Yargesh.4965 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > So why is them not responding to this thread an indication they don't do that? So you basically think that devs coming in to 'discuss' their communication in a hostile thread is the kind of communication you are primarily looking for from them? Jeez, you don't expect too much if that's what you are implying. > > I expect communication about the UI they added for legendary gear stat swap. > I expect communication about the UI used by the legendary runes and sigils (same as above). > I, and others, pointed out that the UI has issues simply by looking at the single image they had with the announcement. > > Fast forward 1 week and everything I didn't like about it is still there, zero changes. Would it be so hard to communicate that image 1 month before the update hit live? So we could give feedback, like I personally did, then there was an entire thread about it. Telling them that their UI needs work, so there was enough time to update it and make it actually useful. Why is asking for earlier communication so bad? > > But then we get posts like yours to "reserve judgment until it is released" and "you can't tell how something works from a picture". Well guess what, we CAN know how something works from a picture. We did. It was too late. Now we play the catch up game and wait for them to patch things, after they are released. I seriously hope build templates will have proper testing. I can just picture the scramble to meet your needs. "Oh no! Maddoctor.2738 expects this and that and the other, we must oh we must meet their every whim." Or maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. Anthem has what? One of the problems with Anthem is that they do not communicate enough, they make changes without even putting them in their update notes. They reverse features that are loved by the community (loot drops) because they make the game feel better, by calling them "bugs". They even gave a fake roadmap that they knew full well they couldn't follow. Wildstar had open communication about what exactly? Their pre-release videos detailing everything in the game? I'm not sure pre-release videos really count. All/most games communicate very much before they are released, to cause hype. Then they went silent until they went free-to-play. The rest is history. > I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. And I strongly suspect the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Yargesh.4965" said: > I can just picture the scramble to meet your needs. "Oh no! Maddoctor.2738 expects this and that and the other, we must oh we must meet their every whim." > Or maybe not. You'll find that unlike others I don't post all the time about changes, and never without giving proper feedback, so they'd be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterDapper.5984 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 It's really sad that some players can't or refuse to understand how important communication is to running a live game. It's business 101 to communicate with your clients in some capacity. If Anet doesn't start communicating with the playerbase in August-September and/or Living World Season 5 is a flop, this game is dead. Whole communities have already left for better games. Just look at FFXIV and Warframe. I'm only here because I have a sliver of hope that this game will make a come back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. > > Anthem has what? One of the problems with Anthem is that they do not communicate enough, they make changes without even putting them in their update notes. They reverse features that are loved by the community (loot drops) because they make the game feel better, by calling them "bugs". They even gave a fake roadmap that they knew full well they couldn't follow. > > Wildstar had open communication about what exactly? Their pre-release videos detailing everything in the game? I'm not sure pre-release videos really count. All/most games communicate very much before they are released, to cause hype. Then they went silent until they went free-to-play. The rest is history. > > > I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. > > And I strongly suspect the opposite. But I didn't make a statement that suggested that other games are successful because of communication you did. It's just your suspicious after all. You have no actual proof of that, because you didn't do what I said and look at every successful game and every failed one. In fact, Guild Wars 2 IS a successful game in spite of the lack of communications. Might it be more successful if they communicated. Maybe? And I do think there should be more communication. But communication from a company is only a small small part of a game's success. How could it possibly be otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > It seems as though 10 pages (so far) and over 12k views about ANET being silent..._speaks _volumes > > > > > > > > Again ... what do you want them to say in this thread to appease you? It's a little game ... because Anet has communicated since this thread was made .. but because they don't do it HERE ... it speaks volumes about how they communicate? No, it speaks WAY more about the people that complain about communication than it does about how Anet does it. > > > > > > > > This whole thread is nothing but a challenge to draw them into an argument. They just aren't going to do that. > > > > > > Not trying to draw in an argument. Just pointing out that people clearly desire more of a since of community with the devs, that is all. > > > > So why is them not responding to this thread an indication they don't do that? So you basically think that devs coming in to 'discuss' their communication in a hostile thread is the kind of communication you are primarily looking for from them? Jeez, you don't expect too much if that's what you are implying. > > It isn't this thread I am specifically referring to. I am just saying 'in general' to any instances or possible grievances (e.g. delay on wvw alliances, falling pops, etc) or even to just say hello, we are glad to have you here today. I am actually not expecting too much at all I don't think. I am seeing little hostility, just concern about the game we all play. And it would be the same thing ... why would they waste time arguing with players in WHATEVER grievance thread you want to refer to ... this one, that one ... any. Look ... you know what to expect with this company and this game. It should really be of no surprise to anyone that they continue doing their standard thing ... and that should be players expectation, not make some exceptional requests then and raise the bar. The bottomline is that whatever your standard you have for anet's communication is not relevant. We know they communicate how they do it and we know they listen to players. Any posts or threads that indicate otherwise are just nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > But I didn't make a statement that suggested that other games are successful because of communication you did. It's just your suspicious after all. You have no actual proof of that, because you didn't do what I said and look at every successful game and every failed one. > > In fact, Guild Wars 2 IS a successful game in spite of the lack of communications. Might it be more successful if they communicated. Maybe? And I do think there should be more communication. But communication from a company is only a small small part of a game's success. How could it possibly be otherwise? Always going overboard. Why do I need to look at every successful/failed game to realize that releasing that single picture about the legendary rune/sigil interface would cause enough feedback for Arenanet change it? We have a very recent example of communicating faster meaning good for the game and communicating one week before release being bad. Or you think they won't change it and keep the interface as bad as it is? And if they also said in that post you'd need to confirm every time you swapped stats on legendary items, I'd tell them how horrible that change is too, so they would reconsider it. I stopped swapping stats on my legendary armor due to that, I'd rather have multiple ascended sets, it's faster and more convenient than pressing "yes" on a confirmation box every time I swap stats. Who thought of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. I already touched on both of those things. I've stated already in this very thread that I acknowledge that they have done things like that, with the Skyscale and Mount Adoption Licenses, and have swiftly attended to the issue. *However*, they have only consistently done things like that, in a timely manner, for things that might affect gem sales. I'll quote the post below. >! > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: >! > > @"Dami.5046" said: >! > > This is only an issue because some of you are making it so.No more no less. >! > >! > Not really. No. >! > >! > Imagine in the context of those examples I gave in my previous post, where say people did not raise a red flag over the Mount Adoption License. Would ANet, on its own, have actually done anything about that? They implemented it the way they did, after all, and they only altered things *after* it was brought to their attention "This isn't okay". However that still does apply to the problem I stated in the same post, they seem to only do that when it affects gem sales. Outside of that...not so much. >! > >! > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: >! > > > @"Dami.5046" said: >! > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. >! > > >! > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. >! > > >! > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. >! > >! > It really isn't a coincidence, I'm not sure why there are those in this thread or elsewhere that are set on ignoring that. Why is ANet any different than them under these circumstances? There have been clear issues, many of which unresolved, and ANet doesn't communicate properly. People stick around and play, certainly, and this has never been a "GW2 is dying/dead" thread, this has always been a thread about the desire for ANet to change their policy on communication with the community. Sure they've had a few stumbles, they've done a few AMAs and they've had issues with too much of the hype train blunting how the content is received at release, but they can't just sit back and not try to at least *try* to get the formula right. It doesn't *look* good much less get *received* very well when there are people voicing concerns, criticisms and loking to have their voice heard by ANet when there is something that affects the game and it just...doesn't get attended to. >! > >! > Yet we see instances of them near *immediately* attending to any problem that might affect gem store sales. >! > >! > Remember the skyscale time gating and how that got altered to how it is now? They saw people likely wouldn't bother getting the skyscale because of it and if people didn't get the skyscale then no one would buy the skyscale skins that released *the very next month*. They swiftly addressed it that month. >! > >! > Also remember when the Mount Adoption Licenses were first added? The whole controversy behind that and the RNG aspects to it that so many had a less than positive reaction to? The swiftly addressed it that month. >! > >! > Balance updates? Some bugs that have been around for years? Changes to sPvP or WvW? We're lucky to see any issues that appear addressed in the same year. >! > >! > Criticism shouldn't be punished, it shouldn't be ignored and often times the players can see something the Devs might not. As I've repeated before, they aren't infallible and it tends to fall to the community to call them on such instances where they make a mistake or the community sees something wrong or something that needs improvement. >! > >! > MO has said, or at least implied, that GW2 is a live service game...yet it doesn't *feel* that way these days. If you take Warframe as an example; that is for sure a *live service* game and they describe it as such, and they take full advantage of the valuable asset that is their community to help give the game better direction and improve it over time through feedback and interaction. There are some exceptions when it comes to the balance side of it, though. Such as when something is very plainly and clearly bugged or glitched. I also will admit that they attended to some balance changes, at least during *I believe* March and April, within a month of the initial changes but that seems to have since stopped. *However* we will see how soon they will release the changes in the previously linked thread by Irenio. > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > > > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > > > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. For one thing, only a small part of any games' audience follows games anything but casually. Wildstar had some open communication but a not so great release cycle as well as multiple changes to some aspects of gameplay that just didn't sit right. Also their releases mostly consisted of housing cosmetics. Things kinda changed with Wildstar a bit before and *especially* after Stephan Frost left Carbine. If Anthem had that kind of communication I'm fairly certain things wouldn't still be in such a dire state *5 months* after its release. Though, to be fair, maybe their big upcoming update might address a multitude of issues? Who knows. These games had other problems associated with them that resulted in their relative failures, many of which went unresolved or are as of yet unresolved in those two examples you gave. > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. > > > > Anthem has what? One of the problems with Anthem is that they do not communicate enough, they make changes without even putting them in their update notes. They reverse features that are loved by the community (loot drops) because they make the game feel better, by calling them "bugs". They even gave a fake roadmap that they knew full well they couldn't follow. > > > > Wildstar had open communication about what exactly? Their pre-release videos detailing everything in the game? I'm not sure pre-release videos really count. All/most games communicate very much before they are released, to cause hype. Then they went silent until they went free-to-play. The rest is history. > > > > > I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. > > > > And I strongly suspect the opposite. > > But I didn't make a statement that suggested that other games are successful because of communication you did. It's just your suspicious after all. You have no actual proof of that, because you didn't do what I said and look at every successful game and every failed one. > > In fact, Guild Wars 2 IS a successful game in spite of the lack of communications. Might it be more successful if they communicated. Maybe? And I do think there should be more communication. But communication from a company is only a small small part of a game's success. How could it possibly be otherwise? Successful can be subjective. Would you argue that the CoD franchise from Activision is still successful despite nearly all of their new CoD titles being damn near barren only a couple of months after release? I mean they are "remaking" CoD MW *again* for a reason, yet they will likely turn that game into an abomination with horrible monetization *just like* they did with others. No one is arguing GW2's success in the genre, though admittedly its a genre with not much going for it in the west so its almost literally the only option for many people and I've seen as much stated. The top MMORPGs in the west right now are FFXIV, WoW, ESO, GW2, Runescape (OSRS), BDO. Roughly in that order. Runescape is even celebrating 1 million subscribers this year...now I know GW2 has boasted "11 million" accounts...but they don't specify active, and the base game is also *free* so...we don't exactly have concrete evidence of "success" here when its embellished like that. However like I've said, *already*, in this thread before is that this has nothing to do with "GW2 is dying/dead". That isn't the conversation. The conversation is that many as dissatisfied with how communication and community engagement is being handled and that it does seem to be having a very visible effect on the direction of the game and whether or not people even want to care because it doesn't look like the devs do. This is all on the back of the lay offs and the community finding out that they had moved many devs onto other projects and, seemingly, only recently brought them back. I still remember seeing a GW2 stream a couple months back where one of the PvP devs from several years ago, like HoT several years ago, was actually on the stream and seemingly back on GW2. People are understandably concerned about GW2s direction, the approach to communication they've had for years now won't cut it anymore especially with the current state of balance and a number of things catching up to them. It just doesn't inspire confidence in ANet. Yet another thing I've repeated in this thread is that the ANet of today is not the ANet people seem to be describing in protest of this standpoint myself and many others have taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > It seems as though 10 pages (so far) and over 12k views about ANET being silent..._speaks _volumes > > > > > > > > > > Again ... what do you want them to say in this thread to appease you? It's a little game ... because Anet has communicated since this thread was made .. but because they don't do it HERE ... it speaks volumes about how they communicate? No, it speaks WAY more about the people that complain about communication than it does about how Anet does it. > > > > > > > > > > This whole thread is nothing but a challenge to draw them into an argument. They just aren't going to do that. > > > > > > > > Not trying to draw in an argument. Just pointing out that people clearly desire more of a since of community with the devs, that is all. > > > > > > So why is them not responding to this thread an indication they don't do that? So you basically think that devs coming in to 'discuss' their communication in a hostile thread is the kind of communication you are primarily looking for from them? Jeez, you don't expect too much if that's what you are implying. > > > > It isn't this thread I am specifically referring to. I am just saying 'in general' to any instances or possible grievances (e.g. delay on wvw alliances, falling pops, etc) or even to just say hello, we are glad to have you here today. I am actually not expecting too much at all I don't think. I am seeing little hostility, just concern about the game we all play. > > And it would be the same thing ... why would they waste time arguing with players in WHATEVER grievance thread you want to refer to ... this one, that one ... any. > > Look ... you know what to expect with this company and this game. It should really be of no surprise to anyone that they continue doing their standard thing ... and that should be players expectation, not make some exceptional requests then and raise the bar. The bottomline is that whatever your standard you have for anet's communication is not relevant. We know they communicate how they do it and we know they listen to players. Any posts or threads that indicate otherwise are just nonsense. Except we don't know that they listen to players. One post in who knows how long does not equal a trend, and we already have a number of examples that suggest otherwise when they continue to give the community a heads up on something new releasing but only a week in advance. Also we still had the situation where a big balance patch, with arguably drastic changes to gameplay, was announced on a Thursday that it would be releasing the following week yet their Friday stream was about something *completely unrelated*. Also we have already seen, with the Legendary Upgrades recently, that all of the criticism of the UI changes and the cost of Legendary Upgrades that was given *before* the release are all still repeated *now* after the release. Yet despite that we haven't heard anything of them heeding that feedback, acknowledging the problems or anything else. I'd go into more but I would be repeating myself more than I already have been. I understand that there are people that like the game, I understand you want to defend the game and the Dev company behind it, but please do not assume that criticism like this is intended to *hurt* them. It is intended to try and *help* by expressing concerns, warranted ones, based on observation and experience. I would very much like to defend ANet like it was still the company that I essentially *grew up with* from the year of 2005 until now but for myself, and others clearly, that just isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. But people are expected to only pay attention to information that supports the narrative they have created right? Any facts or information that contradicts this preconceived, constructed, narrative is supposed to be ignored, right? /s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. > > But people are expected to only pay attention to information that supports the narrative they have created right? Any facts or information that contradicts this preconceived, constructed, narrative is supposed to be ignored, right? > > /s Pssst. Read above, thats not what is happening here. Context. Its important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inculpatus cedo.9234 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 Actually, there are three recent examples. Check the 'News and Announcements' thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > Actually, there are three recent examples. Check the 'News and Announcements' thread. Like what? The post by Irenio on a balance related subject. 'Kay, one. The skyscale acquisition thread, which was already touched upon. The Istan changes? Sure, from 5 to 6 months ago. 7 if you count when they *initially* announced it. The update from ArenaNet? Yeah, after the layoffs were announced. Hasn't it already been established that its scarce communication? Also where in any of this is it consistent, or suggesting a trend, or relating to frequency? I see one that fits that description, but its one and thats the most recent. I see another that was from a few months ago, skyscale, and that just fits into previously established criteria that they only act swiftly if it might affect gem sales (see other posts for explanation). Another that is PvE changes but are, as was stated, from 5 to 6 months ago. Then we have the update from ArenaNet which was made after the layoffs were announced. I know I'm repeating myself in this post but I seem to be repeating myself over and over again regardless in this whole thread. Please, please look at the examples given of companies that communicate better than ANet *at this point*. Warframe being a big one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acheron.4731 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > It seems as though 10 pages (so far) and over 12k views about ANET being silent..._speaks _volumes > > > > > > > > > > Again ... what do you want them to say in this thread to appease you? It's a little game ... because Anet has communicated since this thread was made .. but because they don't do it HERE ... it speaks volumes about how they communicate? No, it speaks WAY more about the people that complain about communication than it does about how Anet does it. > > > > > > > > > > This whole thread is nothing but a challenge to draw them into an argument. They just aren't going to do that. > > > > > > > > Not trying to draw in an argument. Just pointing out that people clearly desire more of a since of community with the devs, that is all. > > > > > > So why is them not responding to this thread an indication they don't do that? So you basically think that devs coming in to 'discuss' their communication in a hostile thread is the kind of communication you are primarily looking for from them? Jeez, you don't expect too much if that's what you are implying. > > > > It isn't this thread I am specifically referring to. I am just saying 'in general' to any instances or possible grievances (e.g. delay on wvw alliances, falling pops, etc) or even to just say hello, we are glad to have you here today. I am actually not expecting too much at all I don't think. I am seeing little hostility, just concern about the game we all play. > > And it would be the same thing ... why would they waste time arguing with players in WHATEVER grievance thread you want to refer to ... this one, that one ... any. > > Look ... you know what to expect with this company and this game. It should really be of no surprise to anyone that they continue doing their standard thing ... and that should be players expectation, not make some exceptional requests then and raise the bar. The bottomline is that whatever your standard you have for anet's communication is not relevant. We know they communicate how they do it and we know they listen to players. Any posts or threads that indicate otherwise are just nonsense. It is NOT a surprise. That is what I would like to see change. Would you be terribly upset if they did communicate more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gehenna.3625 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > > > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > > > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. For one thing, only a small part of any games' audience follows games anything but casually. I have to disagree with you on Anthem. It had selective open communication. They talked about all the cool stuff but never mentioned the stuff they pulled and the game was released with all kinds of surprises of things they showed and mentioned before and never put into the game. Even the infamous E3 trailer was all lies. It was a trailer made to sell something they hadn't even made and ever since they were always happy to communicate about certain topics but failed to mention any failures or things they pulled or changed. That's NOT open communication. That's marketing covered up as open communication. Now Wild Star is a better example, I can see that for sure. But no way is Anthem an example of open communication. It's a great example of lying by omission and dodging questions they didn't want to answer because they knew it was not what people wanted to hear. Again, that's not open communication. Sorry, it just isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > > > > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > > > > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. > > > > But people are expected to only pay attention to information that supports the narrative they have created right? Any facts or information that contradicts this preconceived, constructed, narrative is supposed to be ignored, right? > > > > /s > > Pssst. Read above, thats not what is happening here. > > Context. Its important. Pssst. That is exactly what is happening in the post in question, as well as others. Reading comprehension. Its important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > > > > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > > > > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > > > > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > > > > > > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > > > > > > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. > > > > > > But people are expected to only pay attention to information that supports the narrative they have created right? Any facts or information that contradicts this preconceived, constructed, narrative is supposed to be ignored, right? > > > > > > /s > > > > Pssst. Read above, thats not what is happening here. > > > > Context. Its important. > > Pssst. That is exactly what is happening in the post in question, as well as others. > > Reading comprehension. Its important. Its possible I misunderstood how you were directing that comment. Were you being sarcastic towards that post or were you being sarcastic so as to support what that post is saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > But I didn't make a statement that suggested that other games are successful because of communication you did. It's just your suspicious after all. You have no actual proof of that, because you didn't do what I said and look at every successful game and every failed one. > > > > In fact, Guild Wars 2 IS a successful game in spite of the lack of communications. Might it be more successful if they communicated. Maybe? And I do think there should be more communication. But communication from a company is only a small small part of a game's success. How could it possibly be otherwise? > > Always going overboard. Why do I need to look at every successful/failed game to realize that releasing that single picture about the legendary rune/sigil interface would cause enough feedback for Arenanet change it? We have a very recent example of communicating faster meaning good for the game and communicating one week before release being bad. Or you think they won't change it and keep the interface as bad as it is? > > And if they also said in that post you'd need to confirm every time you swapped stats on legendary items, I'd tell them how horrible that change is too, so they would reconsider it. I stopped swapping stats on my legendary armor due to that, I'd rather have multiple ascended sets, it's faster and more convenient than pressing "yes" on a confirmation box every time I swap stats. Who thought of that? You don't. I'm not defending Anet. I'm questing comments you've made. I'm perfectly happy to say that Anet should communicate more. I have said so in the past. I will continue to say so. I'm perfectly happy to say that legendary runes/sigils are, in their current state, pretty much useless, at least for me. I think they should be changed. But I'm not happy to conflate these with the idea that successful games communicate and unsuccessful games don't. I'm not happy to draw that conclusion. If you want to talk about legendary sigils being badly designed, I'll happily jump in that train. Have you seen me say one thing contrary to that. I just want to make it clear that this is a 7 year old game that's relatively successful compared to most MMOs that have come out in that time frame, and the communication through most of that time has been an issue. Communication may be a factor in whether a game is successful or not, but it's one tiny piece. It's just too complex an equation to make a sweeping statement about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. > > I already touched on both of those things. > > I've stated already in this very thread that I acknowledge that they have done things like that, with the Skyscale and Mount Adoption Licenses, and have swiftly attended to the issue. > > *However*, they have only consistently done things like that, in a timely manner, for things that might affect gem sales. I'll quote the post below. > > > >! > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > >! > > @"Dami.5046" said: > >! > > This is only an issue because some of you are making it so.No more no less. > >! > > >! > Not really. No. > >! > > >! > Imagine in the context of those examples I gave in my previous post, where say people did not raise a red flag over the Mount Adoption License. Would ANet, on its own, have actually done anything about that? They implemented it the way they did, after all, and they only altered things *after* it was brought to their attention "This isn't okay". However that still does apply to the problem I stated in the same post, they seem to only do that when it affects gem sales. Outside of that...not so much. > >! > > >! > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > >! > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > >! > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > >! > > > >! > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > >! > > > >! > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > >! > > >! > It really isn't a coincidence, I'm not sure why there are those in this thread or elsewhere that are set on ignoring that. Why is ANet any different than them under these circumstances? There have been clear issues, many of which unresolved, and ANet doesn't communicate properly. People stick around and play, certainly, and this has never been a "GW2 is dying/dead" thread, this has always been a thread about the desire for ANet to change their policy on communication with the community. Sure they've had a few stumbles, they've done a few AMAs and they've had issues with too much of the hype train blunting how the content is received at release, but they can't just sit back and not try to at least *try* to get the formula right. It doesn't *look* good much less get *received* very well when there are people voicing concerns, criticisms and loking to have their voice heard by ANet when there is something that affects the game and it just...doesn't get attended to. > >! > > >! > Yet we see instances of them near *immediately* attending to any problem that might affect gem store sales. > >! > > >! > Remember the skyscale time gating and how that got altered to how it is now? They saw people likely wouldn't bother getting the skyscale because of it and if people didn't get the skyscale then no one would buy the skyscale skins that released *the very next month*. They swiftly addressed it that month. > >! > > >! > Also remember when the Mount Adoption Licenses were first added? The whole controversy behind that and the RNG aspects to it that so many had a less than positive reaction to? The swiftly addressed it that month. > >! > > >! > Balance updates? Some bugs that have been around for years? Changes to sPvP or WvW? We're lucky to see any issues that appear addressed in the same year. > >! > > >! > Criticism shouldn't be punished, it shouldn't be ignored and often times the players can see something the Devs might not. As I've repeated before, they aren't infallible and it tends to fall to the community to call them on such instances where they make a mistake or the community sees something wrong or something that needs improvement. > >! > > >! > MO has said, or at least implied, that GW2 is a live service game...yet it doesn't *feel* that way these days. If you take Warframe as an example; that is for sure a *live service* game and they describe it as such, and they take full advantage of the valuable asset that is their community to help give the game better direction and improve it over time through feedback and interaction. > > There are some exceptions when it comes to the balance side of it, though. Such as when something is very plainly and clearly bugged or glitched. I also will admit that they attended to some balance changes, at least during *I believe* March and April, within a month of the initial changes but that seems to have since stopped. *However* we will see how soon they will release the changes in the previously linked thread by Irenio. > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > > > > > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > > > > > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > > > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. For one thing, only a small part of any games' audience follows games anything but casually. > > Wildstar had some open communication but a not so great release cycle as well as multiple changes to some aspects of gameplay that just didn't sit right. Also their releases mostly consisted of housing cosmetics. Things kinda changed with Wildstar a bit before and *especially* after Stephan Frost left Carbine. > > If Anthem had that kind of communication I'm fairly certain things wouldn't still be in such a dire state *5 months* after its release. Though, to be fair, maybe their big upcoming update might address a multitude of issues? Who knows. > > These games had other problems associated with them that resulted in their relative failures, many of which went unresolved or are as of yet unresolved in those two examples you gave. > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. > > > > > > Anthem has what? One of the problems with Anthem is that they do not communicate enough, they make changes without even putting them in their update notes. They reverse features that are loved by the community (loot drops) because they make the game feel better, by calling them "bugs". They even gave a fake roadmap that they knew full well they couldn't follow. > > > > > > Wildstar had open communication about what exactly? Their pre-release videos detailing everything in the game? I'm not sure pre-release videos really count. All/most games communicate very much before they are released, to cause hype. Then they went silent until they went free-to-play. The rest is history. > > > > > > > I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. > > > > > > And I strongly suspect the opposite. > > > > But I didn't make a statement that suggested that other games are successful because of communication you did. It's just your suspicious after all. You have no actual proof of that, because you didn't do what I said and look at every successful game and every failed one. > > > > In fact, Guild Wars 2 IS a successful game in spite of the lack of communications. Might it be more successful if they communicated. Maybe? And I do think there should be more communication. But communication from a company is only a small small part of a game's success. How could it possibly be otherwise? > > Successful can be subjective. Would you argue that the CoD franchise from Activision is still successful despite nearly all of their new CoD titles being kitten near barren only a couple of months after release? I mean they are "remaking" CoD MW *again* for a reason, yet they will likely turn that game into an abomination with horrible monetization *just like* they did with others. > > No one is arguing GW2's success in the genre, though admittedly its a genre with not much going for it in the west so its almost literally the only option for many people and I've seen as much stated. The top MMORPGs in the west right now are FFXIV, WoW, ESO, GW2, Runescape (OSRS), BDO. Roughly in that order. Runescape is even celebrating 1 million subscribers this year...now I know GW2 has boasted "11 million" accounts...but they don't specify active, and the base game is also *free* so...we don't exactly have concrete evidence of "success" here when its embellished like that. > > However like I've said, *already*, in this thread before is that this has nothing to do with "GW2 is dying/dead". That isn't the conversation. The conversation is that many as dissatisfied with how communication and community engagement is being handled and that it does seem to be having a very visible effect on the direction of the game and whether or not people even want to care because it doesn't look like the devs do. This is all on the back of the lay offs and the community finding out that they had moved many devs onto other projects and, seemingly, only recently brought them back. I still remember seeing a GW2 stream a couple months back where one of the PvP devs from several years ago, like HoT several years ago, was actually on the stream and seemingly back on GW2. > > People are understandably concerned about GW2s direction, the approach to communication they've had for years now won't cut it anymore especially with the current state of balance and a number of things catching up to them. It just doesn't inspire confidence in ANet. Yet another thing I've repeated in this thread is that the ANet of today is not the ANet people seem to be describing in protest of this standpoint myself and many others have taken. I've always been pro communication. I've also been about being clear about what it means if communication does or doesn't happen. When someone says Anet should communicate more, I'm usually one of the people who agree. This isn't something that I just thought about today and said, yes. I'm simply saying that you can be successful whether you communicate or not. It depends on a lot of factors. There are plenty of games that are constantly communicating that end up never coming out. There are games that communicate and they're successful. Tell me where you see me saying Anet should communicate less? Or shouldn't communicate more. I've posted the opposite, however on a number of occassions. Happy to suppor the idea that Anet should communicate more. Not happy to draw conclusions that can't be reached without a much bigger study. Call it a nagging symptom of a real life occupation that required me to research stuff constantly or get shot down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > > It seems as though 10 pages (so far) and over 12k views about ANET being silent..._speaks _volumes > > > > > > > > > > > > Again ... what do you want them to say in this thread to appease you? It's a little game ... because Anet has communicated since this thread was made .. but because they don't do it HERE ... it speaks volumes about how they communicate? No, it speaks WAY more about the people that complain about communication than it does about how Anet does it. > > > > > > > > > > > > This whole thread is nothing but a challenge to draw them into an argument. They just aren't going to do that. > > > > > > > > > > Not trying to draw in an argument. Just pointing out that people clearly desire more of a since of community with the devs, that is all. > > > > > > > > So why is them not responding to this thread an indication they don't do that? So you basically think that devs coming in to 'discuss' their communication in a hostile thread is the kind of communication you are primarily looking for from them? Jeez, you don't expect too much if that's what you are implying. > > > > > > It isn't this thread I am specifically referring to. I am just saying 'in general' to any instances or possible grievances (e.g. delay on wvw alliances, falling pops, etc) or even to just say hello, we are glad to have you here today. I am actually not expecting too much at all I don't think. I am seeing little hostility, just concern about the game we all play. > > > > And it would be the same thing ... why would they waste time arguing with players in WHATEVER grievance thread you want to refer to ... this one, that one ... any. > > > > Look ... you know what to expect with this company and this game. It should really be of no surprise to anyone that they continue doing their standard thing ... and that should be players expectation, not make some exceptional requests then and raise the bar. The bottomline is that whatever your standard you have for anet's communication is not relevant. We know they communicate how they do it and we know they listen to players. Any posts or threads that indicate otherwise are just nonsense. > > It is NOT a surprise. That is what I would like to see change. > Would you be terribly upset if they did communicate more? No it wouldn't but that's not a good enough reason to me to think it should be done. Whether it's better or not is irrelevant. It's about the value it has to players. I know what IS more valuable to players ... devs doing what they are paid to do and not responding to every sensitivity any player wants to complain about on the forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. > > But people are expected to only pay attention to information that supports the narrative they have created right? Any facts or information that contradicts this preconceived, constructed, narrative is supposed to be ignored, right? > > /s I'm not the one making definitive statements. I'm the one refuting statement that can be disproven. I'm happy to call Anet out on lots of stuff, including their decision to not communicate or engage with the playerbase more. I don't agree that's a good thing (and never have...not once). However, I'm not happy to let people say stuff that they can't prove and simply believe, when stated as fact. People think I'm defending Anet. I'm not really. But that doesn't mean anything said that's against Anet is going to be automatically correct either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > > > It seems as though 10 pages (so far) and over 12k views about ANET being silent..._speaks _volumes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again ... what do you want them to say in this thread to appease you? It's a little game ... because Anet has communicated since this thread was made .. but because they don't do it HERE ... it speaks volumes about how they communicate? No, it speaks WAY more about the people that complain about communication than it does about how Anet does it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This whole thread is nothing but a challenge to draw them into an argument. They just aren't going to do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not trying to draw in an argument. Just pointing out that people clearly desire more of a since of community with the devs, that is all. > > > > > > > > > > So why is them not responding to this thread an indication they don't do that? So you basically think that devs coming in to 'discuss' their communication in a hostile thread is the kind of communication you are primarily looking for from them? Jeez, you don't expect too much if that's what you are implying. > > > > > > > > It isn't this thread I am specifically referring to. I am just saying 'in general' to any instances or possible grievances (e.g. delay on wvw alliances, falling pops, etc) or even to just say hello, we are glad to have you here today. I am actually not expecting too much at all I don't think. I am seeing little hostility, just concern about the game we all play. > > > > > > And it would be the same thing ... why would they waste time arguing with players in WHATEVER grievance thread you want to refer to ... this one, that one ... any. > > > > > > Look ... you know what to expect with this company and this game. It should really be of no surprise to anyone that they continue doing their standard thing ... and that should be players expectation, not make some exceptional requests then and raise the bar. The bottomline is that whatever your standard you have for anet's communication is not relevant. We know they communicate how they do it and we know they listen to players. Any posts or threads that indicate otherwise are just nonsense. > > > > It is NOT a surprise. That is what I would like to see change. > > Would you be terribly upset if they did communicate more? > > No it wouldn't but that's not a good enough reason to me to think it should be done. Whether it's better or not is irrelevant. It's about the value it has to players. I know what IS more valuable to players ... devs doing what they are paid to do and not responding to every sensitivity any player wants to complain about on the forums. That isn't what is being asked for. No one is asking for ANet to respond to "every sensitivity any player wants to complain about on the forums". That was never the intent throughout the entirety of this thread. > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > > > > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > > > > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. > > > > I already touched on both of those things. > > > > I've stated already in this very thread that I acknowledge that they have done things like that, with the Skyscale and Mount Adoption Licenses, and have swiftly attended to the issue. > > > > *However*, they have only consistently done things like that, in a timely manner, for things that might affect gem sales. I'll quote the post below. > > > > > > >! > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > >! > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > >! > > This is only an issue because some of you are making it so.No more no less. > > >! > > > >! > Not really. No. > > >! > > > >! > Imagine in the context of those examples I gave in my previous post, where say people did not raise a red flag over the Mount Adoption License. Would ANet, on its own, have actually done anything about that? They implemented it the way they did, after all, and they only altered things *after* it was brought to their attention "This isn't okay". However that still does apply to the problem I stated in the same post, they seem to only do that when it affects gem sales. Outside of that...not so much. > > >! > > > >! > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > >! > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > >! > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > > >! > > > > >! > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > > >! > > > > >! > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > > >! > > > >! > It really isn't a coincidence, I'm not sure why there are those in this thread or elsewhere that are set on ignoring that. Why is ANet any different than them under these circumstances? There have been clear issues, many of which unresolved, and ANet doesn't communicate properly. People stick around and play, certainly, and this has never been a "GW2 is dying/dead" thread, this has always been a thread about the desire for ANet to change their policy on communication with the community. Sure they've had a few stumbles, they've done a few AMAs and they've had issues with too much of the hype train blunting how the content is received at release, but they can't just sit back and not try to at least *try* to get the formula right. It doesn't *look* good much less get *received* very well when there are people voicing concerns, criticisms and loking to have their voice heard by ANet when there is something that affects the game and it just...doesn't get attended to. > > >! > > > >! > Yet we see instances of them near *immediately* attending to any problem that might affect gem store sales. > > >! > > > >! > Remember the skyscale time gating and how that got altered to how it is now? They saw people likely wouldn't bother getting the skyscale because of it and if people didn't get the skyscale then no one would buy the skyscale skins that released *the very next month*. They swiftly addressed it that month. > > >! > > > >! > Also remember when the Mount Adoption Licenses were first added? The whole controversy behind that and the RNG aspects to it that so many had a less than positive reaction to? The swiftly addressed it that month. > > >! > > > >! > Balance updates? Some bugs that have been around for years? Changes to sPvP or WvW? We're lucky to see any issues that appear addressed in the same year. > > >! > > > >! > Criticism shouldn't be punished, it shouldn't be ignored and often times the players can see something the Devs might not. As I've repeated before, they aren't infallible and it tends to fall to the community to call them on such instances where they make a mistake or the community sees something wrong or something that needs improvement. > > >! > > > >! > MO has said, or at least implied, that GW2 is a live service game...yet it doesn't *feel* that way these days. If you take Warframe as an example; that is for sure a *live service* game and they describe it as such, and they take full advantage of the valuable asset that is their community to help give the game better direction and improve it over time through feedback and interaction. > > > > There are some exceptions when it comes to the balance side of it, though. Such as when something is very plainly and clearly bugged or glitched. I also will admit that they attended to some balance changes, at least during *I believe* March and April, within a month of the initial changes but that seems to have since stopped. *However* we will see how soon they will release the changes in the previously linked thread by Irenio. > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > > > > > > > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > > > > > > > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > > > > > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. For one thing, only a small part of any games' audience follows games anything but casually. > > > > Wildstar had some open communication but a not so great release cycle as well as multiple changes to some aspects of gameplay that just didn't sit right. Also their releases mostly consisted of housing cosmetics. Things kinda changed with Wildstar a bit before and *especially* after Stephan Frost left Carbine. > > > > If Anthem had that kind of communication I'm fairly certain things wouldn't still be in such a dire state *5 months* after its release. Though, to be fair, maybe their big upcoming update might address a multitude of issues? Who knows. > > > > These games had other problems associated with them that resulted in their relative failures, many of which went unresolved or are as of yet unresolved in those two examples you gave. > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. > > > > > > > > Anthem has what? One of the problems with Anthem is that they do not communicate enough, they make changes without even putting them in their update notes. They reverse features that are loved by the community (loot drops) because they make the game feel better, by calling them "bugs". They even gave a fake roadmap that they knew full well they couldn't follow. > > > > > > > > Wildstar had open communication about what exactly? Their pre-release videos detailing everything in the game? I'm not sure pre-release videos really count. All/most games communicate very much before they are released, to cause hype. Then they went silent until they went free-to-play. The rest is history. > > > > > > > > > I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. > > > > > > > > And I strongly suspect the opposite. > > > > > > But I didn't make a statement that suggested that other games are successful because of communication you did. It's just your suspicious after all. You have no actual proof of that, because you didn't do what I said and look at every successful game and every failed one. > > > > > > In fact, Guild Wars 2 IS a successful game in spite of the lack of communications. Might it be more successful if they communicated. Maybe? And I do think there should be more communication. But communication from a company is only a small small part of a game's success. How could it possibly be otherwise? > > > > Successful can be subjective. Would you argue that the CoD franchise from Activision is still successful despite nearly all of their new CoD titles being kitten near barren only a couple of months after release? I mean they are "remaking" CoD MW *again* for a reason, yet they will likely turn that game into an abomination with horrible monetization *just like* they did with others. > > > > No one is arguing GW2's success in the genre, though admittedly its a genre with not much going for it in the west so its almost literally the only option for many people and I've seen as much stated. The top MMORPGs in the west right now are FFXIV, WoW, ESO, GW2, Runescape (OSRS), BDO. Roughly in that order. Runescape is even celebrating 1 million subscribers this year...now I know GW2 has boasted "11 million" accounts...but they don't specify active, and the base game is also *free* so...we don't exactly have concrete evidence of "success" here when its embellished like that. > > > > However like I've said, *already*, in this thread before is that this has nothing to do with "GW2 is dying/dead". That isn't the conversation. The conversation is that many as dissatisfied with how communication and community engagement is being handled and that it does seem to be having a very visible effect on the direction of the game and whether or not people even want to care because it doesn't look like the devs do. This is all on the back of the lay offs and the community finding out that they had moved many devs onto other projects and, seemingly, only recently brought them back. I still remember seeing a GW2 stream a couple months back where one of the PvP devs from several years ago, like HoT several years ago, was actually on the stream and seemingly back on GW2. > > > > People are understandably concerned about GW2s direction, the approach to communication they've had for years now won't cut it anymore especially with the current state of balance and a number of things catching up to them. It just doesn't inspire confidence in ANet. Yet another thing I've repeated in this thread is that the ANet of today is not the ANet people seem to be describing in protest of this standpoint myself and many others have taken. > > I've always been pro communication. I've also been about being clear about what it means if communication does or doesn't happen. When someone says Anet should communicate more, I'm usually one of the people who agree. This isn't something that I just thought about today and said, yes. I'm simply saying that you can be successful whether you communicate or not. It depends on a lot of factors. There are plenty of games that are constantly communicating that end up never coming out. There are games that communicate and they're successful. > > Tell me where you see me saying Anet should communicate less? Or shouldn't communicate more. I've posted the opposite, however on a number of occassions. Happy to suppor the idea that Anet should communicate more. Not happy to draw conclusions that can't be reached without a much bigger study. Call it a nagging symptom of a real life occupation that required me to research stuff constantly or get shot down. And I appreciate that you don't draw those conclusions immediately. In fact that is the very thing I would suggest be looked into, that if their approach to communication were to change, improve in many aspects, then how might that serve the game for its future? We can only draw conclusions based on comparing to other games or from inferences made as to what we *hope* it could do. Some would argue, like above, that ANet shouldn't kowtow to every little complaint made about the game, but that has never been the driving force behind the desire for things to change in relation to their communication and engagement with the community. The reasonable, and most obvious, conclusion one could draw from desiring change in this area is that ANet would properly parse through the feedback given, and criticisms, and see what is usable and what isn't but then, in an ideal scenario, keep the community updated on what that is and how they are approaching those particular problems/issues/changes. They have done this in the past, for certain, but *recent* examples have really only involved the Skyscale time gating and Mount Adoption License debacles. Both of which, I'd argued previously, I firmly believe were driven by them not wanting to lose on gem sales for either of those pieces of content as we had not seen them do much similar for other aspects of the game *in recent memory*. The post made by Irenio is certainly a positive recent development in terms of communication by ANet, whether or not the *contents* of it are a positive change is...debatable, but at the very least it shows a *step* in the right direction. Certainly posts like yours are appreciated, it is one of the only posts in a long line of others that actually serves to further the *discussion* rather than make it run in a perpetual circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > > > > It seems as though 10 pages (so far) and over 12k views about ANET being silent..._speaks _volumes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again ... what do you want them to say in this thread to appease you? It's a little game ... because Anet has communicated since this thread was made .. but because they don't do it HERE ... it speaks volumes about how they communicate? No, it speaks WAY more about the people that complain about communication than it does about how Anet does it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This whole thread is nothing but a challenge to draw them into an argument. They just aren't going to do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not trying to draw in an argument. Just pointing out that people clearly desire more of a since of community with the devs, that is all. > > > > > > > > > > > > So why is them not responding to this thread an indication they don't do that? So you basically think that devs coming in to 'discuss' their communication in a hostile thread is the kind of communication you are primarily looking for from them? Jeez, you don't expect too much if that's what you are implying. > > > > > > > > > > It isn't this thread I am specifically referring to. I am just saying 'in general' to any instances or possible grievances (e.g. delay on wvw alliances, falling pops, etc) or even to just say hello, we are glad to have you here today. I am actually not expecting too much at all I don't think. I am seeing little hostility, just concern about the game we all play. > > > > > > > > And it would be the same thing ... why would they waste time arguing with players in WHATEVER grievance thread you want to refer to ... this one, that one ... any. > > > > > > > > Look ... you know what to expect with this company and this game. It should really be of no surprise to anyone that they continue doing their standard thing ... and that should be players expectation, not make some exceptional requests then and raise the bar. The bottomline is that whatever your standard you have for anet's communication is not relevant. We know they communicate how they do it and we know they listen to players. Any posts or threads that indicate otherwise are just nonsense. > > > > > > It is NOT a surprise. That is what I would like to see change. > > > Would you be terribly upset if they did communicate more? > > > > No it wouldn't but that's not a good enough reason to me to think it should be done. Whether it's better or not is irrelevant. It's about the value it has to players. I know what IS more valuable to players ... devs doing what they are paid to do and not responding to every sensitivity any player wants to complain about on the forums. > > That isn't what is being asked for. No one is asking for ANet to respond to "every sensitivity any player wants to complain about on the forums". That was never the intent throughout the entirety of this thread. > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > > > > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > > > > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > > > > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > > > > > > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > > > > > > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. > > > > > > I already touched on both of those things. > > > > > > I've stated already in this very thread that I acknowledge that they have done things like that, with the Skyscale and Mount Adoption Licenses, and have swiftly attended to the issue. > > > > > > *However*, they have only consistently done things like that, in a timely manner, for things that might affect gem sales. I'll quote the post below. > > > > > > > > > >! > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > >! > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > >! > > This is only an issue because some of you are making it so.No more no less. > > > >! > > > > >! > Not really. No. > > > >! > > > > >! > Imagine in the context of those examples I gave in my previous post, where say people did not raise a red flag over the Mount Adoption License. Would ANet, on its own, have actually done anything about that? They implemented it the way they did, after all, and they only altered things *after* it was brought to their attention "This isn't okay". However that still does apply to the problem I stated in the same post, they seem to only do that when it affects gem sales. Outside of that...not so much. > > > >! > > > > >! > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > >! > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > >! > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > > > >! > > > > > >! > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > > > >! > > > > > >! > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > > > >! > > > > >! > It really isn't a coincidence, I'm not sure why there are those in this thread or elsewhere that are set on ignoring that. Why is ANet any different than them under these circumstances? There have been clear issues, many of which unresolved, and ANet doesn't communicate properly. People stick around and play, certainly, and this has never been a "GW2 is dying/dead" thread, this has always been a thread about the desire for ANet to change their policy on communication with the community. Sure they've had a few stumbles, they've done a few AMAs and they've had issues with too much of the hype train blunting how the content is received at release, but they can't just sit back and not try to at least *try* to get the formula right. It doesn't *look* good much less get *received* very well when there are people voicing concerns, criticisms and loking to have their voice heard by ANet when there is something that affects the game and it just...doesn't get attended to. > > > >! > > > > >! > Yet we see instances of them near *immediately* attending to any problem that might affect gem store sales. > > > >! > > > > >! > Remember the skyscale time gating and how that got altered to how it is now? They saw people likely wouldn't bother getting the skyscale because of it and if people didn't get the skyscale then no one would buy the skyscale skins that released *the very next month*. They swiftly addressed it that month. > > > >! > > > > >! > Also remember when the Mount Adoption Licenses were first added? The whole controversy behind that and the RNG aspects to it that so many had a less than positive reaction to? The swiftly addressed it that month. > > > >! > > > > >! > Balance updates? Some bugs that have been around for years? Changes to sPvP or WvW? We're lucky to see any issues that appear addressed in the same year. > > > >! > > > > >! > Criticism shouldn't be punished, it shouldn't be ignored and often times the players can see something the Devs might not. As I've repeated before, they aren't infallible and it tends to fall to the community to call them on such instances where they make a mistake or the community sees something wrong or something that needs improvement. > > > >! > > > > >! > MO has said, or at least implied, that GW2 is a live service game...yet it doesn't *feel* that way these days. If you take Warframe as an example; that is for sure a *live service* game and they describe it as such, and they take full advantage of the valuable asset that is their community to help give the game better direction and improve it over time through feedback and interaction. > > > > > > There are some exceptions when it comes to the balance side of it, though. Such as when something is very plainly and clearly bugged or glitched. I also will admit that they attended to some balance changes, at least during *I believe* March and April, within a month of the initial changes but that seems to have since stopped. *However* we will see how soon they will release the changes in the previously linked thread by Irenio. > > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > > > > > > > > > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > > > > > > > > > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > > > > > > > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. For one thing, only a small part of any games' audience follows games anything but casually. > > > > > > Wildstar had some open communication but a not so great release cycle as well as multiple changes to some aspects of gameplay that just didn't sit right. Also their releases mostly consisted of housing cosmetics. Things kinda changed with Wildstar a bit before and *especially* after Stephan Frost left Carbine. > > > > > > If Anthem had that kind of communication I'm fairly certain things wouldn't still be in such a dire state *5 months* after its release. Though, to be fair, maybe their big upcoming update might address a multitude of issues? Who knows. > > > > > > These games had other problems associated with them that resulted in their relative failures, many of which went unresolved or are as of yet unresolved in those two examples you gave. > > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. > > > > > > > > > > Anthem has what? One of the problems with Anthem is that they do not communicate enough, they make changes without even putting them in their update notes. They reverse features that are loved by the community (loot drops) because they make the game feel better, by calling them "bugs". They even gave a fake roadmap that they knew full well they couldn't follow. > > > > > > > > > > Wildstar had open communication about what exactly? Their pre-release videos detailing everything in the game? I'm not sure pre-release videos really count. All/most games communicate very much before they are released, to cause hype. Then they went silent until they went free-to-play. The rest is history. > > > > > > > > > > > I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. > > > > > > > > > > And I strongly suspect the opposite. > > > > > > > > But I didn't make a statement that suggested that other games are successful because of communication you did. It's just your suspicious after all. You have no actual proof of that, because you didn't do what I said and look at every successful game and every failed one. > > > > > > > > In fact, Guild Wars 2 IS a successful game in spite of the lack of communications. Might it be more successful if they communicated. Maybe? And I do think there should be more communication. But communication from a company is only a small small part of a game's success. How could it possibly be otherwise? > > > > > > Successful can be subjective. Would you argue that the CoD franchise from Activision is still successful despite nearly all of their new CoD titles being kitten near barren only a couple of months after release? I mean they are "remaking" CoD MW *again* for a reason, yet they will likely turn that game into an abomination with horrible monetization *just like* they did with others. > > > > > > No one is arguing GW2's success in the genre, though admittedly its a genre with not much going for it in the west so its almost literally the only option for many people and I've seen as much stated. The top MMORPGs in the west right now are FFXIV, WoW, ESO, GW2, Runescape (OSRS), BDO. Roughly in that order. Runescape is even celebrating 1 million subscribers this year...now I know GW2 has boasted "11 million" accounts...but they don't specify active, and the base game is also *free* so...we don't exactly have concrete evidence of "success" here when its embellished like that. > > > > > > However like I've said, *already*, in this thread before is that this has nothing to do with "GW2 is dying/dead". That isn't the conversation. The conversation is that many as dissatisfied with how communication and community engagement is being handled and that it does seem to be having a very visible effect on the direction of the game and whether or not people even want to care because it doesn't look like the devs do. This is all on the back of the lay offs and the community finding out that they had moved many devs onto other projects and, seemingly, only recently brought them back. I still remember seeing a GW2 stream a couple months back where one of the PvP devs from several years ago, like HoT several years ago, was actually on the stream and seemingly back on GW2. > > > > > > People are understandably concerned about GW2s direction, the approach to communication they've had for years now won't cut it anymore especially with the current state of balance and a number of things catching up to them. It just doesn't inspire confidence in ANet. Yet another thing I've repeated in this thread is that the ANet of today is not the ANet people seem to be describing in protest of this standpoint myself and many others have taken. > > > > I've always been pro communication. I've also been about being clear about what it means if communication does or doesn't happen. When someone says Anet should communicate more, I'm usually one of the people who agree. This isn't something that I just thought about today and said, yes. I'm simply saying that you can be successful whether you communicate or not. It depends on a lot of factors. There are plenty of games that are constantly communicating that end up never coming out. There are games that communicate and they're successful. > > > > Tell me where you see me saying Anet should communicate less? Or shouldn't communicate more. I've posted the opposite, however on a number of occassions. Happy to suppor the idea that Anet should communicate more. Not happy to draw conclusions that can't be reached without a much bigger study. Call it a nagging symptom of a real life occupation that required me to research stuff constantly or get shot down. > > And I appreciate that you don't draw those conclusions immediately. In fact that is the very thing I would suggest be looked into, that if their approach to communication were to change, improve in many aspects, then how might that serve the game for its future? We can only draw conclusions based on comparing to other games or from inferences made as to what we *hope* it could do. > > Some would argue, like above, that ANet shouldn't kowtow to every little complaint made about the game, but that has never been the driving force behind the desire for things to change in relation to their communication and engagement with the community. The reasonable, and most obvious, conclusion one could draw from desiring change in this area is that ANet would properly parse through the feedback given, and criticisms, and see what is usable and what isn't but then, in an ideal scenario, keep the community updated on what that is and how they are approaching those particular problems/issues/changes. > > They have done this in the past, for certain, but *recent* examples have really only involved the Skyscale time gating and Mount Adoption License debacles. Both of which, I'd argued previously, I firmly believe were driven by them not wanting to lose on gem sales for either of those pieces of content as we had not seen them do much similar for other aspects of the game *in recent memory*. > > The post made by Irenio is certainly a positive recent development in terms of communication by ANet, whether or not the *contents* of it are a positive change is...debatable, but at the very least it shows a *step* in the right direction. > > Certainly posts like yours are appreciated, it is one of the only posts in a long line of others that actually serves to further the *discussion* rather than make it run in a perpetual circle. I don't know that Anet should engage in direct conversation with complaint posts generally anyway. I think Anet needs to communicate more about future plans in more detail and have a more detailed road map. Give people an idea of what to actually expect, because leaving it up to the population just means they get to let their imaginations run wild. People who don't like the game will imagine the game is in maintainence mode. People who like the game will have insecurity that it's going down hill, particularly because the vocal population of dissatisifed people is always going to be higher. People complaining are always louder than people complimenting. Saying that this stuff is going on and this is what we're getting in more detail, or even this is what we hope to do would be a big help over all, but that doesn't mean I think they need to respond to individual criticism. Not unless that criticism is widespread. I think that's a trap for any company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Substance E.4852 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > I know I'm repeating myself in this post but I seem to be repeating myself over and over again regardless in this whole thread. Because people cope post hard when you tell them their favorite for profit corporation might not be perfect in execution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Acheron.4731" said: > > > > > > > > > > It seems as though 10 pages (so far) and over 12k views about ANET being silent..._speaks _volumes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again ... what do you want them to say in this thread to appease you? It's a little game ... because Anet has communicated since this thread was made .. but because they don't do it HERE ... it speaks volumes about how they communicate? No, it speaks WAY more about the people that complain about communication than it does about how Anet does it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This whole thread is nothing but a challenge to draw them into an argument. They just aren't going to do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not trying to draw in an argument. Just pointing out that people clearly desire more of a since of community with the devs, that is all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So why is them not responding to this thread an indication they don't do that? So you basically think that devs coming in to 'discuss' their communication in a hostile thread is the kind of communication you are primarily looking for from them? Jeez, you don't expect too much if that's what you are implying. > > > > > > > > > > > > It isn't this thread I am specifically referring to. I am just saying 'in general' to any instances or possible grievances (e.g. delay on wvw alliances, falling pops, etc) or even to just say hello, we are glad to have you here today. I am actually not expecting too much at all I don't think. I am seeing little hostility, just concern about the game we all play. > > > > > > > > > > And it would be the same thing ... why would they waste time arguing with players in WHATEVER grievance thread you want to refer to ... this one, that one ... any. > > > > > > > > > > Look ... you know what to expect with this company and this game. It should really be of no surprise to anyone that they continue doing their standard thing ... and that should be players expectation, not make some exceptional requests then and raise the bar. The bottomline is that whatever your standard you have for anet's communication is not relevant. We know they communicate how they do it and we know they listen to players. Any posts or threads that indicate otherwise are just nonsense. > > > > > > > > It is NOT a surprise. That is what I would like to see change. > > > > Would you be terribly upset if they did communicate more? > > > > > > No it wouldn't but that's not a good enough reason to me to think it should be done. Whether it's better or not is irrelevant. It's about the value it has to players. I know what IS more valuable to players ... devs doing what they are paid to do and not responding to every sensitivity any player wants to complain about on the forums. > > > > That isn't what is being asked for. No one is asking for ANet to respond to "every sensitivity any player wants to complain about on the forums". That was never the intent throughout the entirety of this thread. > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > > > > > And, ArenaNet has listened to player feedback when they gave refunds (from the Gem Store), as well. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin > > > > > > > Or, gave a free $10 item due to player feedback. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pre-purchase-community-address/ > > > > > > > > > > > > The Flamekissed Armor Skin situation was back in *2013* > > > > > > > > > > > > And the pre-purchase situation was back in *2015*. > > > > > > > > > > > > These are both things that happened 6 years ago and 4 years ago, respectively. Which I believe it has already been established that *today*, as in the *present*, things are very different. > > > > > > > > > > Two months ago, people complained about the time-gating in the SkyScale collection and Anet made a patch that changed it so that there was less time gating. There are examples of this sort of thing all along. If you're not seeing them, you're probably not paying attention. Before that people complained that there was only mount packs that had RNG and you couldn't select a mount, so Anet released a mount collection package. > > > > > > > > > > It's called confirmation bias. You want examples of how Anet does listen sometimes, and listening btw, doesn't have to mean obeying, and how they've made changes due to what we say, there are two, one of them quite recent. It's okay to not like the direction of Anet's communication but to imply they've only listened to us in the distant past is a fallacy. > > > > > > > > I already touched on both of those things. > > > > > > > > I've stated already in this very thread that I acknowledge that they have done things like that, with the Skyscale and Mount Adoption Licenses, and have swiftly attended to the issue. > > > > > > > > *However*, they have only consistently done things like that, in a timely manner, for things that might affect gem sales. I'll quote the post below. > > > > > > > > > > > > >! > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > >! > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > > >! > > This is only an issue because some of you are making it so.No more no less. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > Not really. No. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > Imagine in the context of those examples I gave in my previous post, where say people did not raise a red flag over the Mount Adoption License. Would ANet, on its own, have actually done anything about that? They implemented it the way they did, after all, and they only altered things *after* it was brought to their attention "This isn't okay". However that still does apply to the problem I stated in the same post, they seem to only do that when it affects gem sales. Outside of that...not so much. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > >! > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > > >! > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > > > > >! > > > > > > >! > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > > > > >! > > > > > > >! > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > It really isn't a coincidence, I'm not sure why there are those in this thread or elsewhere that are set on ignoring that. Why is ANet any different than them under these circumstances? There have been clear issues, many of which unresolved, and ANet doesn't communicate properly. People stick around and play, certainly, and this has never been a "GW2 is dying/dead" thread, this has always been a thread about the desire for ANet to change their policy on communication with the community. Sure they've had a few stumbles, they've done a few AMAs and they've had issues with too much of the hype train blunting how the content is received at release, but they can't just sit back and not try to at least *try* to get the formula right. It doesn't *look* good much less get *received* very well when there are people voicing concerns, criticisms and loking to have their voice heard by ANet when there is something that affects the game and it just...doesn't get attended to. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > Yet we see instances of them near *immediately* attending to any problem that might affect gem store sales. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > Remember the skyscale time gating and how that got altered to how it is now? They saw people likely wouldn't bother getting the skyscale because of it and if people didn't get the skyscale then no one would buy the skyscale skins that released *the very next month*. They swiftly addressed it that month. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > Also remember when the Mount Adoption Licenses were first added? The whole controversy behind that and the RNG aspects to it that so many had a less than positive reaction to? The swiftly addressed it that month. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > Balance updates? Some bugs that have been around for years? Changes to sPvP or WvW? We're lucky to see any issues that appear addressed in the same year. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > Criticism shouldn't be punished, it shouldn't be ignored and often times the players can see something the Devs might not. As I've repeated before, they aren't infallible and it tends to fall to the community to call them on such instances where they make a mistake or the community sees something wrong or something that needs improvement. > > > > >! > > > > > >! > MO has said, or at least implied, that GW2 is a live service game...yet it doesn't *feel* that way these days. If you take Warframe as an example; that is for sure a *live service* game and they describe it as such, and they take full advantage of the valuable asset that is their community to help give the game better direction and improve it over time through feedback and interaction. > > > > > > > > There are some exceptions when it comes to the balance side of it, though. Such as when something is very plainly and clearly bugged or glitched. I also will admit that they attended to some balance changes, at least during *I believe* March and April, within a month of the initial changes but that seems to have since stopped. *However* we will see how soon they will release the changes in the previously linked thread by Irenio. > > > > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > @"Dami.5046" said: > > > > > > > They aren't going to give you any insights of any other projects because people don't understand what 'maybe' means. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess that's why they told us quite early when expansions were dropping. Or why they did that post about upcoming features 6 months ago. I can't imagine the ones managing the game don't know when things will come, until it's one week from their release. As a manager/director you are supposed to know the roadmaps, that's part of the job description. No, this is more likely a "policy" they have so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past (hype trains) but you know there can be a middle way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice how a lot of games that are flourishing are open with their communication, it's not a coincidence. > > > > > > > > > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. For one thing, only a small part of any games' audience follows games anything but casually. > > > > > > > > Wildstar had some open communication but a not so great release cycle as well as multiple changes to some aspects of gameplay that just didn't sit right. Also their releases mostly consisted of housing cosmetics. Things kinda changed with Wildstar a bit before and *especially* after Stephan Frost left Carbine. > > > > > > > > If Anthem had that kind of communication I'm fairly certain things wouldn't still be in such a dire state *5 months* after its release. Though, to be fair, maybe their big upcoming update might address a multitude of issues? Who knows. > > > > > > > > These games had other problems associated with them that resulted in their relative failures, many of which went unresolved or are as of yet unresolved in those two examples you gave. > > > > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > > A lot of games with open communication have also failed. Wildstar had open communication. So does Anthem. Saying that games with open communication are succeeding without taking into account the games with open communication that are failing is a red herring. To make this work, you'd need to poll all games, see which games are communicating and which aren't, do a comparison between the two groups and get a percentage. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthem has what? One of the problems with Anthem is that they do not communicate enough, they make changes without even putting them in their update notes. They reverse features that are loved by the community (loot drops) because they make the game feel better, by calling them "bugs". They even gave a fake roadmap that they knew full well they couldn't follow. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wildstar had open communication about what exactly? Their pre-release videos detailing everything in the game? I'm not sure pre-release videos really count. All/most games communicate very much before they are released, to cause hype. Then they went silent until they went free-to-play. The rest is history. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I strongly suspect the the communication of the devs is not a major factor in the success of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > And I strongly suspect the opposite. > > > > > > > > > > But I didn't make a statement that suggested that other games are successful because of communication you did. It's just your suspicious after all. You have no actual proof of that, because you didn't do what I said and look at every successful game and every failed one. > > > > > > > > > > In fact, Guild Wars 2 IS a successful game in spite of the lack of communications. Might it be more successful if they communicated. Maybe? And I do think there should be more communication. But communication from a company is only a small small part of a game's success. How could it possibly be otherwise? > > > > > > > > Successful can be subjective. Would you argue that the CoD franchise from Activision is still successful despite nearly all of their new CoD titles being kitten near barren only a couple of months after release? I mean they are "remaking" CoD MW *again* for a reason, yet they will likely turn that game into an abomination with horrible monetization *just like* they did with others. > > > > > > > > No one is arguing GW2's success in the genre, though admittedly its a genre with not much going for it in the west so its almost literally the only option for many people and I've seen as much stated. The top MMORPGs in the west right now are FFXIV, WoW, ESO, GW2, Runescape (OSRS), BDO. Roughly in that order. Runescape is even celebrating 1 million subscribers this year...now I know GW2 has boasted "11 million" accounts...but they don't specify active, and the base game is also *free* so...we don't exactly have concrete evidence of "success" here when its embellished like that. > > > > > > > > However like I've said, *already*, in this thread before is that this has nothing to do with "GW2 is dying/dead". That isn't the conversation. The conversation is that many as dissatisfied with how communication and community engagement is being handled and that it does seem to be having a very visible effect on the direction of the game and whether or not people even want to care because it doesn't look like the devs do. This is all on the back of the lay offs and the community finding out that they had moved many devs onto other projects and, seemingly, only recently brought them back. I still remember seeing a GW2 stream a couple months back where one of the PvP devs from several years ago, like HoT several years ago, was actually on the stream and seemingly back on GW2. > > > > > > > > People are understandably concerned about GW2s direction, the approach to communication they've had for years now won't cut it anymore especially with the current state of balance and a number of things catching up to them. It just doesn't inspire confidence in ANet. Yet another thing I've repeated in this thread is that the ANet of today is not the ANet people seem to be describing in protest of this standpoint myself and many others have taken. > > > > > > I've always been pro communication. I've also been about being clear about what it means if communication does or doesn't happen. When someone says Anet should communicate more, I'm usually one of the people who agree. This isn't something that I just thought about today and said, yes. I'm simply saying that you can be successful whether you communicate or not. It depends on a lot of factors. There are plenty of games that are constantly communicating that end up never coming out. There are games that communicate and they're successful. > > > > > > Tell me where you see me saying Anet should communicate less? Or shouldn't communicate more. I've posted the opposite, however on a number of occassions. Happy to suppor the idea that Anet should communicate more. Not happy to draw conclusions that can't be reached without a much bigger study. Call it a nagging symptom of a real life occupation that required me to research stuff constantly or get shot down. > > > > And I appreciate that you don't draw those conclusions immediately. In fact that is the very thing I would suggest be looked into, that if their approach to communication were to change, improve in many aspects, then how might that serve the game for its future? We can only draw conclusions based on comparing to other games or from inferences made as to what we *hope* it could do. > > > > Some would argue, like above, that ANet shouldn't kowtow to every little complaint made about the game, but that has never been the driving force behind the desire for things to change in relation to their communication and engagement with the community. The reasonable, and most obvious, conclusion one could draw from desiring change in this area is that ANet would properly parse through the feedback given, and criticisms, and see what is usable and what isn't but then, in an ideal scenario, keep the community updated on what that is and how they are approaching those particular problems/issues/changes. > > > > They have done this in the past, for certain, but *recent* examples have really only involved the Skyscale time gating and Mount Adoption License debacles. Both of which, I'd argued previously, I firmly believe were driven by them not wanting to lose on gem sales for either of those pieces of content as we had not seen them do much similar for other aspects of the game *in recent memory*. > > > > The post made by Irenio is certainly a positive recent development in terms of communication by ANet, whether or not the *contents* of it are a positive change is...debatable, but at the very least it shows a *step* in the right direction. > > > > Certainly posts like yours are appreciated, it is one of the only posts in a long line of others that actually serves to further the *discussion* rather than make it run in a perpetual circle. > > I don't know that Anet should engage in direct conversation with complaint posts generally anyway. I think Anet needs to communicate more about future plans in more detail and have a more detailed road map. Give people an idea of what to actually expect, because leaving it up to the population just means they get to let their imaginations run wild. > > People who don't like the game will imagine the game is in maintainence mode. People who like the game will have insecurity that it's going down hill, particularly because the vocal population of dissatisifed people is always going to be higher. People complaining are always louder than people complimenting. > > Saying that this stuff is going on and this is what we're getting in more detail, or even this is what we hope to do would be a big help over all, but that doesn't mean I think they need to respond to individual criticism. Not unless that criticism is widespread. I think that's a trap for any company. Right, it depends on what they are responding to for sure. Which has been one of the big issues, I believe, that people are most frustrated with. Some things that are considered issues in the game had been getting criticism since their inception into the game and saw no attention. Mostly balance related stuff, but there is also some content like Dungeons that have been in a "dead" state for years now and we still don't see much, mostly nothing, mentioned about it. I would never suggest that any developer jump into a thread of complaints or criticisms to post and address them directly, but I do feel like there has needed to be much more in the way of them communicating the future of this game, and in some way at least addressing widespread criticism in a stream or something, as well as just more details for important things like balance changes, content changes, and the like that we don't really get on a consistent basis even though there are definite issues with things I mentioned above. It really does not inspire much confidence when you see a developer preview a rather big balance patch for the game, as in they reworked and changed a significant number of things, and then they just don't even talk about it. An *actual* roadmap would do wonders for knowing where the game will be going and what they are planning on doing. Maybe that is something we will get on August 30th, but until that date I don't think anyone should get any form of high expectations as to what it will include. 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