Vayne.8563 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > @"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. > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > @"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. Except that dungeons aren't dead. They're not done as often any more. Anet completely nerfed dungeons and then, largely, reversed the nerf. They however have said Fractals are the new dungeons. They're five man instanced content. This isn't an example of Anet not listening to the community. It's an example of the community not listening to Anet. Anet made this change years ago, and presumably they know how many people ran dungeons. I strongly suspect it's lower than most dungeon runners think it is. Anet does need to communicate more. They do NOT need to answer individual criticism. Even loud criticism isn't necessarily majority. I always bring this up but a Lotro dev once said, after leaving the company, that only 10% of the population ever raided or PvPed...but they accounted for 50% of the forum posts. Answering posts that are visible, but are not backed up by stats is a no win situation for Anet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 At this point i just want to see them release a pts and have all the changes they want to make to the game go through there first before hitting live. I dont see how the server cost outweights the slew of positives that pts' across gaming bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L A T I O N.8923 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 > @"bluberblasen.9684" said: > They have no time because they are busy with the BIG WVW ALLIANCE UPDATE and the PVP rebalance !!!!!!!!!111111111111111111 18 months of crickets, you would think they'd bord me 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: > > > @"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. > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > @"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. > > Except that dungeons aren't dead. They're not done as often any more. Anet completely nerfed dungeons and then, largely, reversed the nerf. They however have said Fractals are the new dungeons. They're five man instanced content. This isn't an example of Anet not listening to the community. It's an example of the community not listening to Anet. > > Anet made this change years ago, and presumably they know how many people ran dungeons. I strongly suspect it's lower than most dungeon runners think it is. > > Anet does need to communicate more. They do NOT need to answer individual criticism. Even loud criticism isn't necessarily majority. I always bring this up but a Lotro dev once said, after leaving the company, that only 10% of the population ever raided or PvPed...but they accounted for 50% of the forum posts. Answering posts that are visible, but are not backed up by stats is a no win situation for Anet. Well hence the quotations around "dead". The way dungeons are right now though just seems like such a complete waste of a piece of content when they could almost certainly bring them up to par with Fractals, they've done similar in the past with GW1 Campaign Missions and Hard Mode. Of course thats just my opinion, but they do feel like a piece of content that got toyed with a bit and then just ditched in favor of Fractals and Raids. The way it *looks* is that rather than actually address the problems with why Dungeons weren't fulfilling people's expectations for PvE, especially after the addition of Fractals, ANet just decided to go and abandon them. That quote by the Lotro dev is a good point, however at the same time one could argue that in those circumstances them not addressing any of the issues with those particular pieces of content leads to them having such a small percentage of people even bothering to touch it. Metrics are good and all, but numbers don't tell you everything. When you treat everyone and everything like a numeric variable you lose sight that you are also dealing with *people* and their interests, their wants. Metrics help to some extent, but you also need to keep an eye on what they are saying, what they are expressing to the developers and that can be a difficult thing to manage. It can be especially difficult if the community doesn't think the devs even care or pay attention to it. Which to be fair I could imagine they don't put much attention into Dungeons because their metrics tell them not many people play them...yet maybe that should tell them something else about what they should do with things like that rather than just ignore it. Something like "How can we get better and more engagement from players in this content? How do we make it appeal to more people?" I can understand the logic of allocating resources to things that they *know* people are playing right now, but I don't agree with it. In fact I find it kind of neglectful and defeatist. I saw a few posts on the Warframe forums a few months ago, each of which were in topics concerning information on upcoming content that they hadn't yet been filled in on in too much detail because that information wasn't ready to be presented yet. However these posts all expressed the same sentiment "I'm sure DE will fill us in soon". Which is something I really don't see expressed here and I think thats because of how the Warframe devs handle communication and engagement with their community, and that they have a well established track record of being up front and honest with them as well as their track record of keeping their players informed of things. ANet does not have that same rapport with its community so we get these unfortunate circumstances we are in now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 Yes, those players thinking DE will fill them in soon are wishing for the same things players here are. It's just that they haven't got 7 years of Warframe game time to tell them the same things we already know. Whatever you want to know ... Anet will fill you in as well ... either by telling us or simply doing it. I get that 'more communication' is just a way that you and everyone else wants thinks they will get all sorts of opportunity to provide 'feedback' into the game design process; it's simply not feasible or sensible approach. Anet communicates to players and listens to them. Whether it's enough or not is subjective. It's debatable that there is much value in communication anyways, especially if you are the kind of player that thinks communication is responding to lots of angry player forum posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inculpatus cedo.9234 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > We also don't hear or see anything about addressing balance problems until the release of a balance patch, which we don't get to give feedback on until the balance patch is "previewed" a week before release and then released with no changes to it. > > > I'm repeating myself again. > It's these kinds of statements, one even contradicted in the next post, that are offered as absolutes. It's just not true. Sometimes the Devs ask for feedback with an intention to possibly incorporating changes, and sometimes they do not (because they have a different vision and longer-term plan). It is unfortunate we don't have the tools to pull up examples like we used to. Sure, it would be great to have the Devs sit down and talk with us every hour, day, week and tell us what they might create in the future. The Devs, though, aren't required to visit the forums as their work-time is spent creating/addressing content, etc. Perhaps, other studios aren't as iterative as ArenaNet; no idea. No real need to respond or repeat yourself; I think everyone, including the Devs, knows where you stand. We are fortunate the Devs find posts passionate. Hope it all works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > We also don't hear or see anything about addressing balance problems until the release of a balance patch, which we don't get to give feedback on until the balance patch is "previewed" a week before release and then released with no changes to it. > > > > > > > I'm repeating myself again. > > > It's these kinds of statements, one even contradicted in the next post, that are offered as absolutes. It's just not true. > Sometimes the Devs ask for feedback with an intention to possibly incorporating changes, and sometimes they do not (because they have a different vision and longer-term plan). > It is unfortunate we don't have the tools to pull up examples like we used to. > > Sure, it would be great to have the Devs sit down and talk with us every hour, day, week and tell us what they might create in the future. The Devs, though, aren't required to visit the forums as their work-time is spent creating/addressing content, etc. > > Perhaps, other studios aren't as iterative as ArenaNet; no idea. > > No real need to respond or repeat yourself; I think everyone, including the Devs, knows where you stand. > We are fortunate the Devs find posts passionate. Hope it all works out. > > Not offering it as an absolute. All I have ever done is state my position on it, as well as offer retorts to any points made in opposition to it and I have yet to feel like they have been adequate to change my perspective. Which I think I have shown I am more than willing to do so as I have conceded to a number of things already in this very thread. Just looking to clarify that. While repeating myself may not be needed, I do feel that if I don't do so then any sense of coherency gets lost. Now I wouldn't go so far as to say the devs should sit down and talk with us to the extent that you suggest, but I do believe that a more defined Roadmap for the game would go a long way to assist in communication as well as possibly a weekly stream, or even just a weekly blog post, to go over other things in more detail. I raised issue with a recent stream, their one on Cinematics, because of the timing of it in relation to an arguably big balance patch. It just looked like a severe lack of foresight and honestly lent more credence to this idea that ANet is just disconnected from its own game and community, and not to the benefit of either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 @"KryTiKaL.3125" Again re dungeons, and this is all about Anet communicating, Anet specifically talked about why Fractals are replacing dungeons as the go to five man content. Dungeons require too much work and time to maintain. The code is older. We know that Anet tried to revitalize AC at one point and we know the TA Aetherblade path (one of my personal favorites) replaced the TA F/U path. And do you think that that was succcessful? Do you think most people did those dungeons. This is about the value of time and investment of time and money, for what is assuredly a small part of the population. A loud part of the population to be sure, but a small one. And Anet gave is their reasons on how hard it would be to upgrade dungeons and it's why we migrated to the newer Fractals in the first place. They put the Fractals in the game to give us something that's easier to upgrade. Harder dungeon paths tend not to be done. Faster easier, rewarding dungeon paths were farmed. Why is that different than Fractals are now. Fractals solve a ton of already existing problems. They give less skilled players an entry point, more skill players more reward, they give a varying play field with instabilities, and they give people who want something to grind for something to grind for (because there are plenty of those). Dungeons solved none of those problems. There's no good reason to invest the time/energy/money to appease a small, loud portion of the playerbase, which is again, why Anet communicating is and isn't a big deal. Again I think they should communicate more... but this is a case where they already communicated and people are ignoring what they're saying and continuing to ask for something that they have decided is not in the best interest; in the game. Again listening doesn't have to mean obeying. Anet has heard the repeating request for dungeons. Anet also knows how many people have run dungeons since launch as a percentage of the playerbase. They've made that decision. You want Anet to communicate more, you should meet them halfway and accept that decision...in my opinion. You want Anet to communicate more, you should meet them halfway and accept that decision...in my opinion. 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" > > Again re dungeons, and this is all about Anet communicating, Anet specifically talked about why Fractals are replacing dungeons as the go to five man content. Dungeons require too much work and time to maintain. The code is older. We know that Anet tried to revitalize AC at one point and we know the TA Aetherblade path (one of my personal favorites) replaced the TA F/U path. And do you think that that was succcessful? Do you think most people did those dungeons. This is about the value of time and investment of time and money, for what is assuredly a small part of the population. A loud part of the population to be sure, but a small one. And Anet gave is their reasons on how hard it would be to upgrade dungeons and it's why we migrated to the newer Fractals in the first place. They put the Fractals in the game to give us something that's easier to upgrade. > > Harder dungeon paths tend not to be done. Faster easier, rewarding dungeon paths were farmed. Why is that different than Fractals are now. Fractals solve a ton of already existing problems. They give less skilled players an entry point, more skill players more reward, they give a varying play field with instabilities, and they give people who want something to grind for something to grind for (because there are plenty of those). Dungeons solved none of those problems. There's no good reason to invest the time/energy/money to appease a small, loud portion of the playerbase, which is again, why Anet communicating is and isn't a big deal. Again I think they should communicate more... but this is a case where they already communicated and people are ignoring what they're saying and continuing to ask for something that they have decided is not in the best interest; in the game. > > Again listening doesn't have to mean obeying. Anet has heard the repeating request for dungeons. Anet also knows how many people have run dungeons since launch as a percentage of the playerbase. They've made that decision. You want Anet to communicate more, you should meet them halfway and accept that decision...in my opinion. You want Anet to communicate more, you should meet them halfway and accept that decision...in my opinion. I just don't see why they can't be improved upon. I'm aware they have made that decision known, I just don't agree with it and I've stated as much along with others. Maybe that is an indication to them that maybe their approach to it should be different? People clearly would have an interest in Dungeons and play them more should they ever get reworked on a much grander scale. Of course as they are now they see less player attention, which is the problem. They don't find value in doing them, not because they are difficult but because they just aren't worth any time invested into them in-game. Come to think of it, though, if ANets belief is that they would rather put time into Fractals (which there are already scarce updates for) and just leave Dungeons as they are...why even bother to have them there? Just to put something in the way of getting those cosmetics? You can already earn those same cosmetics by just doing random WvW or sPvP, probably faster too, so are the dungeons just there so that PvE players can get those cosmetics? They just seem like a pestilent sore that you have to "suffer" through to get to the cosmetics or some runes, and some Legendaries. Actually in terms of difficulty in the game, there is a growing issue among the raid community that they don't have content properly tailored to them. Now I wouldn't say he is a spokesperson for anyone, but his perspective does have some merit to it. GW2 definitely isn't designed with a hardcore player in mind, they go to other MMORPGs for that, and I can appreciate some of those aspects in GW2. I don't have to worry about gear treadmill, I can take a break for months and come back and I'm all good (though I do enjoy gear treadmill), and it can be helpful for newer players or less skilled players to get more accustomed to content because what we have is nowhere near difficult. There are positives, but the negatives are that a whole group of players essentially gets ignored and feels like the things they look to do in the game are just neglected. Which is where communication and better engagement could come in handy, and where at the very least *considering* the feedback from those smaller subsets of players, aka you know the ones actually playing the content, could benefit that content. I mean they did invite guilds interested and who have done *raiding* before to test Raids before they released for the first time way, way back when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > GW2 definitely isn't designed with a hardcore player in mind, they go to other MMORPGs for that, and I can appreciate some of those aspects in GW2. I don't have to worry about gear treadmill, I can take a break for months and come back and I'm all good (though I do enjoy gear treadmill), and it can be helpful for newer players or less skilled players to get more accustomed to content because what we have is nowhere near difficult. There are positives, but the negatives are that a whole group of players essentially gets ignored and feels like the things they look to do in the game are just neglected. Which is where communication and better engagement could come in handy, and where at the very least *considering* the feedback from those smaller subsets of players, aka you know the ones actually playing the content, could benefit that content. I mean they did invite guilds interested and who have done *raiding* before to test Raids before they released for the first time way, way back when. > > ... and this isn't related to Anet communicating more. Again, you have somehow correlated more communication from Anet being equal to players being listened to more. That's not sound. I would give up ALL the communication we get from Anet to have a more transparent approach to player-developer interactions and decision making process. They simply aren't related, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > GW2 definitely isn't designed with a hardcore player in mind, they go to other MMORPGs for that, and I can appreciate some of those aspects in GW2. I don't have to worry about gear treadmill, I can take a break for months and come back and I'm all good (though I do enjoy gear treadmill), and it can be helpful for newer players or less skilled players to get more accustomed to content because what we have is nowhere near difficult. There are positives, but the negatives are that a whole group of players essentially gets ignored and feels like the things they look to do in the game are just neglected. Which is where communication and better engagement could come in handy, and where at the very least *considering* the feedback from those smaller subsets of players, aka you know the ones actually playing the content, could benefit that content. I mean they did invite guilds interested and who have done *raiding* before to test Raids before they released for the first time way, way back when. > > > > > ... and this isn't related to Anet communicating more. Again, you have somehow correlated more communication from Anet being equal to players being listened to more. That's not sound. I would give up ALL the communication we get from Anet to have a more transparent approach to player-developer interactions and decision making process. They simply aren't related, at all. > Except isn't that exactly what the intention was when they brought in players to play test raids? You said they've taken feedback before. True. There was an entire section on the forums that they dedicated to player feedback and dev-player engagement, they called it the CDI (Collaborative Development Initiative) and I believe they even got feedback, from the community, on how Raiding should work in GW2. This was all back in *2014* and the CDI topic on Raiding had been started about 3 months before HoT was even announced (it was announced on January 24, 2015). Meaning they took a good several months of feedback before HoT released and before Raids even released. ANet even announced Raids were coming to GW2 on August of 2015, the first Raid wing of Forsaken Thicket (Spirit Vale) released *3 months later* in November. There are two things here, communication and then community engagement. Depending on the circumstances they can definitely be related. If they communicate intentions properly, like with a Roadmap or *appropriate time as a heads up*, and then offer opportunities to give feedback on upcoming content either through playtesting (as the example above) or by giving information in more detail via a stream or blog post, then there could be a helpful symbiotic relationship born from that. They have done all of these things before...but they stopped. Like I said, they only got worse at it as time has gone on. All that I just described in this post that ANet *did* is not anything they do now. We get 1 week of notification ahead of time and we have nothing that even remotely resembles the CDI. So how exactly are these two things not related? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortifera.6138 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 This thread was fun until it went into full essay mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knighthonor.4061 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"Erasculio.2914" said: > Just to give an example, we have on the FF XIV reddit a topic named "Guild Wars 2 Refugees coming to FFXIV": > > > > If you take a look, it's not made by a GW2 hater, or whatever you want to call it; rather, by someone who's frustrated with the current situation of the game, and the lack of any sign that things will get better. > > There's a very interesting topic discussing it on the GW2 reddit: > > > > In which, again, the main theme is frustration with ArenaNet's silence about the future of Guild Wars 2. iam reading the top comments on the second link. I am curious, do you all want more grind? Is that the goal? I hate the LW Story as well, but More Grind is not the answer IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > @"Erasculio.2914" said: > > Just to give an example, we have on the FF XIV reddit a topic named "Guild Wars 2 Refugees coming to FFXIV": > > > > > > > > If you take a look, it's not made by a GW2 hater, or whatever you want to call it; rather, by someone who's frustrated with the current situation of the game, and the lack of any sign that things will get better. > > > > There's a very interesting topic discussing it on the GW2 reddit: > > > > > > > > In which, again, the main theme is frustration with ArenaNet's silence about the future of Guild Wars 2. > > iam reading the top comments on the second link. I am curious, do you all want more grind? Is that the goal? I hate the LW Story as well, but More Grind is not the answer IMO. I mean, you talk like the game has bo grind while the overwhelming majority of it is locked behind gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > GW2 definitely isn't designed with a hardcore player in mind, they go to other MMORPGs for that, and I can appreciate some of those aspects in GW2. I don't have to worry about gear treadmill, I can take a break for months and come back and I'm all good (though I do enjoy gear treadmill), and it can be helpful for newer players or less skilled players to get more accustomed to content because what we have is nowhere near difficult. There are positives, but the negatives are that a whole group of players essentially gets ignored and feels like the things they look to do in the game are just neglected. Which is where communication and better engagement could come in handy, and where at the very least *considering* the feedback from those smaller subsets of players, aka you know the ones actually playing the content, could benefit that content. I mean they did invite guilds interested and who have done *raiding* before to test Raids before they released for the first time way, way back when. > > > > > > > > ... and this isn't related to Anet communicating more. Again, you have somehow correlated more communication from Anet being equal to players being listened to more. That's not sound. I would give up ALL the communication we get from Anet to have a more transparent approach to player-developer interactions and decision making process. They simply aren't related, at all. > > > > Except isn't that exactly what the intention was when they brought in players to play test raids? > > You said they've taken feedback before. True. There was an entire section on the forums that they dedicated to player feedback and dev-player engagement, they called it the CDI (Collaborative Development Initiative) and I believe they even got feedback, from the community, on how Raiding should work in GW2. This was all back in *2014* and the CDI topic on Raiding had been started about 3 months before HoT was even announced (it was announced on January 24, 2015). Meaning they took a good several months of feedback before HoT released and before Raids even released. > > ANet even announced Raids were coming to GW2 on August of 2015, the first Raid wing of Forsaken Thicket (Spirit Vale) released *3 months later* in November. > > There are two things here, communication and then community engagement. Depending on the circumstances they can definitely be related. If they communicate intentions properly, like with a Roadmap or *appropriate time as a heads up*, and then offer opportunities to give feedback on upcoming content either through playtesting (as the example above) or by giving information in more detail via a stream or blog post, then there could be a helpful symbiotic relationship born from that. > > They have done all of these things before...but they stopped. Like I said, they only got worse at it as time has gone on. > > All that I just described in this post that ANet *did* is not anything they do now. We get 1 week of notification ahead of time and we have nothing that even remotely resembles the CDI. > > So how exactly are these two things not related? But surely you know they've listened to the community in the instance of dungeons and made a different decision based on their knowledge. You can not agree with it if you like, but that IS the decision. This has nothing to do with not communicating. They told you why. They communicated. You may not agree with it, but I'm not sure why that matters. I do agree with is. They listened to me, not you. That's the issue. Too many people think to listen to the community means to obey the community. That is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acheron.4731 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > @"Erasculio.2914" said: > > Just to give an example, we have on the FF XIV reddit a topic named "Guild Wars 2 Refugees coming to FFXIV": > > > > > > > > If you take a look, it's not made by a GW2 hater, or whatever you want to call it; rather, by someone who's frustrated with the current situation of the game, and the lack of any sign that things will get better. > > > > There's a very interesting topic discussing it on the GW2 reddit: > > > > > > > > In which, again, the main theme is frustration with ArenaNet's silence about the future of Guild Wars 2. > > iam reading the top comments on the second link. I am curious, do you all want more grind? Is that the goal? I hate the LW Story as well, but More Grind is not the answer IMO. No, lol :) Just more communication of any kind...like, where are we heading? How are those wvw alliances? LS 5 gonna include expansion-like content? Are legendary runes/sigils really that legendary? etc.... Some people are just getting into a debate for the sake of debating. Just asking for more communication /feedback from ANET b/c they are 'in silent mode again' and seem to be phoning it in pretty hard atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > GW2 definitely isn't designed with a hardcore player in mind, they go to other MMORPGs for that, and I can appreciate some of those aspects in GW2. I don't have to worry about gear treadmill, I can take a break for months and come back and I'm all good (though I do enjoy gear treadmill), and it can be helpful for newer players or less skilled players to get more accustomed to content because what we have is nowhere near difficult. There are positives, but the negatives are that a whole group of players essentially gets ignored and feels like the things they look to do in the game are just neglected. Which is where communication and better engagement could come in handy, and where at the very least *considering* the feedback from those smaller subsets of players, aka you know the ones actually playing the content, could benefit that content. I mean they did invite guilds interested and who have done *raiding* before to test Raids before they released for the first time way, way back when. > > > > > > > > ... and this isn't related to Anet communicating more. Again, you have somehow correlated more communication from Anet being equal to players being listened to more. That's not sound. I would give up ALL the communication we get from Anet to have a more transparent approach to player-developer interactions and decision making process. They simply aren't related, at all. > > > > Except isn't that exactly what the intention was when they brought in players to play test raids? How is Anet taking in players to test raids related to Anet communicating with the playerbase? No, honestly I don't see the connection. They could have ZERO communication with the general population and **still** facilitate a process for player feedback. This is what you don't like. Again, they HAVE a process for getting feedback on their developments. Do not misinterpret more communication from Anet as some kind of broader player-driven process for giving feedback. You are formulating this completely unmanageable process in your mind where players just tell Anet what they want and they will magically get it ... IF Anet communicates more. That's not a realistic view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westenev.5289 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 By skimming this thread, I wonder what people mean when they say they want more communication. Do we want more beta's? How many players even take the time to give good, valid advice? I imagine Anet would be in a position to know, considering they have held a HoT and PoF beta, and leave pvp maps in beta for months at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenedge.9675 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > It's business 101 to communicate with your clients in some capacity. That's incorrect. Ask Microsoft or any big company. Communication is limited and only comes from marketing. Microsoft has never listened to customers, though they continue to dominate. They even claim "it was OUR idea" (with VISTA). We aren't clients. We are consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"keenedge.9675" said: > > > It's business 101 to communicate with your clients in some capacity. > > That's incorrect. Ask Microsoft or any big company. Communication is limited and only comes from marketing. > Microsoft has never listened to customers, though they continue to dominate. They even claim "it was OUR idea" (with VISTA). > > We aren't clients. We are consumers. > > Love this ... it's REALLY important that people take this concept and understand it. Consumers have very limited ability to be involved with their service providers. They certainly are not in the back office telling providers what to do and how to do it. Consumers speak with their wallets. IF you get the opportunity to provide feedback as a consumer, it's on the providers terms. Providers always have the last say in how to act on that feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trise.2865 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > @"Erasculio.2914" said: > > > Just to give an example, we have on the FF XIV reddit a topic named "Guild Wars 2 Refugees coming to FFXIV": > > > > > > > > > > > > If you take a look, it's not made by a GW2 hater, or whatever you want to call it; rather, by someone who's frustrated with the current situation of the game, and the lack of any sign that things will get better. > > > > > > There's a very interesting topic discussing it on the GW2 reddit: > > > > > > > > > > > > In which, again, the main theme is frustration with ArenaNet's silence about the future of Guild Wars 2. > > > > iam reading the top comments on the second link. I am curious, do you all want more grind? Is that the goal? I hate the LW Story as well, but More Grind is not the answer IMO. > > I mean, you talk like the game has bo grind while the overwhelming majority of it is locked behind gold. I'd like an explanation of this. What areas do you have to pay Gold to enter? What activities do you need Gold to participate in? What enemies won't fight you unless you pay them Gold? What gear can you only obtain with Gold? Which PvP arena or WvW map can you not enter and participate in without paying Gold? What stories are you denied without Gold to pay for it? ...because I think you're getting confused with another game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > GW2 definitely isn't designed with a hardcore player in mind, they go to other MMORPGs for that, and I can appreciate some of those aspects in GW2. I don't have to worry about gear treadmill, I can take a break for months and come back and I'm all good (though I do enjoy gear treadmill), and it can be helpful for newer players or less skilled players to get more accustomed to content because what we have is nowhere near difficult. There are positives, but the negatives are that a whole group of players essentially gets ignored and feels like the things they look to do in the game are just neglected. Which is where communication and better engagement could come in handy, and where at the very least *considering* the feedback from those smaller subsets of players, aka you know the ones actually playing the content, could benefit that content. I mean they did invite guilds interested and who have done *raiding* before to test Raids before they released for the first time way, way back when. > > > > > > > > > > > ... and this isn't related to Anet communicating more. Again, you have somehow correlated more communication from Anet being equal to players being listened to more. That's not sound. I would give up ALL the communication we get from Anet to have a more transparent approach to player-developer interactions and decision making process. They simply aren't related, at all. > > > > > > > Except isn't that exactly what the intention was when they brought in players to play test raids? > > How is Anet taking in players to test raids related to Anet communicating with the playerbase? No, honestly I don't see the connection. They could have ZERO communication with the general population and **still** facilitate a process for player feedback. This is what you don't like. > > Again, they HAVE a process for getting feedback on their developments. Do not misinterpret more communication from Anet as some kind of broader player-driven process for giving feedback. You are formulating this completely unmanageable process in your mind where players just tell Anet what they want and they will magically get it ... IF Anet communicates more. That's not a realistic view. > Well its the whole process that lead up to that which I described...not sure why that is getting ignored. Also I never *once* said that would be how it happened, in fact multiple times now I said that there should be a process in which they parse through it, but as I stated in my last post that process *does not seem to be there anymore*. They *did* do it, the CDI, but they haven't for years now, at least not in any way that we have been *informed* of. This has in now way, shape or form been about wanting ANet to be told what to do by the players and then the players "magically get it". Not at all what has been said or implied. The ask is not that they take upon this unreasonable task of adhering to and bending to every whim of the community when it pops up as a thread or a request, but that they take the time to acknowledge that there *is* feedback, formulate an appropriate process for it (possibly even something similar to the CDI) and communicate on future plans for the game, with a roadmap, so that the community has some idea as to what the future of the game might hold, as well as give the community a heads up on the kind of content that they are working on and not just a *week* before it releases. Real simple. Not at all complicated, not even at all unreasonable...why is a roadmap, or weekly blog post or devstream such an unreasonable request when when several other companies do that exact thing? It legitimately feels like you're trying to vilify the entire concept by misrepresenting the idea behind it. Suggesting that ANet take better steps, better measures, to communicate and engage with the community with *reasonable* things like a proper roadmap and at least a frequent and consistent blog post/devstream every week (or every 2 weeks if one a week is apparently *too much*), is like asking for them to drag their entire dev teams away from their jobs to go post onto the forums individually. No. That is not the idea behind it and also not how that works. > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > > > GW2 definitely isn't designed with a hardcore player in mind, they go to other MMORPGs for that, and I can appreciate some of those aspects in GW2. I don't have to worry about gear treadmill, I can take a break for months and come back and I'm all good (though I do enjoy gear treadmill), and it can be helpful for newer players or less skilled players to get more accustomed to content because what we have is nowhere near difficult. There are positives, but the negatives are that a whole group of players essentially gets ignored and feels like the things they look to do in the game are just neglected. Which is where communication and better engagement could come in handy, and where at the very least *considering* the feedback from those smaller subsets of players, aka you know the ones actually playing the content, could benefit that content. I mean they did invite guilds interested and who have done *raiding* before to test Raids before they released for the first time way, way back when. > > > > > > > > > > > ... and this isn't related to Anet communicating more. Again, you have somehow correlated more communication from Anet being equal to players being listened to more. That's not sound. I would give up ALL the communication we get from Anet to have a more transparent approach to player-developer interactions and decision making process. They simply aren't related, at all. > > > > > > > Except isn't that exactly what the intention was when they brought in players to play test raids? > > > > You said they've taken feedback before. True. There was an entire section on the forums that they dedicated to player feedback and dev-player engagement, they called it the CDI (Collaborative Development Initiative) and I believe they even got feedback, from the community, on how Raiding should work in GW2. This was all back in *2014* and the CDI topic on Raiding had been started about 3 months before HoT was even announced (it was announced on January 24, 2015). Meaning they took a good several months of feedback before HoT released and before Raids even released. > > > > ANet even announced Raids were coming to GW2 on August of 2015, the first Raid wing of Forsaken Thicket (Spirit Vale) released *3 months later* in November. > > > > There are two things here, communication and then community engagement. Depending on the circumstances they can definitely be related. If they communicate intentions properly, like with a Roadmap or *appropriate time as a heads up*, and then offer opportunities to give feedback on upcoming content either through playtesting (as the example above) or by giving information in more detail via a stream or blog post, then there could be a helpful symbiotic relationship born from that. > > > > They have done all of these things before...but they stopped. Like I said, they only got worse at it as time has gone on. > > > > All that I just described in this post that ANet *did* is not anything they do now. We get 1 week of notification ahead of time and we have nothing that even remotely resembles the CDI. > > > > So how exactly are these two things not related? > > But surely you know they've listened to the community in the instance of dungeons and made a different decision based on their knowledge. You can not agree with it if you like, but that IS the decision. This has nothing to do with not communicating. They told you why. They communicated. You may not agree with it, but I'm not sure why that matters. I do agree with is. They listened to me, not you. That's the issue. Too many people think to listen to the community means to obey the community. That is not the case. Nope. Not saying that they should obey the community. Why does this keep getting misconstrued in such an egregious fashion? Kind of blowing my mind right now. At this point I'm going to try less to *explain* things and just give examples. Examples of what is being looked for, what I believe would be appreciated by the community but also helpful to ANet are things like; * A roadmap. Having an idea of future goals and plans for the game could go a long way towards just informing the community rather than let their imaginations run wild. * A weekly (or bi-weekly) devstream/blog post that goes into what is potentially being looked at for balance patches/upcoming events/gem store skin concept art/etc. Would also help solve the issue where we get informed of some game changing update a *week* before it launches. * Potentially another process similar to the CDI (Collaborative Development Initiative) that ANet had done back in 2014 until I believe mid to late 2015 or early 2016. This had actually helped pave the way for Raids and how they were *initially* and *first* implemented (they spent about a year developing them based on when they made the CDI thread for Raid feedback and suggestions), as well as other things like changes in WvW and sPvP and their systems and mechanics, it also brought us Guild Halls, as well as changes to the Commander tag and system, as well as a topic that had been about Horizontal and Vertical Progression in the game. This had been helmed by Chris Whiteside and Isaiah Cartwright, however Whiteside is unfortunately no longer at ANet as he left in 2015 and I can't remember the last time I saw Isaiah post or appear on anything. (I felt the CDI needed a bit more explaining as it was around *4 or 5 years ago*) A few examples of companies that do things like this? Digital Extremes (Warframe, which is a *7 year old* game with a similar size team as ANet) Bungie (Destiny 2, they actually have a weekly blogpost and have been improving since moving away from Activision) Grinding Gear Games (Path of Exile, the devs actually keep their players informed of balance changes and communicate about player feedback) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inculpatus cedo.9234 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 FYI: CDI ran from October 2013 to November 2014. A little over 1 year. Actually, the first topics to discuss started in November of 2014, I believe, other than how to format CDIs, etc. Several different Devs held CDI topics, not only two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"Trise.2865" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > @"Erasculio.2914" said: > > > > Just to give an example, we have on the FF XIV reddit a topic named "Guild Wars 2 Refugees coming to FFXIV": > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you take a look, it's not made by a GW2 hater, or whatever you want to call it; rather, by someone who's frustrated with the current situation of the game, and the lack of any sign that things will get better. > > > > > > > > There's a very interesting topic discussing it on the GW2 reddit: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In which, again, the main theme is frustration with ArenaNet's silence about the future of Guild Wars 2. > > > > > > iam reading the top comments on the second link. I am curious, do you all want more grind? Is that the goal? I hate the LW Story as well, but More Grind is not the answer IMO. > > > > I mean, you talk like the game has bo grind while the overwhelming majority of it is locked behind gold. > I meant moreso the rewards but ehh, lets see > I'd like an explanation of this. What areas do you have to pay Gold to enter? None that i can think but theres certainly some that you will get in easier if you invested into somes things (which to an extend cost gold), like gear. > What activities do you need Gold to participate in? Pugging raids and t4 fractals/cm in terms of the entry investment into your gear and buffs foods etc. > What enemies won't fight you unless you pay them Gold? None really but i find that abit weird of a point. Its not gold but full gambits queen's gauntlet bosses eont fight u unless u pay the req currency. > What gear can you only obtain with Gold? Ascented gear of your choice unless blessrng blesses you, and most if not all legendaries require some gold. > Which PvP arena or WvW map can you not enter and participate in without paying Gold? None that ik of but im not familair with an mmo that charges you anything to enter pvp. > What stories are you denied without Gold to pay for it? Living world stories u missed? Tho i guess u can also buy with gems (which can be converted to gold) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > The ask is not that they take upon this unreasonable task of adhering to and bending to every whim of the community when it pops up as a thread or a request, but that they take the time to acknowledge that there *is* feedback, formulate an appropriate process for it (possibly even something similar to the CDI) and communicate on future plans for the game, with a roadmap, so that the community has some idea as to what the future of the game might hold, as well as give the community a heads up on the kind of content that they are working on and not just a *week* before it releases. Real simple. Not at all complicated, not even at all unreasonable...why is a roadmap, or weekly blog post or devstream such an unreasonable request when when several other companies do that exact thing? What other companies do is irrelevant. There isn't a MMO rulebook that Anet has to play by. I don't really get what you want: 1. You want Anet to acknoweldge they get feedback and formulate a process for that? I think it's been more than well established that exists. 2. Communication on future plans: Again, we got that. We know L5 is coming, we got info about what's being released and worked on. The things you ask for are happening. it's really disingenuous to continuously to make your arguments like they don't. There isn't a discussion here that will result in anything but censure if people continue to be dishonest about what is real. 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