week top -> have you left core Tyria yet? > > > > > > > > > > I think you make a big mistake here in linking hardcore/casual to time played. A player can play 6+ hours a day and still be casual. Hardcore or casual refers more to how deep you are into the more difficult content like raiding and higher level fractals and PvP modes. The term for a player who plays a lot but isn't a hardcore player would be a dedicated player. I easily play 4 hours a day most days but I don't consider myself hardcore because I don't care about the harder content in this game. I just do stuff like map completion, crafting, some collections and masteries. > > > > > > > > > > But to be hardcore I'd have to dive into the meta and git gud. Although I like to have some sense to my builds, I am not interested in going hardcore in this game. For me to be interested in that the classes and combat in general would have to be more interesting to me and I don't really see them making such big changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was using the term in relation to time spent in game. Reason being simple: more time spent is likely directly affecting content consumed which directly relates to this topic. Sure there might be a ton of people semi-afk in town just chatting with friends who do not consume content as fast as others, I'd wager those are in the minority though. > > > > > > > > > Hardcore Gamer > > > > > Someone who plays video games as a primary hobby. They tend to spend large amounts of time playing games, often in excess of two or three hours a day. > > > > > > > > > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hardcore%20Gamer > > > > > > > > You can call yourself dedicated if it makes you feel better, besides being a different term, it changes nothing in relation to time spent and content consumed (and using a less stigmatic term). I've personally never assumed hardcore gamers to have to "get gud", it was always a function of time spent (both for the term hardcore as well as casual) for me. > > > > > > Well it's not about what makes me feel better but I know there are people who play a lot of hours and do not consume content as fast. Casual players often go through content more slowly because they are no so driven to get from A to B but are more about the journey than the destination. So that's why the comparison purely on time spent is too simplistic. > > > > > > The irony is that if you keep reading the explanation of a hardcore gamer that you linked there, you see exactly what I am talking about. It confirms that challenge is a key element of hardcore games. > > > > > > You really should read more than just the first couple of lines. > > > > Again, I explained how I used the term and how I feel it will apply to a vast majority of players. Yes, time is not the only constant, it is the most reliable to separate the biggest majority and categorize gamers. The unique snowflake cases of casual players who spend tons of time in-game yet are so casual that the term might apply will be a strong minority. Time spent on just about anything often correlates to commitment, that's a fact of life. > > > > So again, you can call yourself dedicated and it might even apply to you personally, overall though for people who spend a serious majority of time on a video game, you can consider them hardcore at x amount of hours per day. > > > > On the topic of reading comprehension, if you need to go into details of a definition to find loopholes as to why a certain term might or might not apply to you, you are looking for ways out. Or do you feel just as close to stigmas in that definition as being out of shape and with poor hygene? > > > > Even casual as term does not fit your x hours per day approach: > > > casual > > > ˈkaʒjʊəl/ > > > adjective > > > adjective: casual > > > > > > 1. > > > relaxed and unconcerned. > > > 2. > > > not regular or permanent > > > 3. > > > happening by chance; accidental. > > > > > > > Playing daily over 2-3 hours is definitely not casual. > > Here's the thing. When dictionaries give 3 meanings, it generally means it can be used in 3 different ways. So you should again read more carefully and understand that this means that there are different ways of using the term. I use the first meaning (relaxed and unconcerned) and you take the second one (not regular or permanent). So that's why we feel differently about the meaning of the word. But the word itself should not be the focus, because discussing that will not end. We are both right, but in a different way. That will simply never be resolved as a discussion point. > > So let's talk about what's behind the terms for us rather than the words themselves. You see, we can play the definition game all day but **the actual point that matters is that time played is not a sufficient indicator by itself** , at least in my view, because the speed of consumption of content varies wildly and so does the choice of content. Also replay value matters a lot. So whatever you want to call it, it's too simplistic to just talk about time played. It's a one-dimensional comparison in a multi-dimensional situation. It simply falls short of reality and your assertion that it fits most players is nothing more than an assumption that I do not share. I never said differently, in all cases though, more time spent will almost always lead to more content consumption. I've said so multiple times by now. The differing rate between players is of no consequence or little consequence to the survey at hand with its limited nature. My argument and statement even after clarifications was: more time spent will create more content consumed at each individuals pace, you were the one who brought in semantics to which I explained why I used the terms I used. > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > So even if we take your definition, just for the sake of the argument, that hardcore is just about time played, then my point is and has been that that is too simplistic a view because I do not believe that people consume content roughly at the same speed and not everybody is interested in all of the content that is available. So to me it's important that next to the dimension of time played, you also consider the speed of content consumption per hour if you will and you have to consider the fact that a lot of players only play certain parts of the content. This matter of playstyle and choice of content greatly affects how much content you consume and how quickly you need more content. So call it what you want to but time played is too simplistic a measurement in my view and I think that I've made it clear why I feel that way. Agreed, and what does this have to do with terminology used? This might relate to the to simple question of the TC but I don't see how this relates to anything I said while answering in the scope of what TC had asked. Could there be a more in-depth and precise analysis and distinction between how fast content is consumed, by whom and in what way, etc.? Sure, but that was neither TCs goal, nor mine. > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > It's just my view on the situation but if you feel that choice of content, speed of playing content and replay value can be ignored, then that's our disagreement more than anything else. Sure they do, and all of them are affected by time spent in one way: more time spent, more content consumed even if the pacing between two different individuals might be different. Here again, the terminology (calling people who spend more than 3 hours daily hardcore) I used makes no distinctions how far some one got in the time allocated. I merely stated that if someone devotes x amount of hours daily no matter how efficient he clears content, I consider him a hardcore gamer. I base that not on any content consumption but plain and simple on real life time allocation to an activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taygus.4571 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 There's plenty for me to do, that I find it hard to "keep up".. and I don't even (for the most part) play LW story. xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gehenna.3625 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > Depends on what content you like and what type of player you are. Breaking it down I'd say: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ultra hardcore 6+ hours per day game time -> by far not enough unless the player finds ways to extend longevity with crafting multiple legendarys, running content multiple times, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - hardcore 3+ hours per day -> will still reach the boundaries of what can be done. If not achievement hunting, definitely not enough content > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - gamer 1-2 hours per day -> barely enough content, will have to take breaks and let content catch up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - semi-casual gamer with a couple of nights per week game time -> game should be fine content wise > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ultra-casual gamer with a couple of hours per week top -> have you left core Tyria yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you make a big mistake here in linking hardcore/casual to time played. A player can play 6+ hours a day and still be casual. Hardcore or casual refers more to how deep you are into the more difficult content like raiding and higher level fractals and PvP modes. The term for a player who plays a lot but isn't a hardcore player would be a dedicated player. I easily play 4 hours a day most days but I don't consider myself hardcore because I don't care about the harder content in this game. I just do stuff like map completion, crafting, some collections and masteries. > > > > > > > > > > > > But to be hardcore I'd have to dive into the meta and git gud. Although I like to have some sense to my builds, I am not interested in going hardcore in this game. For me to be interested in that the classes and combat in general would have to be more interesting to me and I don't really see them making such big changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was using the term in relation to time spent in game. Reason being simple: more time spent is likely directly affecting content consumed which directly relates to this topic. Sure there might be a ton of people semi-afk in town just chatting with friends who do not consume content as fast as others, I'd wager those are in the minority though. > > > > > > > > > > > Hardcore Gamer > > > > > > Someone who plays video games as a primary hobby. They tend to spend large amounts of time playing games, often in excess of two or three hours a day. > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hardcore%20Gamer > > > > > > > > > > You can call yourself dedicated if it makes you feel better, besides being a different term, it changes nothing in relation to time spent and content consumed (and using a less stigmatic term). I've personally never assumed hardcore gamers to have to "get gud", it was always a function of time spent (both for the term hardcore as well as casual) for me. > > > > > > > > Well it's not about what makes me feel better but I know there are people who play a lot of hours and do not consume content as fast. Casual players often go through content more slowly because they are no so driven to get from A to B but are more about the journey than the destination. So that's why the comparison purely on time spent is too simplistic. > > > > > > > > The irony is that if you keep reading the explanation of a hardcore gamer that you linked there, you see exactly what I am talking about. It confirms that challenge is a key element of hardcore games. > > > > > > > > You really should read more than just the first couple of lines. > > > > > > Again, I explained how I used the term and how I feel it will apply to a vast majority of players. Yes, time is not the only constant, it is the most reliable to separate the biggest majority and categorize gamers. The unique snowflake cases of casual players who spend tons of time in-game yet are so casual that the term might apply will be a strong minority. Time spent on just about anything often correlates to commitment, that's a fact of life. > > > > > > So again, you can call yourself dedicated and it might even apply to you personally, overall though for people who spend a serious majority of time on a video game, you can consider them hardcore at x amount of hours per day. > > > > > > On the topic of reading comprehension, if you need to go into details of a definition to find loopholes as to why a certain term might or might not apply to you, you are looking for ways out. Or do you feel just as close to stigmas in that definition as being out of shape and with poor hygene? > > > > > > Even casual as term does not fit your x hours per day approach: > > > > casual > > > > ˈkaʒjʊəl/ > > > > adjective > > > > adjective: casual > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > relaxed and unconcerned. > > > > 2. > > > > not regular or permanent > > > > 3. > > > > happening by chance; accidental. > > > > > > > > > > Playing daily over 2-3 hours is definitely not casual. > > > > Here's the thing. When dictionaries give 3 meanings, it generally means it can be used in 3 different ways. So you should again read more carefully and understand that this means that there are different ways of using the term. I use the first meaning (relaxed and unconcerned) and you take the second one (not regular or permanent). So that's why we feel differently about the meaning of the word. But the word itself should not be the focus, because discussing that will not end. We are both right, but in a different way. That will simply never be resolved as a discussion point. > > > > So let's talk about what's behind the terms for us rather than the words themselves. You see, we can play the definition game all day but **the actual point that matters is that time played is not a sufficient indicator by itself** , at least in my view, because the speed of consumption of content varies wildly and so does the choice of content. Also replay value matters a lot. So whatever you want to call it, it's too simplistic to just talk about time played. It's a one-dimensional comparison in a multi-dimensional situation. It simply falls short of reality and your assertion that it fits most players is nothing more than an assumption that I do not share. > > I never said differently, in all cases though, more time spent will almost always lead to more content consumption. I've said so multiple times by now. The differing rate between players is of no consequence or little consequence to the survey at hand with its limited nature. My argument and statement even after clarifications was: more time spent will create more content consumed at each individuals pace, you were the one who brought in semantics to which I explained why I used the terms I used. > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > So even if we take your definition, just for the sake of the argument, that hardcore is just about time played, then my point is and has been that that is too simplistic a view because I do not believe that people consume content roughly at the same speed and not everybody is interested in all of the content that is available. So to me it's important that next to the dimension of time played, you also consider the speed of content consumption per hour if you will and you have to consider the fact that a lot of players only play certain parts of the content. This matter of playstyle and choice of content greatly affects how much content you consume and how quickly you need more content. So call it what you want to but time played is too simplistic a measurement in my view and I think that I've made it clear why I feel that way. > > Agreed, and what does this have to do with terminology used? This might relate to the to simple question of the TC but I don't see how this relates to anything I said while answering in the scope of what TC had asked. > > Could there be a more in-depth and precise analysis and distinction between how fast content is consumed, by whom and in what way, etc.? Sure, but that was neither TCs goal, nor mine. > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > It's just my view on the situation but if you feel that choice of content, speed of playing content and replay value can be ignored, then that's our disagreement more than anything else. > > Sure they do, and all of them are affected by time spent in one way: more time spent, more content consumed even if the pacing between two different individuals might be different. > > Here again, the terminology (calling people who spend more than 3 hours daily hardcore) I used makes no distinctions how far some one got in the time allocated. I merely stated that if someone devotes x amount of hours daily no matter how efficient he clears content, I consider him a hardcore gamer. I base that not on any content consumption but plain and simple on real life time allocation to an activity. Well, from where I'm sitting you're contradicting yourself. You can't really say that it's good enough and then say those other factors do matter. If they matter, they should be included. This is also the reason I told the OP that it's hard for me to answer his poll because it doesn't take enough variables into account. If it was your intent to keep it simple, then clearly you succeeded, but from my point of view it is so simplistic that it is also futile and has no actual value. The main reason for this is found in your statement where you say: "in all cases though, more time spent will almost always lead to more content consumption." Aside from the strange phrasing where you start with "in all cases" and then go to "almost always", which is also inconsistent, that phrase is problematic because it's not factually true either way and the rate of content consumption still is very different from person to person. It's not factually true because when people only do PvP or WvW, they use the same maps over and over. So, no matter how many hours they play, they do not use up more content. This is the replay value element. The other issue is that it's very personal what the effect is. There are people who have played this game for years and have not reached level 80 even and haven't seen all this game has to offer. And yet they play many hours. Some people have only played a few classes or races. So there is more content that they choose not to use or haven't gotten to yet, etc. Now clearly, when a person plays and they don't restrict themselves to PvP/WvW, then when people play, most of the time, people will consume more content. Perhaps that is what you meant to say. Of course, if you run through all the content you are interested in, in a few months and then just farm/grind and do your daily routine, your need for new content will be greater than someone who has played the same amount of time but hasn't even finished vanilla. And these people really do exist. Just like you I have no numbers to give any indication of how many, but I was surprised to find out that these people do exist and enjoy the game in an entirely different way than I would. In fact I've learned a little from that. And finally, I agree the OP has a very limited scope, which also makes it a futile poll which will give meaningless results. That notwithstanding, the question of whether you feel that the game has enough content has most certainly everything to do with how fast you go through content and what the replay value is of said content. So I do not agree that time spent is sufficient, even with his limited scope. So, before we go into circles. Feel free to reply as you see fit. I do not need the final word and if you want it, you can have it. But I will now simply offer a hand and agree to disagree with you on this matter. I do not believe anything fruitful will come from continuing on, but thanks for the exchange! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taygus.4571 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > Depends on what content you like and what type of player you are. Breaking it down I'd say: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ultra hardcore 6+ hours per day game time -> by far not enough unless the player finds ways to extend longevity with crafting multiple legendarys, running content multiple times, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - hardcore 3+ hours per day -> will still reach the boundaries of what can be done. If not achievement hunting, definitely not enough content > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - gamer 1-2 hours per day -> barely enough content, will have to take breaks and let content catch up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - semi-casual gamer with a couple of nights per week game time -> game should be fine content wise > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ultra-casual gamer with a couple of hours per week top -> have you left core Tyria yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you make a big mistake here in linking hardcore/casual to time played. A player can play 6+ hours a day and still be casual. Hardcore or casual refers more to how deep you are into the more difficult content like raiding and higher level fractals and PvP modes. The term for a player who plays a lot but isn't a hardcore player would be a dedicated player. I easily play 4 hours a day most days but I don't consider myself hardcore because I don't care about the harder content in this game. I just do stuff like map completion, crafting, some collections and masteries. > > > > > > > > > > > > But to be hardcore I'd have to dive into the meta and git gud. Although I like to have some sense to my builds, I am not interested in going hardcore in this game. For me to be interested in that the classes and combat in general would have to be more interesting to me and I don't really see them making such big changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was using the term in relation to time spent in game. Reason being simple: more time spent is likely directly affecting content consumed which directly relates to this topic. Sure there might be a ton of people semi-afk in town just chatting with friends who do not consume content as fast as others, I'd wager those are in the minority though. > > > > > > > > > > > Hardcore Gamer > > > > > > Someone who plays video games as a primary hobby. They tend to spend large amounts of time playing games, often in excess of two or three hours a day. > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hardcore%20Gamer > > > > > > > > > > You can call yourself dedicated if it makes you feel better, besides being a different term, it changes nothing in relation to time spent and content consumed (and using a less stigmatic term). I've personally never assumed hardcore gamers to have to "get gud", it was always a function of time spent (both for the term hardcore as well as casual) for me. > > > > > > > > Well it's not about what makes me feel better but I know there are people who play a lot of hours and do not consume content as fast. Casual players often go through content more slowly because they are no so driven to get from A to B but are more about the journey than the destination. So that's why the comparison purely on time spent is too simplistic. > > > > > > > > The irony is that if you keep reading the explanation of a hardcore gamer that you linked there, you see exactly what I am talking about. It confirms that challenge is a key element of hardcore games. > > > > > > > > You really should read more than just the first couple of lines. > > > > > > Again, I explained how I used the term and how I feel it will apply to a vast majority of players. Yes, time is not the only constant, it is the most reliable to separate the biggest majority and categorize gamers. The unique snowflake cases of casual players who spend tons of time in-game yet are so casual that the term might apply will be a strong minority. Time spent on just about anything often correlates to commitment, that's a fact of life. > > > > > > So again, you can call yourself dedicated and it might even apply to you personally, overall though for people who spend a serious majority of time on a video game, you can consider them hardcore at x amount of hours per day. > > > > > > On the topic of reading comprehension, if you need to go into details of a definition to find loopholes as to why a certain term might or might not apply to you, you are looking for ways out. Or do you feel just as close to stigmas in that definition as being out of shape and with poor hygene? > > > > > > Even casual as term does not fit your x hours per day approach: > > > > casual > > > > ˈkaʒjʊəl/ > > > > adjective > > > > adjective: casual > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > relaxed and unconcerned. > > > > 2. > > > > not regular or permanent > > > > 3. > > > > happening by chance; accidental. > > > > > > > > > > Playing daily over 2-3 hours is definitely not casual. > > > > Here's the thing. When dictionaries give 3 meanings, it generally means it can be used in 3 different ways. So you should again read more carefully and understand that this means that there are different ways of using the term. I use the first meaning (relaxed and unconcerned) and you take the second one (not regular or permanent). So that's why we feel differently about the meaning of the word. But the word itself should not be the focus, because discussing that will not end. We are both right, but in a different way. That will simply never be resolved as a discussion point. > > > > So let's talk about what's behind the terms for us rather than the words themselves. You see, we can play the definition game all day but **the actual point that matters is that time played is not a sufficient indicator by itself** , at least in my view, because the speed of consumption of content varies wildly and so does the choice of content. Also replay value matters a lot. So whatever you want to call it, it's too simplistic to just talk about time played. It's a one-dimensional comparison in a multi-dimensional situation. It simply falls short of reality and your assertion that it fits most players is nothing more than an assumption that I do not share. > > I never said differently, in all cases though, more time spent will almost always lead to more content consumption. I've said so multiple times by now. The differing rate between players is of no consequence or little consequence to the survey at hand with its limited nature. My argument and statement even after clarifications was: more time spent will create more content consumed at each individuals pace, you were the one who brought in semantics to which I explained why I used the terms I used. > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > So even if we take your definition, just for the sake of the argument, that hardcore is just about time played, then my point is and has been that that is too simplistic a view because I do not believe that people consume content roughly at the same speed and not everybody is interested in all of the content that is available. So to me it's important that next to the dimension of time played, you also consider the speed of content consumption per hour if you will and you have to consider the fact that a lot of players only play certain parts of the content. This matter of playstyle and choice of content greatly affects how much content you consume and how quickly you need more content. So call it what you want to but time played is too simplistic a measurement in my view and I think that I've made it clear why I feel that way. > > Agreed, and what does this have to do with terminology used? This might relate to the to simple question of the TC but I don't see how this relates to anything I said while answering in the scope of what TC had asked. > > Could there be a more in-depth and precise analysis and distinction between how fast content is consumed, by whom and in what way, etc.? Sure, but that was neither TCs goal, nor mine. > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said: > > > > It's just my view on the situation but if you feel that choice of content, speed of playing content and replay value can be ignored, then that's our disagreement more than anything else. > > Sure they do, and all of them are affected by time spent in one way: more time spent, more content consumed even if the pacing between two different individuals might be different. > > Here again, the terminology (calling people who spend more than 3 hours daily hardcore) I used makes no distinctions how far some one got in the time allocated. I merely stated that if someone devotes x amount of hours daily no matter how efficient he clears content, I consider him a hardcore gamer. I base that not on any content consumption but plain and simple on real life time allocation to an activity. That's a pretty odd and limited way of defining "hard care gamers".... If they spend 5 hours gathering nodes... they're hard core? 0o In this game I would consider higher skilled gamers that play the challenging content hard core. Why would time come into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukenukem.9072 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 Either more frequent content or more in depth content that we can sink time into. The quality of the living world this season is an easy 10/10 for me. I would however like the maps to have more reasons to replay or spend more time in. Maybe tie new skins for weapons/armor to certain bosses like they did in guild wars 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blambidy.3216 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 I believe it is more then enough. Especially since the living seasons are free if you log in, in time. As much as people don’t pay attention. The last episode we got a new legendary, mount, chapter. We got a new gear stat to test out on new builds. A new map, new meta event, events. Achievements. All of that for free. if people wanted more content, we could get the community to pay for the more content. But everyone wants free for the price of the expansion they paid. So for the price of free, it’s more then enough. As much as people say they are finished with everything. I truly believe they are lying. There is so much content in this game it’s a hard direction to bring out because there is so much. I doubt everyone who says there isn’t enough content finished all raid wings and all raid cms. Got atleast 3 characters full 150 ar, and finished fractal Cms. Finished all legendaries, or have all characters fully ascended. Mastery points close to 280. Achievement points at 30,000. Have all the dungeon skins, finished exotic collection skins. Finished specialization collections. Have all map completion. Not just tyria but hot and pof also. Finish wvw map completion. There’s just so many things in this game it’s hard to say, “Did Arenanet give us enough?” It’s more like people don’t understand what to do because there is so many things to do in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthe.3578 Posted August 17, 2018 Author Share Posted August 17, 2018 > @"blambidy.3216" said: > I believe it is more then enough. Especially since the living seasons are free if you log in, in time. As much as people don’t pay attention. > > The last episode we got a new legendary, mount, chapter. We got a new gear stat to test out on new builds. A new map, new meta event, events. > Achievements. > > All of that for free. if people wanted more content, we could get the community to pay for the more content. But everyone wants free for the price of the expansion they paid. So for the price of free, it’s more then enough. > > As much as people say they are finished with everything. I truly believe they are lying. There is so much content in this game it’s a hard direction to bring out because there is so much. > > I doubt everyone who says there isn’t enough content finished all raid wings and all raid cms. Got atleast 3 characters full 150 ar, and finished fractal Cms. > > Finished all legendaries, or have all characters fully ascended. Mastery points close to 280. Achievement points at 30,000. > Have all the dungeon skins, finished exotic collection skins. Finished specialization collections. Have all map completion. Not just tyria but hot and pof also. > Finish wvw map completion. > > There’s just so many things in this game it’s hard to say, “Did Arenanet give us enough?” > It’s more like people don’t understand what to do because there is so many things to do in the game. > The question is if theres enough content youre interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote.8391 Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 I know I haven't run out of stuff to do even after 4 years, so in my opinion there's more than enough content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now