Losing my friends

[nosleepdemon.1368]

All my IRL friends quit within the first month of release. At this point I have been a part of two guilds which both died within about a year of forming. All I have left now are my one man storage guild and my sad collection of w1/w2 super adventure weapons that shall never see a complete collection, as SAB is truly dead. If I could solo it, I would get a guild hall just to sit alone amongst the pile of clouds I have earned.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

Guilds going dark happens to all games as people start playing, play for some time then leave for multiples of reasons. It’s common and without vigorous and continuous recruiting it will happen to the guild you are in. Even WoW has threads complaining of guilds shutting down and the poster being the last person left out of a once busy guild. Just google a game’s name and the words guild dead/dying to find topics about it. Guilds dying are a normal occurrence in a game.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> > @"Biff.5312" said:

> > Your personal anecdotal evidence is not significant and no conclusions can be drawn from it.

> >

> > For instance, in my guild I've seen dozens of new players join in the past several months, and only seen one or two existing players stop coming around much. Nobody has quit the game to my knowledge and I still see the people I always did in chat/discord.

> >

> > The fact is that you simply aren't in a position to assess this based on 32 people you know.

>

> 30 people is considered enough to be statistically relevant. It won't necessarily paint 100% of the picture, but 30 is enough to start showing trends. That's basic stats.

>

Sorry, but I have to disagree. 30 is nowhere near a relevant sample size when considering the many thousands of accounts. It could show a trend, but that trend may not be indicative of the actual situation. Maybe these 30 live in a relatively close proximity and something local has caused them to no longer be able to log in (like a natural disaster or change in laws). When using statistics, one has to be very careful of the sample size and how it is generated.

 

 

[Leo G.4501]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> > > @"Biff.5312" said:

> > > Your personal anecdotal evidence is not significant and no conclusions can be drawn from it.

> > >

> > > For instance, in my guild I've seen dozens of new players join in the past several months, and only seen one or two existing players stop coming around much. Nobody has quit the game to my knowledge and I still see the people I always did in chat/discord.

> > >

> > > The fact is that you simply aren't in a position to assess this based on 32 people you know.

> >

> > 30 people is considered enough to be statistically relevant. It won't necessarily paint 100% of the picture, but 30 is enough to start showing trends. That's basic stats.

> >

> Sorry, but I have to disagree. 30 is nowhere near a relevant sample size when considering the many thousands of accounts. It could show a trend, but that trend may not be indicative of the actual situation. Maybe these 30 live in a relatively close proximity and something local has caused them to no longer be able to log in (like a natural disaster or change in laws). When using statistics, one has to be very careful of the sample size and how it is generated.

>

>

 

You can also use statistics to measure the probability of your hypothetical with consideration to relevant information such as how those 30 individuals were recruited.

 

I'd actually consider it unlikely that, even if they were all in a close proximity, they would all be affected similarly unless they were actually apart of the same neighborhood/household which is statistically unlikely.

[kharmin.7683]

True, but the point is we simply don't know enough about the sample size to make the conclusions that were being made.

[AgentMoore.9453]

Typically, when my friends move to other games, I retain their contact information and just... make new friends in whatever I'm currently playing. Changing interests is normal, and not always a sign that a game is in any kind of trouble.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> 30 people is considered enough to be statistically relevant. It won't necessarily paint 100% of the picture, but 30 is enough to start showing trends. That's basic stats.

No, 30 people isn't enough to be considered much of anything, unless the entire population under consideration is under 1000. In this case, the total number of people playing GW2 over the time period raised in the OP is far, far, far greater.

 

It's also not relevant _statistically_ because it's only a single guild. The following types of guilds would show similar attrition without having any relevance towards what's happening with the game: a guild with a temperamental GL, a group started by friends in college, a group of WoW refugees that go back whenever that game has an expac, and so on.

 

 

> When I came back from my break, my entire guild was completely dead because they all lost interest and left. I had to join a new one.

Again, I'm sorry that happened... but _you went on a break_; how can you not expect that other people in the game do the same thing?

 

>

> Given the recent Istan nerfs, I'm just going back to GW1 full time. Farming there isn't a sin. So you can count me among those leaving.

ANet nerfed farming in GW1 many, many times, for the same reasons. And for the same reasons, there remain many forms of farming in both games.

 

And ask yourself, honestly, if a nerf to a single farm in the game drives you away, what is it that you really like to do in games? Does it sound to you like your preferences line up with how the game is designed overall? Certainly, there's enough going on that all sorts of people can enjoy their time for a while before the mismatch of preference+design matters, but eventually, it catches up with everyone.

 

[Pomdepin.7068]

After more than 1000 hours, I am still in a lengthy break with no plan to come back for a few reasons. The main reason tying all the others is the obvious lack of novelty.

 

The game feels stale. When was the previous new thing? I mean really new. People are not excited for LW anymore because it brings nothing new. One new map with new currencies to grind to get a mediocre skin you’ll never really use. A fragment of a slow and rather uninteresting story every 4 months...

 

I would like them to take more risks to bring exciting things. New pvp modes, new dungeon-style instances, maybe new interesting world bosses, etc. I am also very much waiting for wvw alliances to be able to play with my friends if they ever come back. But we’ve been waiting for too long and it seems we’re still not close to see it.

 

No new expansion and more LW instead is a big disappointment as well. Expansions bring people back, make things more fresh with new themed maps, new atmosphere and new elite specs/ways to play your character.

 

Tdlr; There is nothing really new to look forward. Just the same boring copy-pasted updates with no incentives to play.

[Kal Spiro.9745]

> @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> > @"Biff.5312" said:

> > Your personal anecdotal evidence is not significant and no conclusions can be drawn from it.

> >

> > For instance, in my guild I've seen dozens of new players join in the past several months, and only seen one or two existing players stop coming around much. Nobody has quit the game to my knowledge and I still see the people I always did in chat/discord.

> >

> > The fact is that you simply aren't in a position to assess this based on 32 people you know.

>

> 30 people is considered enough to be statistically relevant. It won't necessarily paint 100% of the picture, but 30 is enough to start showing trends. That's basic stats.

>

> When I came back from my break, my entire guild was completely dead because they all lost interest and left. I had to join a new one.

>

> Given the recent Istan nerfs, I'm just going back to GW1 full time. Farming there isn't a sin. So you can count me among those leaving.

 

It's really not, as indicated by the extreme disparity in these two cases.

[Tiviana.2650]

I dont know seems more active to me lately. I see more people, and i dont get that server message to hop to a more populated phase much any more.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

Can u blame them? There’s a lot of great games out there to play.

[Jemmi.6058]

> @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> > @"Biff.5312" said:

> > Your personal anecdotal evidence is not significant and no conclusions can be drawn from it.

> >

> > For instance, in my guild I've seen dozens of new players join in the past several months, and only seen one or two existing players stop coming around much. Nobody has quit the game to my knowledge and I still see the people I always did in chat/discord.

> >

> > The fact is that you simply aren't in a position to assess this based on 32 people you know.

>

> 30 people is considered enough to be statistically relevant. It won't necessarily paint 100% of the picture, but 30 is enough to start showing trends. That's basic stats.

>

> When I came back from my break, my entire guild was completely dead because they all lost interest and left. I had to join a new one.

>

> Given the recent Istan nerfs, I'm just going back to GW1 full time. Farming there isn't a sin. So you can count me among those leaving.

 

Basic stats requires those 30 people be from a random sample of a representative base, as opposed to a self selected pool of people closer to you.

 

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"Junior.3928" said:

> I have to say the game is still good and feels quite fresh but the community has turned into this melodramatic child yelling "dead game" on every corner over meaningless things that were happening years ago as well.

 

Because it really is. It seems like you still have PoF to complete, that's why it's "fresh" to you. For those who didn't make a break 2 years ago like you, it's not - they completed it long ago, same as HoT. The game should have had at least twice as much expansions over those years, not just two. The volume of content in it is not sufficient for a long run (somebody playing regularly will finish any sensible activities in a 1-1.5 years; I'm not counting here getting different useless achievements (like, sitting on all chairs in the world, and collecting some useless trinkets, as those are worse kind of time killers and, imo, if you find yourself wasting your time like that, you seriously need to move on to something else), neither getting all legendaries (pretty pointless and quite boring, the process, I mean)).

 

Even worse, the actual content involving real gameplay is quite static. On a specific map there will always be the same set of events repeated on timer, and they will always have the same possible outcomes (usually just 2 possible outcomes, and often only success will start the next event in the chain, if any). Even in fractals, the only source of some fresh experience are instabilities - and there are a lot of people who want to remove even this last bit. You won't find really engaging, interesting AI opponents in Open World which cooperate, assess your skills and counteract them, use dodge and shield whenever possible, heal each other etc. Your only option for such kind of gameplay is PvP, but it's another extreme - and there is no middleground. The number one solution to any AI opponents in PvE is to "dps them out asap", and that's just boring gameplay and quickly start feel repetitive.

 

In other words, if you play game, not farm it, it's getting old pretty quickly, as the game lacks content, and the content which is there is very static and start instill boredom after you've done it a dozen or two of times each. Thus inevitably people will be running out of *meaningful* things to do and move on - until Anet will learn how to keep up with their playerbase and make their content more replayable.

[mauried.5608]

All games suffer from the content being exhausted by hard core players far faster than new content can be added.

The only way to fix this is by having a monthly sub like WOW does, which allows more graphic designers to be employed to make new content, but even with that, its still impossible to make new content as fast as players go thru the content.

If you have done everything in the game that you like , and find there is not much more to do, then you have finished the game and its time to find a new one.

Expecting that the game developer will simply keep adding content forever to keep you happy is totally unrealistic.

 

 

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"mauried.5608" said:

> The only way to fix this is by having a monthly sub like WOW does, which allows more graphic designers to be employed to make new content, but even with that, its still impossible to make new content as fast as players go thru the content.

 

Can't see how it is "the only way". I'm pretty sure if Anet would be issuing a new DLC yearly, 80% of active playerbase would buy it in a few subsequent months, and the rest would follow in a year or two, eventually. And the answer to replayability problem has been found long ago - adding more random factor to your content. More randomly generated events with a wide variety of conditions affecting how you need to tackle this encounter. If done right, it's an almost endless source of enjoyment for those who play the game for core gameplay, first of all (combat, character handling, exploration etc). For some reason Anet keep neglecting this option, while at the same time don't issue even remotely sufficient amounts of "static content", while relocating their resources to different projects, to boot. Nothing unusual that people are leaving now.

 

[Acheron.4731]

30-300 is considered normal sample sizes for 'any' study to reach statistical significance

 

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Acheron.4731" said:

> 30-300 is considered normal sample sizes for 'any' study to reach statistical significance

It depends entirely on what is being studied.

And it assumes that the samples are chosen randomly from the total population.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"Acheron.4731" said:

> 30-300 is considered normal sample sizes for 'any' study to reach statistical significance

>

>

 

If all 30-300 are in your guild then that’s not a random sample and isn’t a valid sample size.

 

[Dreamy Lu.3865]

For me it is different than OP: My friends - who were all with me in GW1 (still are) - joined with me in GW2 on beta day and are still all with me in game today. This is also true for a vast majority of my "game-friends" that I met over the years. It is true that a lot of things have changed, like no more being all in same guild, no more playing the same way, things like that, but we are still all here and enjoying. So I do not share the same feeling than OP.

Beside, I am also part of those who think that there is new content regularly enough and do not wish for more. I already lack the time to do all I want to do of the current game content. When I think about the almost infinite list of achievements all types, it is difficult for me to understand - although I know many are saying that - how it is possible to have nothing left to do with a need to see even more often new content added. :3

[Emberstone.2904]

 

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> > Given the recent Istan nerfs, I'm just going back to GW1 full time. Farming there isn't a sin. So you can count me among those leaving.

> ANet nerfed farming in GW1 many, many times, for the same reasons. And for the same reasons, there remain many forms of farming in both games.

>

> And ask yourself, honestly, if a nerf to a single farm in the game drives you away, what is it that you really like to do in games? Does it sound to you like your preferences line up with how the game is designed overall? Certainly, there's enough going on that all sorts of people can enjoy their time for a while before the mismatch of preference+design matters, but eventually, it catches up with everyone.

>

I liked having a chill place to earn gold so I can enjoy the occasional gem store item without having to pull out my credit card. No, I didn't play Istan 24/7. I played it maybe two hours max if I was going to do more than one or two GH's in a given session.

 

That's how this change feels to me: a push toward eliminating a large source of gold that I'm sure many people used on gems as I did. It feels like they're killing the farm off so we spend our dollars instead of our game time on stuff we want. It especially feels like that when they make a change that affects gameplay itself six years after the game released to push people toward gem store items (I'm referring to removing a Salvage Kit's ability to extract upgrades at a high chance of success, and instead forcing us to use overpriced Upgrade Extractors if we want to do that anymore).

 

I'm getting really tired of this crap in games today.

 

And yes, Anet did nerf plenty of GW1 farms, some pretty damn hard. But there are still a large number of extremely lucrative places to farm in GW1 and still were even after the nerfs. Where am I going to go in GW2 to get a similar level of return on my time spent? Silverwastes? Probably, but that is nowhere near as fun or interesting (to me) as taking down bosses and coordinating stuff with multiple commanders, even as a rando in the group (nor is it as lucrative most of the time).

 

When my friends aren't on, I like having something to do to pad my wallet and let myself get a treat from the gem store every now and again. I got both my Copper-Fed and Runecrafter's Salvage-o-Matics completely free just using the occasional Istan, because I enjoy that running place in my off time.

 

And that staple of my enjoyment in this game was taken from me, and don't give me crap like "it wasn't taken from you. It's still there!" You know what I meant. Makes me feel like I wasted my time on this game.

[Rasimir.6239]

> @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> I liked having a chill place to earn gold so I can enjoy the occasional gem store item without having to pull out my credit card. No, I didn't play Istan 24/7. I played it maybe two hours max if I was going to do more than one or two GH's in a given session.

>

> That's how this change feels to me: a push toward eliminating a large source of gold that I'm sure many people used on gems as I did.

The problem with Istan isn't that it's a source of gold, it's that it severely imbalanced the wealth aquisition towards the people who farmed it compared to those who did not. It has always been one of the major goals of this game to make wealth aquisition comparable no matter where and what you play (as long as you play events, instances, whatever of course, standing around in LA doesn't count ;) ). One specific meta chain/map being a lot more profitable than others works contrary to that goal.

 

You can still earn gold like every other person in this game, by simply playing the game. You can even play Istan and still get a good amount of wealth out of it. You just can't as easily grab more loot than others by repeating that single piece of content again and again and again.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"Cerioth.7062" said:

> I am a guild leader. From my experience people mostly come and go. Many take breaks and return later. Only few disappear permanently. Some people take very longer breaks, over a year or so.

 

You are a winner, and have made a valid point...I have personally done the above, took a year and a half off when LS1 came out...because I didn't care for the content. Came back before HoT, stuck the game pretty much every day up until several months ago. Now doing some single players games and when I feel like logging into GW2 I can, it's like a mobile game for PC, it's just to bad that those 3 billion mobile game players don't understand that.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> I liked having a chill place to earn gold so I can enjoy the occasional gem store item without having to pull out my credit card. No, I didn't play Istan 24/7. I played it maybe two hours max if I was going to do more than one or two GH's in a given session.

Sure, it's absolutely something that people enjoyed. Nevertheless, its existence was imbalancing for anyone who didn't join in.

 

> That's how this change feels to me: a push toward eliminating a large source of gold that I'm sure many people used on gems as I did.

It feels like that because it did eliminate a large source of gold. But that was the side effect of reducing the value so that it was more in line with the rest of the game.

 

> It feels like they're killing the farm off so we spend our dollars instead of our game time on stuff we want.

Now you're going from your preferences to extrapolating a motive for which there's no evidence. There is simply no way to normalize income in the game without either introducing rampant inflation (by increasing all sources to match) or tamping down the outlier (by decreasing a single source to match). Clearly, anyone using the outlier is going to suffer, whereas those using other methods will benefit.

 

> It especially feels like that when they make a change that affects gameplay itself six years after the game released to push people toward gem store items (I'm referring to removing a Salvage Kit's ability to extract upgrades at a high chance of success, and instead forcing us to use overpriced Upgrade Extractors if we want to do that anymore).

This is an interesting fallacy. The overall income from runes & sigils is somewhat higher now, because (a) we spend no time dealing with unwanted runes or sigils, (b) the value of loot is somewhat higher now, © the net value of the salvaged pieces is somewhat higher.

 

> And yes, Anet did nerf plenty of GW1 farms, some pretty kitten hard. But there are still a large number of extremely lucrative places to farm in GW1 and still were even after the nerfs.

As there are in GW2. The nerfs in GW1 were just as harsh.

 

> Where am I going to go in GW2 to get a similar level of return on my time spent? Silverwastes?

It's going to take some time to see which is best. However, the point again is that a high rate of return for a single part of the game is only good for those who like that farm.

 

> And that staple of my enjoyment in this game was taken from me, and don't give me kitten like "it wasn't taken from you. It's still there!" You know what I meant. Makes me feel like I wasted my time on this game.

If you grant that everyone is supposed to know what you mean by "was taken from me", then why aren't you accepting that ANet's intent wasn't to take it from you? You know what they meant, don't you? The goal was to grant something to the majority of players. The unfortunate fact is that in most social & economic changes, there are winners and losers. In this case, the winners are everyone who doesn't Istan, a bigger population.

 

[Moonjelly.3742]

Eh, it's the nature of the beast really, but I find that more people on my friends lists log into GW2 than the other MMO's I dabble in sometimes. I have found people just move on entirely out of gaming, take long breaks, or go to single player games. Very rarely does anyone I have played with stick with any online game.

 

WoW: Everyone I have played with over the years has quit the game entirely. I have 77 people on my battelent with only 8 of which have logged in over the past 6 months, and not to WoW.

SWTOR: Guild of 30 or so, I'm one of four who has logged in for well over a year.

ESO: Only have 2 friends that have played, but I'm the only one that has logged in for about a month.

GW2: Have a short list of 11 people I do stuff with off and on, 2 of which are friends. I see 3 people log in regularly, 1 every 6 months or so, the others haven't seen for years.

[Emberstone.2904]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> > I liked having a chill place to earn gold so I can enjoy the occasional gem store item without having to pull out my credit card. No, I didn't play Istan 24/7. I played it maybe two hours max if I was going to do more than one or two GH's in a given session.

> Sure, it's absolutely something that people enjoyed. Nevertheless, its existence was imbalancing for anyone who didn't join in.

>

> > That's how this change feels to me: a push toward eliminating a large source of gold that I'm sure many people used on gems as I did.

> It feels like that because it did eliminate a large source of gold. But that was the side effect of reducing the value so that it was more in line with the rest of the game.

>

> > It feels like they're killing the farm off so we spend our dollars instead of our game time on stuff we want.

> Now you're going from your preferences to extrapolating a motive for which there's no evidence. There is simply no way to normalize income in the game without either introducing rampant inflation (by increasing all sources to match) or tamping down the outlier (by decreasing a single source to match). Clearly, anyone using the outlier is going to suffer, whereas those using other methods will benefit.

>

> > It especially feels like that when they make a change that affects gameplay itself six years after the game released to push people toward gem store items (I'm referring to removing a Salvage Kit's ability to extract upgrades at a high chance of success, and instead forcing us to use overpriced Upgrade Extractors if we want to do that anymore).

> This is an interesting fallacy. The overall income from runes & sigils is somewhat higher now, because (a) we spend no time dealing with unwanted runes or sigils, (b) the value of loot is somewhat higher now, © the net value of the salvaged pieces is somewhat higher.

>

> > And yes, Anet did nerf plenty of GW1 farms, some pretty kitten hard. But there are still a large number of extremely lucrative places to farm in GW1 and still were even after the nerfs.

> As there are in GW2. The nerfs in GW1 were just as harsh.

>

> > Where am I going to go in GW2 to get a similar level of return on my time spent? Silverwastes?

> It's going to take some time to see which is best. However, the point again is that a high rate of return for a single part of the game is only good for those who like that farm.

>

> > And that staple of my enjoyment in this game was taken from me, and don't give me kitten like "it wasn't taken from you. It's still there!" You know what I meant. Makes me feel like I wasted my time on this game.

> If you grant that everyone is supposed to know what you mean by "was taken from me", then why aren't you accepting that ANet's intent wasn't to take it from you? You know what they meant, don't you? The goal was to grant something to the majority of players. The unfortunate fact is that in most social & economic changes, there are winners and losers. In this case, the winners are everyone who doesn't Istan, a bigger population.

>

 

If your points are true, then every profitable farm should get nerfed until it is near-worthless like Istan is. No event or location should be more profitable than the 2-4g per 15 minutes you get from your average Tequatl. We can't have any outliers, can we? Why have purpose-made locations in a giant world? Everything needs to be equal; nothing should be special or outstanding, and let nothing be farmable. If we're going to use the "everyone benefits but those using the outlier" line of thinking, let's even put raid tokens into world bosses. Right now, only raiders can benefit from them. There's some massive inequality in that system!

 

In my opinion, "everyone benefits" isn't a valid reason to make a change. Istan went on like this for over a year, and for some reason it's a problem now, right when Anet is going through financial trouble. Sure, I've got no evidence, but it's one hell of a coincidence. That's why I can't accept that Anet's intent supposedly wasn't to take Istan from me, because it might have been. That isn't farfetched in today's gaming industry.