What happened to Anet?

[Ashantara.8731]

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

> Something made Anet decide that they dont want GW2 to be a action-sandbox mmorpg anymore. Instead they quite drastically turned the game into a storydriven rpg, selfplaying scenes included. They minimized the community interaction to the point that GW2 is close to being a singleplayer game with voluntary multiplayer option.

 

Only that single-player CRPGs have more story complexity and much more depth than GW2 can ever provide. Plus they are real RPGs in terms of letting you decide which path your character is going to pursue, thus making them replayable without getting boring, for it's not the same generic story step-by-step all over again when you replay it with a different character.

 

I'm currently playing an old-style isometric CRPG and am having more fun than I've had with GW2 in years. By removing player choice from dialogue and character personality from the game, ANet basically killed the _one_ aspect that made GW2's story-telling unique in the MMO genre and brought it closer to quality single-player CRPGs.

 

So whatever their intension in making GW2 less community-interaction dependend, it was pointless, because it can never compete with real RPG story-telling.

[ugrakarma.9416]

_"what happened to Anet?"_

 

they wasted too much energy pursuing "new hype" things, and ended with lots of **unfinished features** with low replayability value at long term.

 

This creates a vicious cycle:

-The lower replayability the more the base player demands something new.

-High demand requires something done in the short term.

-Things done in the short term have low replayability and lack of deepness.

-Soon after launching something new, the idea that "the game is dying" increases.

 

the situation would not be worse if there was no fairy godmother who brings money from heaven (NCSoft)

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > Anet evolved like any good developer would. They realized the hard core crowd, though loud, isn't quite so numerous. They lost people making HoT hard, even though the hard core crowd loved it, and made PoF the anti-hot. That was for a reason. You might not like the reason, but the age of the average computer gamer is mid 30s. They're not all sitting there on metabattle, or standing in front of a practice dummy. They want to come home, kill some stuff, see some kind of reward/progress and move onto killing something else.

> >

> > I'm 58 years old and I could care less about raids or PvP. But I'm sure I've put more hours into the game than most people, and I'm sure I've spent more money in the cash shop than most people.

> >

> > What happened to Anet? Like me, they changed. Change isn't always a bad thing.

>

> Why is it people always think spending money on the gemshop has anything to do with what Anet focuses their gamedesign-time on? That line of argument would have seen WvW being main focus, since the amount of gems for servertransfers was huge. In my wvw active days, transferring was something everybody did every few months on EU. Some transfers we got sponsored by 1-2 people, others we had to pay ourselves. Mind you, that was before mountskins, even before gliderskins.

> Sorry to burst that bubble. Its nice that you spend money on GW2, but that doesnt influence Anets decisions.

>

> The age of the "average" computer game is sure not mid 30s. What nonesense. Anet likes to target that demographic, but that has nothing to do with it being the average. Even WoW Classic had an avg age of 27-29 in several polls, and that was quite "old" for a videogame.

>

> Also, "wanting to come home, kill some stuff, see some kind of reward/progress and move onto killing something else", what you described there is a typical dungeon crawler. Thats not what GW2 is nowadays. Nowadays, GW2 is more like an interactive movie, a narrative rpg with some repeatable quests to fill the time between story releases. What you described there, that was GW2 up until LS3.

 

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > Anet evolved like any good developer would. They realized the hard core crowd, though loud, isn't quite so numerous. They lost people making HoT hard, even though the hard core crowd loved it, and made PoF the anti-hot. That was for a reason. You might not like the reason, but the age of the average computer gamer is mid 30s. They're not all sitting there on metabattle, or standing in front of a practice dummy. They want to come home, kill some stuff, see some kind of reward/progress and move onto killing something else.

> >

> > I'm 58 years old and I could care less about raids or PvP. But I'm sure I've put more hours into the game than most people, and I'm sure I've spent more money in the cash shop than most people.

> >

> > What happened to Anet? Like me, they changed. Change isn't always a bad thing.

>

> Why is it people always think spending money on the gemshop has anything to do with what Anet focuses their gamedesign-time on? That line of argument would have seen WvW being main focus, since the amount of gems for servertransfers was huge. In my wvw active days, transferring was something everybody did every few months on EU. Some transfers we got sponsored by 1-2 people, others we had to pay ourselves. Mind you, that was before mountskins, even before gliderskins.

> Sorry to burst that bubble. Its nice that you spend money on GW2, but that doesnt influence Anets decisions.

>

> The age of the "average" computer game is sure not mid 30s. What nonesense. Anet likes to target that demographic, but that has nothing to do with it being the average. Even WoW Classic had an avg age of 27-29 in several polls, and that was quite "old" for a videogame.

>

> Also, "wanting to come home, kill some stuff, see some kind of reward/progress and move onto killing something else", what you described there is a typical dungeon crawler. Thats not what GW2 is nowadays. Nowadays, GW2 is more like an interactive movie, a narrative rpg with some repeatable quests to fill the time between story releases. What you described there, that was GW2 up until LS3.

 

Why would anyone think they don't look at that, and what those people play. Any business would. I would. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm relatively certain the amount of money spent on black lion keys alone is more than server transfers. Remember, most of the player base doesn't play WvW in the first place. Of those, not everyone is going to transfer server. But as always with these things, it's the whales that spend the real money, not a server transfer every few months.

 

I used to spend $100 a month on this game. Why do you think the server transfer crowd is so important to the bottom line?

[Yasi.9065]

> @"ugrakarma.9416" said:

> _"what happened to Anet?"_

>

> they wasted too much energy pursuing "new hype" things, and ended with lots of **unfinished features** with low replayability value at long term.

>

> This creates a vicious cycle:

> -The lower replayability the more the base player demands something new.

> -High demand requires something done in the short term.

> -Things done in the short term have low replayability and lack of deepness.

> -Soon after launching something new, the idea that "the game is dying" increases.

>

> the situation would not be worse if there was no fairy godmother who brings money from heaven (NCSoft)

 

Isnt that something Anet always did? If something is shipped, its done. Some bugfixes, sure, but no major changes. The only time they really went back and changed a lot was HoT re-work, imo. Even the PoF meta event "rework" was only a reward-change with some bugfixes.

Id be really surprised if we see a gear template system added to build templates for example. Fixes to gear loadouts and build templates/loadouts, ofc. But no big changes, even though thats something thats really sorely lacking.

Or an easymode/hardmode added to raids (or strikes for that matter).

Even though those kind of improvements could really make the game a lot better, its nothing "new" and therefore nothing dev-time is being used on except if its really broken.

Wasnt it the same with GW1? At least on PvE releases.

[maddoctor.2738]

I must've been playing a different game in the last 2 years. As I found Heart of Thorns easier than Path of Fire in terms of combat. I'm trying to remember a single challenging fight in Heart of Thons story and I only come up with Mordremoth. The rest of the story was really easy.

 

Meanwhile Balthazar and Eater of Souls (before the nerf) were interesting fights. Compare the last boss in the first instance of pof with the first boss of hot...

 

As for LS3 only Caudecus was hard and I believe Scruffy in LS4 was harder. Raid wings 1 and 4 are easier than the Path of Fire Raids. And of course wing 5 is harder than both wing 2 and wing 3.

 

So really I can't see this massive turn in challenge after Hot. Unless you compare playing in hot without elite specs with playing pof with a hot elite spec. That't my only explanation

[Yasi.9065]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> I must've been playing a different game in the last 2 years. As I found Heart of Thorns easier than Path of Fire in terms of combat. I'm trying to remember a single challenging fight in Heart of Thons story and I only come up with Mordremoth. The rest of the story was really easy.

>

> Meanwhile Balthazar and Eater of Souls (before the nerf) were interesting fights. Compare the last boss in the first instance of pof with the first boss of hot...

>

> As for LS3 only Caudecus was hard and I believe Scruffy in LS4 was harder. Raid wings 1 and 4 are easier than the Path of Fire Raids. And of course wing 5 is harder than both wing 2 and wing 3.

>

> So really I can't see this massive turn in challenge after Hot. Unless you compare playing in hot without elite specs with playing pof with a hot elite spec. That't my only explanation

 

Thats because you are comparing story instances while others are comparing openworld mobs/events. Dunno how to write this without sounding condescending, but story instances never were challenging for me, neither HoT, nor PoF, nor LS3 or LS4. There were some achievements in LS2 that were quite tricky to get without cheesing, but thats about it.

HoT mobs in openworld on release were overtuned. And they got nerfed to a good level subsequently, maybe nowadays they have not enough hp but thats because of the powercreep. PoF openworld mobs are quite a step down from that level of difficulty. They are only annoying because they tend to group and have boons. But you can counter both easily by adjusting your traits, and then they become quite easy to deal with.

But its not just that. A big part of PoF openworld you simply can jump through on your mount, and that even more reduces the perceived difficulty of the expansion.

[lare.5129]

When I click I was sure that written something like "what happen, why so cool"

SO for someone who not understand who Anet do the best, they should leave, van try play something other,

and after short time they will coma back and say "ou, I so happy here"

If someone find another more attractive project ? why not , we can say good luck. It will be positive for both - no toxic for current, and someone find that like.

 

Anyway project can be fine for all, people a different. I like that changes.

[ugrakarma.9416]

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

> > @"ugrakarma.9416" said:

> > _"what happened to Anet?"_

> >

> > they wasted too much energy pursuing "new hype" things, and ended with lots of **unfinished features** with low replayability value at long term.

> >

> > This creates a vicious cycle:

> > -The lower replayability the more the base player demands something new.

> > -High demand requires something done in the short term.

> > -Things done in the short term have low replayability and lack of deepness.

> > -Soon after launching something new, the idea that "the game is dying" increases.

> >

> > the situation would not be worse if there was no fairy godmother who brings money from heaven (NCSoft)

>

> Isnt that something Anet always did? If something is shipped, its done. Some bugfixes, sure, but no major changes. The only time they really went back and changed a lot was HoT re-work, imo. Even the PoF meta event "rework" was only a reward-change with some bugfixes.

> Id be really surprised if we see a gear template system added to build templates for example. Fixes to gear loadouts and build templates/loadouts, ofc. But no big changes, even though thats something thats really sorely lacking.

> Or an easymode/hardmode added to raids (or strikes for that matter).

> Even though those kind of improvements could really make the game a lot better, its nothing "new" and therefore nothing dev-time is being used on except if its really broken.

> Wasnt it the same with GW1? At least on PvE releases.

 

agreed

[Yasai.3549]

Idek anymore.

 

I'm just trying to get all the money's worth that I have spent in this game until they finally break it and shut it down. (I feel so much like a fool now having spent nearly 500 bucks on expansions and cosmetics)

 

Like what's with the new episode of Icebutt Saga?

 

Did they get Rian Johnson to write it?

[lare.5129]

agree whit what ?

yes, ofc I also will be glad see chill raid mode to close all achievement in raid block, or something like "autocomplete random achievement in raid" using wvw track

[lare.5129]

> @"Yasai.3549" said:

> I'm just trying to get all the money's worth that I have spent in this game until they finally break it and shut it down. (I feel so much like a fool now having spent nearly 500 bucks on expansions and cosmetics)

for investment, if you want have chance to back money better use Share (finance) from stock.

 

[otto.5684]

I do not think that PoF is much easier than HoT. Most people when talking about HoT talk only about it at release. Gliding is necessary and required much grind. And some mobs were over tuned, and subsequently were nerfed. HoT is still relatively harder than PoF but the margin is much smaller than people claim it to be.

 

The reason why HoT maps are far superior:

 

They have tons of activities to do.

There is a lot of exploration. To this day, I still find out stuff on these maps that I have not seen before.

The maps have great flow. They have there own story. There are clear map objectives.

The maps are dynamic.

 

Compare that with PoF. Mostly static fixtures. With not much to do after you have seen them once.

 

LWS4 struggles with the same issues, plus, some maps had a serious dip in quality. Devs did try to make them more dynamic and have overall flow and objectives, but for some reason (not sure why) it did not work.

 

For LWS5 the blood legion homeland map is great looking. It fits what it is designed for. It feels somewhat empty. Which makes sense since it is mostly not a combat zone.

 

The new map on the other hand... For me it feels like Anet is trying to create a gritty environment without any understanding how to do that. Not sure why since they created Orr. Orr is light years ahead in terms of creating a feeling of dread and isolation. Cuz it is not a fucking empty snow cliff with ambient music and a whispering dragon. Mobs are not color coded. And again, there are issues with map flow. And of course the map is very small. Story did not help it either, as it was very poor. Neither do the mastries which I have no idea why they exist.

 

Hate or love it, HoT maps and core maps where impressively designed. Some dev poured their heart into them. They ooze with soul and creativity. They feel like real places that someone lives in them. If I describe them in one word: “immersive.” New maps: “generic snow map and it looks gritty!”

[Randulf.7614]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> I must've been playing a different game in the last 2 years. As I found Heart of Thorns easier than Path of Fire in terms of combat. I'm trying to remember a single challenging fight in Heart of Thons story and I only come up with Mordremoth. The rest of the story was really easy.

>

> Meanwhile Balthazar and Eater of Souls (before the nerf) were interesting fights. Compare the last boss in the first instance of pof with the first boss of hot...

>

> As for LS3 only Caudecus was hard and I believe Scruffy in LS4 was harder. Raid wings 1 and 4 are easier than the Path of Fire Raids. And of course wing 5 is harder than both wing 2 and wing 3.

>

> So really I can't see this massive turn in challenge after Hot. Unless you compare playing in hot without elite specs with playing pof with a hot elite spec. That't my only explanation

 

I agree. I found PoF and LS4 mobs more challenging than HoT in both story and open world. There was no massive turn around in challenge, just accessibility due to the lack of vertical maps and gated masteries

 

The theory that Anet abandoned the hardcore crowd because it doesn't sell is largely a myth. Such content was never meant to make up a large portion of Anets development time or assets - it never does in an mmo. That has never changed.

 

- Even if players disagree which is harder, PoF sits on average about the same difficulty as HoT. Really it is only the hero point group requirement that was changed in comparison

- The hardest raid (Dhuum) came late in GW2's life

- Strike Missions vary in difficulty, but they seem happy enough to push Boneskinner which is way past the skill level of most players.

- Unproven yet, but Drakkar could well be on par with Triple Trouble

[Zok.4956]

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> - Unproven yet, but Drakkar could well be on par with Triple Trouble

 

Triple Trouble is easy. The only challenging thing about Triple Trouble is to find and organize enough players that work/play together coordinated.

 

 

 

 

 

[Calvsie.3675]

> @"Zok.4956" said:

> > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > - Unproven yet, but Drakkar could well be on par with Triple Trouble

>

> Triple Trouble is easy. The only challenging thing about Triple Trouble is to find and organize enough players that work/play together coordinated.

>

>

>

>

>

 

And avoid trolls...

[Randulf.7614]

> @"Zok.4956" said:

> > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > - Unproven yet, but Drakkar could well be on par with Triple Trouble

>

> Triple Trouble is easy. The only challenging thing about Triple Trouble is to find and organize enough players that work/play together coordinated.

>

>

>

>

>

 

And that's why it is challenging because it requires coordination and teamwork, unlike a lot of the game. Easy would imply just zerging it down any old way like other bosses which you can't do with TT.

[Mortifera.6138]

They finished their story with LW4. Now it's just retconned/filler trash. Kind of like how WoW ended with Legion and is now just introducing us to worlds that don't really matter as much in scale when you compare them to Sargeras and the Burning Legion.

[Zok.4956]

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > @"Zok.4956" said:

> > > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > > - Unproven yet, but Drakkar could well be on par with Triple Trouble

> >

> > Triple Trouble is easy. The only challenging thing about Triple Trouble is to find and organize enough players that work/play together coordinated.

>

> And that's why it is challenging because it requires coordination and teamwork, unlike a lot of the game. Easy would imply just zerging it down any old way like other bosses which you can't do with TT.

 

OK, TT is not stupid/dumb (like most world bosses) and it has some mechanic, but the only challenging part is for the people that organize still TT events. They have to explain mechanics and give instructions to players etc.. If the zerglings follow the instructions, then its really easy for them. With such an organized and coordinated TT event, I never witnessed a failed one.

 

[Randulf.7614]

> @"Zok.4956" said:

> > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > > @"Zok.4956" said:

> > > > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > > > - Unproven yet, but Drakkar could well be on par with Triple Trouble

> > >

> > > Triple Trouble is easy. The only challenging thing about Triple Trouble is to find and organize enough players that work/play together coordinated.

> >

> > And that's why it is challenging because it requires coordination and teamwork, unlike a lot of the game. Easy would imply just zerging it down any old way like other bosses which you can't do with TT.

>

> OK, TT is not stupid/dumb (like most world bosses) and it has some mechanic, but the only challenging part is for the people that organize still TT events. They have to explain mechanics and give instructions to players etc.. If the zerglings follow the instructions, then its really easy for them. With such an organized and coordinated TT event, I never witnessed a failed one.

>

 

I have, but it is rare. That is a testament to the much greater skilled, patient people running the event not reflective of the actual difficulty. It is challenging event no doubt about it, but as always, the challenge is overcome by those with the skills to beat it and thus make it look easy. Without those skilled, better players, TT would have been forced into a nerf a long time ago to get people playing it.

 

If it was easy, anyone could or would be doing it every time it was up.

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > I must've been playing a different game in the last 2 years. As I found Heart of Thorns easier than Path of Fire in terms of combat. I'm trying to remember a single challenging fight in Heart of Thons story and I only come up with Mordremoth. The rest of the story was really easy.

> >

> > Meanwhile Balthazar and Eater of Souls (before the nerf) were interesting fights. Compare the last boss in the first instance of pof with the first boss of hot...

> >

> > As for LS3 only Caudecus was hard and I believe Scruffy in LS4 was harder. Raid wings 1 and 4 are easier than the Path of Fire Raids. And of course wing 5 is harder than both wing 2 and wing 3.

> >

> > So really I can't see this massive turn in challenge after Hot. Unless you compare playing in hot without elite specs with playing pof with a hot elite spec. That't my only explanation

>

> Thats because you are comparing story instances while others are comparing openworld mobs/events. Dunno how to write this without sounding condescending, but story instances never were challenging for me, neither HoT, nor PoF, nor LS3 or LS4. There were some achievements in LS2 that were quite tricky to get without cheesing, but thats about it.

> HoT mobs in openworld on release were overtuned. And they got nerfed to a good level subsequently, maybe nowadays they have not enough hp but thats because of the powercreep. PoF openworld mobs are quite a step down from that level of difficulty. They are only annoying because they tend to group and have boons. But you can counter both easily by adjusting your traits, and then they become quite easy to deal with.

> But its not just that. A big part of PoF openworld you simply can jump through on your mount, and that even more reduces the perceived difficulty of the expansion.

 

I'm comparing combat in both story, the open world and even included Raids.

HoT mobs weren't "nerfed", only the Itzel Shadowleapers and the Mordrem Snipers were toned down, all other others were nearly identical to their release versions. Maybe your problem of how you remember the so called difficulty of HoT is because you were playing with an unprepared character, obviously without mastery and without elite specs and compare that to playing PoF with a fully geared character with HoT elite specs ready.

 

I find it interesting that you say you didn't find any story instance challenging, because I didn't find anything in the open world of HoT as challenging, unless we are talking the first few hours when I walked in on my first character without having an elite spec and not having viper's stats for my condition builds. There is no mob in HoT, at release or now, that posses a threat to me personally and I did find some story parts harder.

 

I'm not sure which mob gave you such trouble though, maybe you couldn't figure out how to beat them? So I'm curious now, which HoT mob did you find so much more challenging than the Hydra, Awakened Abomination, Awakened Canid and any of the Djinn of PoF? I'm curious because outside the Itzel Shadowleaper's annoying constant evade (which was fixed) there was no mob in HoT that poses a real threat to the players.

 

HoT open world mobs are easy to fight, they just swarm the player in large numbers. PoF open world mobs are more challenging to fight individually I don't get your idea of PoF mobs tend to group, it's HoT mobs that tend to group and are annoying in big numbers, PoF mobs are challenging on their own.

 

Edit: also, it's really weird that you found HoT open world hard, and didn't have an issue for example with Mordremoth, I call non-sense there. If you are really struggling with open world hot events/mobs maybe you should clarify which give you issues and I'd be happy to guide you to beat them. It's a clear L2P issue

[Thalimae.3406]

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

>GW2 imo was a sandbox rpg up until LS3, then Anet started turning it into a narrative or storydriven rpg. Which imo was a very bad choice. Theres a reason people caution against mixing the different rpg genres, they are just too different and people will always have something to complain if you add too much of another subgenre into your rpg. Someone expecting a narrative rpg like the Witcher series, but getting Dark Souls (dungeon crawler) will find the game shallow, while the Dark Souls fan will hate the boring combat of Witcher games.

> And I mean, thats what we've been seeing for quite some time now on the forums and reddit. The different genre fans are more and more discontent because Anet tries to create content that fits all, but really fits nobody well.

 

Eh, I would disagree with that cause MMORPGs are due to their nature a mix of sandbox and storydriven content - some with more emphasis on one or the other, sure. But the nature of GW2 having a main quest and a bunch of maps each with their own theme and local stories hasn't changed at all. What has changed is your perception of it.

 

Like, when we all started GW2 the world was vast and unexplored. But even then the PS would lead you from the home of your chosen race to LA and eventually to Orr. The starting points were different and as a result you could go and play the PS and never see certain parts of the game simply because of where you started out. Eventually we all ended up in the same place though. And that hasn't changed ever since: S1 was the same for everyone, S2 was the same for everyone, HoT was the same for everyone (with a little ambience for Sylvari), S3 was the same for everyone, PoF was the same for everyone, S4 was the same for everyone and now S5 is the same for everyone, too. As a result the maps are the same for everyone, too, cause there are not diverging story paths that lead one group of players into one direction and another group of players into another. Just like we all ended up in Orr one way or anthother.

 

What changed the perception from "OMG there's so much to explore!!" to "Everything is so small now!" imho is that we got the base game all at once while everything else is added to it in smaller (LWS) or medium sized (HoT/PoF) chunks. Eyeballing the whole map of Tyria I'd say the amount of new maps is after 2 expansions and 4+ LWSs just about equal to the stuff we got at launch. If ArenaNet had made an expansion and dropped all that content at once I'm sure we wouldn't get any complaints about the lack of content. (But of course that is an absolutely ridiculous amount of work - so it's not something that could realistically happen without players getting impatient cause they don't want to wait 4-7 years.)

 

Or to put it differently: Imagine if at launch you could choose your race and only play on their respective capitol and first map. Say you picked a human and had only access to DR and Queensdale for a month or two. Then you get access to Kessex Hills and you play that for another 2 months until you can finally get to Gendarren Fields and maybe even LA. You probably wouldn't feel like GW2 is a huge sandbox. You'd play the available PS chapters for an hour or two, and then complain that there's nothing to do except do the hearts once and then run around in circles for two months. I mean, let's be real, that's the kinds of complaints we have now. Heck, that's the kinds of complaints we had since HoT, if not Dry Top!

 

So as I see it ArenaNet is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Their player base demands both frequent updates and a lot of content. They can clearly only do one of those and even that is not to the full satisfaction of their critics. If they take their time to make bigger maps with more content people complain that it takes too long (and they'll still complain that it's not *real* content anyway). If they try to deliver episodes more frequently by cutting down the content a bit people complain there's not enough to do (and they'll still complain that they're not fast enough anyway).

[Rhinala.1739]

I am one of the players that left the game after HoT. I am a former GW1 player that believed Anet marketing (silly me). Gw2 wasn't what I was expecting but it had its charm, and I couldn't find a reason to dislike it. Then came Heart of thorns, this expansion felt shallow to me. My reason for leaving was that the maps ware small, claustrophobic and packed with boring enemies like the pocket raptors. I didn't really like the mechanics, i didn't like that almost everything was tied to a meta event even the main story (never even finish the expansion main story). The last time that I visited a HoT map was a bit after release, I don't find any reason to go there. In Path of fire I felt like the game is returning to its roots, the mobs ware more interesting, nice instances, great open world. I love the fact that I can ignore enemies if I wish to.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> We happend.

> They moment they started catering our demands was the moment the decline set in. Now it is just a copy of every other game in the genre that is no long original and very boring.

 

Precisely ... they should have stayed the course from the beginning because whatever they had at the beginning, it resonated with players. Cultivating that would have developed a loyal, consistently aligned playerbase.

[Yasi.9065]

@"maddoctor.2738"

I didnt find HoT openworld "hard", I found it challenging. There is a difference for me. Challenging is when killing mobs/doing encounters gives me a sense of accomplishment, when Im not just semi-afk pressing the same rotation on each mob and actually have to watch out for things. Something is hard if I need to try quite a few times to finish it. Hard and challenging dont always go hand in hand. Something can be artificially difficult and therefore hard, but not challenging.

Also, more mobs got changed. The raptors got nerfed, the leaper-thingys got changed, frogs hp got reduced... thats just what I remember. It was quite a big rework that didnt just stop with nerfing openworld mobs, but also re-adjusted nearly all meta events to make them basically infallible with enough players. Considering that openworld isnt meant to be "hard", but rather challenging... that was a good re-work and I really regret that I wasnt more vocal back then in congratulating Anet to such a good expansion, AND the consequent adjustments.

Ive played mmorpgs for over 2 decades, and HoT is one of the few expansions I really found overall an improvement of "my" mmorpg. Not just because the openworld maps felt like lvl80+ maps, but also because each and every map has lots of detail and a coherent story put into meta events. To this day, I consider Dragon Stand the best openworld meta event of all time. HoT was engaging, interesting and challenging. It had enough long-term goals to keep me going back and overall rewards are quite balanced (now ;p ).

PoF in comparison was shallow. The story was nice, but nothing to repeat really. The fights felt artificially lengthened without really being challenging. I often cursed the long cooldowns/dialogues that kept me from progressing faster. The rewards were horrible, no longterm goals, I was finished in < 2 weeks and I seldomly go back except for heropoints.

 

@"Thalimae.3406"

Im very set in my ways, sorry, my perception doesnt change anymore. Ive played too many mmorpgs for that. The mainstory in GW2 wasnt something you had to do, but rather something you could do, if you chose so. Typical sandbox mmorpg. Me for example, I got to lvl80 first by exploring the maps, then I got my first exotic set and I only did story after I got interested in the AP system.

I dont find GW2 small at all. Sure, it got smaller with gliding, and even more so with mounts. But still, tbh, theres more than enough space to explore. What changed, is how that space is filled. In core tyria, theres one event beside the other, often interlocking event chains that unlock new events. Theres rare items (mostly consumables) you can only buy when finishing a set of events etc. Theres things to do anytime I go anywhere. In HoT you have the meta-event system and the maps are filled to the brim with things to do. PoF maps have vast empty spaces with nothing in them except a few random mobs placed there. They feel often unfinished. LS4 maps mostly the same. Compare Bloodstone Fen to Kourna. Rewards play a role as well. In LS3 maps gathering is always useful. In LS4 maps not so much, etc.

I dont view openworld as serialized content, to be played on release until done and then never come back. I set my goals, I finish them. In between I re-visit events/activities I enjoy. So Im going back and forth between all maps and never really feel like theres a set path for me to follow - except on story ofc. And thats one of the problems with Anet, they usually dont re-visit older releases. The only time they did that was in LS1 and LS2. Especially with most LS maps, theres no reason to go back, except if you enjoy a certain event/activity there. But thats not a lack of content per se. Thats lack of replayability. Take GW1 for example, everything is worth repeating there. And the amount of content in GW1 is definitely a LOT less than in GW2, and still it has way more replayability and therefore it feels just "more".

What Im critizising is that there has been quite a lack of challenging, engaging and immersive gameplay since PoF. In a sandbox action mmorpg, challenging and engaging gameplay is key. In a narrative rpg, it isnt. Since PoF, GW2 has been mostly a narrative rpg, since the focus was (and still is !) on telling a story and NOT on the gameplay. A side-effect is ofc that in a narrtive rpg you need different story view points or a branching story to stretch content, which GW2 isnt really made for... it needs way too much work to be efficient. Whereas in an sandbox action mmorpg rewards and engaging gameplay are your way to stretch content, which GW2 could excell at...

[Trise.2865]

> @"Zok.4956" said:

> > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > - Unproven yet, but Drakkar could well be on par with Triple Trouble

>

> Triple Trouble is easy. The only challenging thing about Triple Trouble is to find and organize enough players that work/play together coordinated.

 

You mean the only challenge is the primary challenge in literally any large-scale boss fight, especially raids?