The new masteries are yet again another disappointment for GW 2

[Lambent.6375]

Its probably Hard to develop content when the devs hands are tied behind their back because they have to avoid any sort of vertical progression, while at the same time introducing new content that players want to play. I don't know of any mmos where the devs have to deal with that same handicap.

[Xar.6279]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> Players whom primarily play PvE have to accept the fact you can't make end game out of PvE content; it has to be done through competitive modes.

>

> The new map is quite small, the story short, the mastery pretty dull (though I know they'll be expanding on it). People can claim all they want they enjoyed the content; however; you'll inevitably find more people who don't enjoy it. Furthermore, many people would simply be happy standing around in the middle of the map RP'ing with absolutely nothing going on around them and still be happy. That doesn't make it right and it's pretty hard to defend that as end-game or good content.

 

You can do end game content around pve but it requires a lot of work. Blizzard is good example here. They made esport around raids and dungeons.

But yeah - you can't expect pve end game in gw2. It won't happen.

Also overall pvp of course will be always better end game but it's definitely possible to do it around pve too.

[Xar.6279]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > Players whom primarily play PvE have to accept the fact you can't make end game out of PvE content; it has to be done through competitive modes.

> >

> > The new map is quite small, the story short, the mastery pretty dull (though I know they'll be expanding on it). People can claim all they want they enjoyed the content; however; you'll inevitably find more people who don't enjoy it. Furthermore, many people would simply be happy standing around in the middle of the map RP'ing with absolutely nothing going on around them and still be happy. That doesn't make it right and it's pretty hard to defend that as end-game or good content.

>

> and yet that game mode still dwarfs both competitive game modes combined, by a lot. If the PvE of this game fails, the game closes shop, it's that simple.

>

> That's without even getting into the sorry state pvp is in with WvW closely behind it (which pains me to say since I love WvW). A couple of thousand players (does pvp even have that many atm?) do not sustain a MMORPG.

 

You look at it wrong because end game content usually isn't about popularity. Its just the opposite. It is addressed to a narrow group of people. You don't need millions of players in end game content to have good end game content. It's all about quality. For example: pvp will be always a niche. It's something normal. And what does it change? Nothing. You can't measure success of endgame content by its popularity. Because success of endgame is in a completely different place.

 

Current GW2 endgame is:

- Speedkills and lowmans in pve. Which is fully created endgame by players.

- AT's in PvP

- GvG's in WvW. Which is fully created endgame by players.

 

Normal pvp, normal raids/fracrals or normal wvw isn't endgame. It's just content to play. Same as hunting for achievements etc, etc.

Raids for example used to be an endgame here but ArenaNet didn't support it enough.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Xar.6279" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > > Players whom primarily play PvE have to accept the fact you can't make end game out of PvE content; it has to be done through competitive modes.

> > >

> > > The new map is quite small, the story short, the mastery pretty dull (though I know they'll be expanding on it). People can claim all they want they enjoyed the content; however; you'll inevitably find more people who don't enjoy it. Furthermore, many people would simply be happy standing around in the middle of the map RP'ing with absolutely nothing going on around them and still be happy. That doesn't make it right and it's pretty hard to defend that as end-game or good content.

> >

> > and yet that game mode still dwarfs both competitive game modes combined, by a lot. If the PvE of this game fails, the game closes shop, it's that simple.

> >

> > That's without even getting into the sorry state pvp is in with WvW closely behind it (which pains me to say since I love WvW). A couple of thousand players (does pvp even have that many atm?) do not sustain a MMORPG.

>

> You look at it wrong because end game content usually isn't about popularity. Its just the opposite. It is addressed to a narrow group of people. You don't need millions of players in end game content to have good end game content. It's all about quality. For example: pvp will be always a niche. It's something normal. And what does it change? Nothing. You can't measure success of endgame content by its popularity. Because success of endgame is in a completely different place.

>

> Current GW2 endgame is:

> - Speedkills and lowmans in pve. Which is fully created endgame by players.

> - AT's in PvP

> - GvG's in WvW

>

> Normal pvp, normal raids/fracrals or normal wvw isn't endgame. It's just content to play. Same as hunting for achievements etc, etc.

> Raids for example used to be an endgame here but ArenaNet didn't support it enough.

 

I'm using only 1 metric for success of the game:

- revenue generated by amount of players

 

Pvp and WvW (slightly less than pvp) are not even in the same galaxy as PvE for GW2. I don't care if you call that endgame or which ever term you want to use. I call it: the content which will get the most attention.

[Xar.6279]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Xar.6279" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > > > Players whom primarily play PvE have to accept the fact you can't make end game out of PvE content; it has to be done through competitive modes.

> > > >

> > > > The new map is quite small, the story short, the mastery pretty dull (though I know they'll be expanding on it). People can claim all they want they enjoyed the content; however; you'll inevitably find more people who don't enjoy it. Furthermore, many people would simply be happy standing around in the middle of the map RP'ing with absolutely nothing going on around them and still be happy. That doesn't make it right and it's pretty hard to defend that as end-game or good content.

> > >

> > > and yet that game mode still dwarfs both competitive game modes combined, by a lot. If the PvE of this game fails, the game closes shop, it's that simple.

> > >

> > > That's without even getting into the sorry state pvp is in with WvW closely behind it (which pains me to say since I love WvW). A couple of thousand players (does pvp even have that many atm?) do not sustain a MMORPG.

> >

> > You look at it wrong because end game content usually isn't about popularity. Its just the opposite. It is addressed to a narrow group of people. You don't need millions of players in end game content to have good end game content. It's all about quality. For example: pvp will be always a niche. It's something normal. And what does it change? Nothing. You can't measure success of endgame content by its popularity. Because success of endgame is in a completely different place.

> >

> > Current GW2 endgame is:

> > - Speedkills and lowmans in pve. Which is fully created endgame by players.

> > - AT's in PvP

> > - GvG's in WvW

> >

> > Normal pvp, normal raids/fracrals or normal wvw isn't endgame. It's just content to play. Same as hunting for achievements etc, etc.

> > Raids for example used to be an endgame here but ArenaNet didn't support it enough.

>

> I'm using only 1 metric for success of the game:

> - revenue generated by amount of players

>

> Pvp and WvW (slightly less than pvp) are not even in the same galaxy as PvE for GW2. I don't care if you call that endgame or which ever term you want to use. I call it: the content which will get the most attention.

 

So you do it wrong - endgame is endgame. Moneys are money. It's two totally different things.

Also usually in MMORPG's it works this way that everyone is equal because they all pays sub fee and they play how they want to - hardcore or casual. No one counts which group spends more and its healthy for a game.

In other online games it's usually f2p and endgame generates money by esports and casuals generates it by buying skins etc, etc.

 

In GW2 we've got gemshop so casuals can buy skins there and generate money for this game. Why endgame in GW2 don't generate money then?

It's simple: because ArenaNet is wasting their potential. They're not making money on: raid tournaments, pvp tournaments, gvg tournaments.

It's only their fault that they don't do it.

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Xar.6279" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"Xar.6279" said:

> > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > > > > Players whom primarily play PvE have to accept the fact you can't make end game out of PvE content; it has to be done through competitive modes.

> > > > >

> > > > > The new map is quite small, the story short, the mastery pretty dull (though I know they'll be expanding on it). People can claim all they want they enjoyed the content; however; you'll inevitably find more people who don't enjoy it. Furthermore, many people would simply be happy standing around in the middle of the map RP'ing with absolutely nothing going on around them and still be happy. That doesn't make it right and it's pretty hard to defend that as end-game or good content.

> > > >

> > > > and yet that game mode still dwarfs both competitive game modes combined, by a lot. If the PvE of this game fails, the game closes shop, it's that simple.

> > > >

> > > > That's without even getting into the sorry state pvp is in with WvW closely behind it (which pains me to say since I love WvW). A couple of thousand players (does pvp even have that many atm?) do not sustain a MMORPG.

> > >

> > > You look at it wrong because end game content usually isn't about popularity. Its just the opposite. It is addressed to a narrow group of people. You don't need millions of players in end game content to have good end game content. It's all about quality. For example: pvp will be always a niche. It's something normal. And what does it change? Nothing. You can't measure success of endgame content by its popularity. Because success of endgame is in a completely different place.

> > >

> > > Current GW2 endgame is:

> > > - Speedkills and lowmans in pve. Which is fully created endgame by players.

> > > - AT's in PvP

> > > - GvG's in WvW

> > >

> > > Normal pvp, normal raids/fracrals or normal wvw isn't endgame. It's just content to play. Same as hunting for achievements etc, etc.

> > > Raids for example used to be an endgame here but ArenaNet didn't support it enough.

> >

> > I'm using only 1 metric for success of the game:

> > - revenue generated by amount of players

> >

> > Pvp and WvW (slightly less than pvp) are not even in the same galaxy as PvE for GW2. I don't care if you call that endgame or which ever term you want to use. I call it: the content which will get the most attention.

>

> So you do it wrong - endgame is endgame. Money's are money. It's two totally different things.

 

Not if the argument is made that more resources should be devoted to content which does not generate revenue (or vastly less revenue).

 

> Also usually in MMORPG's it works this way that everyone is equal because they all pays sub fee and they play how they want to - hardcore or casual. No one counts which group spends more and its healthy for a game.

> In other online games it's usually f2p and endgame generates money by esports and casuals generates it by buying skins etc, etc.

>

 

This is not other MMORGPs, this is GW2 where there is no subscription fee.

 

> @"Xar.6279" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> In GW2 we've got gemshop so casuals can buy skins there and generate money for this game. Why endgame in GW2 don't generate money then?

> It's simple: because ArenaNet is wasting their potential. They're not making money on: raid tournaments, pvp tournaments, gvg tournaments.

 

Do I really need to explain to you how pvp and WvW (again, WvW less than pvp) make less use of quality of life features, materials for gear, **amount of players playing the game mode** (this is the big one btw), etc. results in less revenue from those game modes?

[Xar.6279]

It's only ArenaNet's fault that they don't make money on endgame content here. Noone else. You can't blame players for it.

endgame content can generate huge money and it's already confirmed by other games.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Xar.6279" said:

> It's only ArenaNet's fault that they don't make money on endgame content here. Noone else. You can't blame players for it.

>

 

I'm not blaming players, and I'm not blaming Arenanet. Why? Because they have the metrics where the majority of their players is, which content makes enough revenue and based on that they make more content. Now take a guess how much content pvp and wvw have been getting? Exactly. Hence why I disagreed with the notion that focusing on pvp or wvw would benefit the game as an argument.

 

> @"Xar.6279" said:

> endgame content can generate huge money and it's already confirmed by other games.

 

Name 1 pvp centric MMORPG where there is no PvE content which is successful. Or at least where the pvp crowd mirrors or outnumbers the pve crowd. Ever. Hint: there isn't and never was one so far.

[Xar.6279]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Xar.6279" said:

> > It's only ArenaNet's fault that they don't make money on endgame content here. Noone else. You can't blame players for it.

> >

>

> I'm not blaming players, and I'm not blaming Arenanet. Why? Because they have the metrics where the majority of their players is, which content makes enough revenue and based on that they make more content. Now take a guess how much content pvp and wvw have been getting? Exactly. Hence why I disagreed with the notion that focusing on pvp or wvw would benefit the game as an argument.

>

> > @"Xar.6279" said:

> > endgame content can generate huge money and it's already confirmed by other games.

>

> Name 1 pvp centric MMORPG where there is no PvE content which is successful. Or at least where the pvp crowd mirrors or outnumbers the pve crowd. Ever. Hint: there isn't and never was one so far.

 

You don't understand at all. I already wrote it few posts above.

Successful endgame don't have to be very populated at all.

Show me game with endgame which is addressed to the majority... O.o

 

endgame is endgame and content is content. Two different things.

endgame success is not measured by the number of people who have achieved it..

It will be always small % of players. How could it be otherwise? O.o It's illogical

 

it's called "ENDgame" for a reason. How do you want millions of players to reach ENDgame. I don't get it, sorry.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Xar.6279" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"Xar.6279" said:

> > > It's only ArenaNet's fault that they don't make money on endgame content here. Noone else. You can't blame players for it.

> > >

> >

> > I'm not blaming players, and I'm not blaming Arenanet. Why? Because they have the metrics where the majority of their players is, which content makes enough revenue and based on that they make more content. Now take a guess how much content pvp and wvw have been getting? Exactly. Hence why I disagreed with the notion that focusing on pvp or wvw would benefit the game as an argument.

> >

> > > @"Xar.6279" said:

> > > endgame content can generate huge money and it's already confirmed by other games.

> >

> > Name 1 pvp centric MMORPG where there is no PvE content which is successful. Or at least where the pvp crowd mirrors or outnumbers the pve crowd. Ever. Hint: there isn't and never was one so far.

>

> You don't understand at all. I already wrote it few posts above.

> Successful endgame don't have to be very populated at all.

> Show me game with endgame which is addressed to the majority... O.o

>

> endgame is endgame and content is content. Two different things.

> endgame success is not measured by the number of people who have achieved it..

> It will be always small % of players. How could it be otherwise? O.o It's illogical

>

> it's called "ENDgame" for a reason. How do you want millions of players to reach ENDgame. I don't get it, sorry.

 

That's your personal definition. Endgame content is what any player chooses to repeat as to stick with the game past the point of him acquiring gear or some arbitrary maximum level. In GW2 this can range from raids, to fractals, to open world boss farming for legendarys or anything in between. Your arbitrary definition and valuation what YOU believe endgame content to be is purely subjective.

 

But sure, let's use your definition then:

> Successful endgame don't have to be very populated at all.

 

If it's not populated, it will not generate revenue. If it doesn't generate revenue, it's not high on the to do list for games without a fixed income (and even for games with a fixed income, it will not be a priority since by your very definition, it will not keep many players occupied).

 

My point stands:

Show me a game where a very low populated "endgame" sees a big amount of developer resources.

[Hevoskuuri.3891]

Regarding the masteries, I believe Arenanet has already covered most possible 'active' game-wide masteries; we've got movement, utility and QoL. I'm not sure what more they could do rather than infinitely adding more mounts for niche use cases.

 

The new masteries are at least relevant troughout the season, which can't be said of all the LS3 masteries for example. Even if they are mostly passive buffs that allow us to hit harder and open certain chests, it's a nice bonus nonetheless.

 

I didn't see OP suggesting any mastery ideas of their own; feel free to do so. I believe Anet sees and considers most well-constructed suggestions, even if they decide not to act on them.

[Linken.6345]

> @"Hevoskuuri.3891" said:

> Regarding the masteries, I believe Arenanet has already covered most possible 'active' game-wide masteries; we've got movement, utility and QoL. I'm not sure what more they could do rather than infinitely adding more mounts for niche use cases.

>

> The new masteries are at least relevant troughout the season, which can't be said of all the LS3 masteries for example. Even if they are mostly passive buffs that allow us to hit harder and open certain chests, it's a nice bonus nonetheless.

>

> I didn't see OP suggesting any mastery ideas of their own; feel free to do so. I believe Anet sees and considers most well-constructed suggestions, even if they decide not to act on them.

 

No they are not the new mastery is relevant in ep 1 and 2 after that clayton have said the other team can use it if they want, but not that they will use it.

 

Answered here on guild chat, no Idea why it dont save timestamp its at 50:43

 

[Hevoskuuri.3891]

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> No they are not the new mastery is relevant in ep 1 and 2 after that clayton have said the other team can use it if they want, but not that they will use it.

>

> Answered here on guild chat, no Idea why it dont save timestamp its at 50:43

>

>

 

Oh. Well. In any case, masteries beyond the must-have, useful ones aren't exactly important, game-defining content. Personally it's all the same to me, whether they add map-specific masteries or no masteries at all. All it really does is raise your yellow rank number and that's it.

 

A small complaint though; they could have come up with a season-wide mastery that will be relevant throughout each episode. Any mastery at all, no matter how passive, but at least consistent and generally useful. Even though I don't care about the masteries per se, I dislike the overall per-map design that gets irrelevant outside their zones and forgotten in the future. That's no way to build good systems.

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Xar.6279" said:

> It's only ArenaNet's fault that they don't make money on endgame content here. Noone else. You can't blame players for it.

> endgame content can generate huge money and it's already confirmed by other games.

But that endgame content need to be tailored for the game (or the game tailored for the endgame content). You cannot have a pve game with only/mainly pvp endgame content - it won't work, because the players for the two modes are for the most plart different people. Notice, that even in GW1, wit its vastly superior (to gw2) pvp scene, pvp was still a tiny, tiny part compared to the rest of the game. Part most players were not interested in, and part most players would not even notice if it some day went missing.

 

PvP is only better endgame for the players that prefer pvp to pve. For everyone else (the vast majority) it's objectively worse to _anything_ that is aimed at PvE. You happen to be in the former group, but most players in gw2 are from the latter.

 

Basically, what you want is for the pve crowd to fund the content you personally like, because you personally like it. And if that's not possible, you'd want for the devs to design the game for you, even if it would result in a loss of revenue for them. Again, because that is the game you personally would like to see.