What happened to Anet?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

> 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.

 

Which HoT mob requires more than being semi-afk to kill? I'd like you to kill a Djinn while semi-afk and compare it to any HoT mob.

 

> he raptors got nerfed, the leaper-thingys got changed, frogs hp got reduced... thats just what I remember.

 

Raptors never changed, nor Frog "hps", what changed was the Shadowleaper evasion working only while they were evading and not being permanent.

 

> but also re-adjusted nearly all meta events to make them basically infallible with enough players.

 

Only the health of Chak Gerent was adjusted, the rest of the meta events in HoT are the same as they were back on release. Or at least the change to the Gerent's health was the only part that made a difference, being the only meta in HoT that was failing.

 

> 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.

 

That's not part of challenge

[Bassdeff.1895]

I left after HoT because I didn't like the direction the game was taking. Too much grind, tedium and that aweful TD abomination. It wasn't really the difficulty, if you played smart and didn't just dive into a pile of bad guys you could get anywhere you wanted but that was part the issue. Spending 10-20 minutes fighting past trash mobs to get to the event or activity you wanted to do was not fun. You couldn't just run past the crap to get to the good stuff. Then there was the mastery grind, I'm not even going to start expressing how I feel about those, god am I ever glad the did a 180 on that. I understand why it got so much hate, while some (even many) loved HoT the ones that didn't really really hated it. It was a very polarizing expansion, you either loved it or despised it, there wasn't a lot of in between.

 

3 months ago I came back to the game on a new account and played it as a new player would without the lvl80 boost and I have to say that the game is in much better state then it was at launch. Leveling a toon is rewarding, you always get decent gear you can use and for the most part the game does a good job of explaining what to do next. I also play the story and expansions in the order the came out. I rushed through HoT, my feelings hadn't change about it. I got to PoF, and I loved it, mob density/difficulty was just right for my taste and mounts were the best thing that could have happened to the game. Mounts are the reason I now enjoy HoT, I can now skip the crap to get to the stuff I want to do. I'm actually enjoying more that PoF because of it. I hope they keep that in mind with future content.

 

The game is also much more rewarding now, I had no issues what so ever dropping all the mats I needed to level my crafting and making my first set of ascended without a ton of grinding. Gold is easier to come by without having to play the TP. For the first time since launch I find myself wanting to craft a legendary armor because I get rewarded enough that it seems feasibly to make one in a reasonable amount of time without having to mindlessly grind or farm certain areas of the game.

 

The question I have now is, does Anet have the resources it need to keep GW2 alive and thriving for the next 5 years? Do they have what it takes to revamp the game engine (either for gw2 or gw3)? cause they will need to do so for the future of the franchise. There has been a lot of changes within the company, change can be good but it also creates a lot of uncertainty,

[Zok.4956]

> @"Trise.2865" 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.

>

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

 

Nope. BTW: A 10-player instanced content (i.e. raid) is not really a large-scale boss fight.

 

In a raid, knowing the mechanic of the fight is (usually) not enough, but only the first step. The second required step is the correct execution according to the fight-mechanic and fulfilling the own assinged role. When my guildies and I started raiding some time ago, we needed several weeks/months before we killed Vale Guardian the first time. We did understand the fight mechanic fully, but we were not good enough at the beginning. With more and more practice it then became easy for us, but for new players, it surely is not.

 

Triple Trouble on the other hand needs only a few experienced leaders/commanders that know the encounter and how to organize it and a lot of zerglings, that just follow the commands of the commanders/leaders. The zerglings do not need to be experienced in the fight mechanic.

 

 

 

[Jables.4659]

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> Until you reach that 5,000 population level and those players start leaving then population is not a huge factor into revenue, and that's how it really works in all businesses.

 

All businesses aren't MMORPG's and thus have very different models. Also, I get what you were going for with the example, but its not as simple as the dedicated player base paying while the casual masses do not. There are definitely whales that contribute a large portion of Anets earnings, but there are also a lot of random players who buy the game, maybe buy an outfit or two, and then stop playing after a couple months. When were talking about a population spread throughout the world and containing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions), its never going to be as simple as your post made it out to be. Profit and game population definitely have a strong correlation.

 

[Raknar.4735]

> @"Zok.4956" said:

> > @"Trise.2865" 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.

> >

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

>

> Nope. BTW: A 10-player instanced content (i.e. raid) is not really a large-scale boss fight.

>

> In a raid, knowing the mechanic of the fight is (usually) not enough, but only the first step. The second required step is the correct execution according to the fight-mechanic and fulfilling the own assinged role. When my guildies and I started raiding some time ago, we needed several weeks/months before we killed Vale Guardian the first time. We did understand the fight mechanic fully, but we were not good enough at the beginning. With more and more practice it then became easy for us, but for new players, it surely is not.

>

> Triple Trouble on the other hand needs only a few experienced leaders/commanders that know the encounter and how to organize it and a lot of zerglings, that just follow the commands of the commanders/leaders. The zerglings do not need to be experienced in the fight mechanic.

>

>

>

 

So they have to correctly execute a mechanic, like carrying an item to a specific location while also doing a JP and not losing the item, or picking up an item and using it at the correct moment, or picking something up and standing at the correct position. Something a new player wouldn't understand instantly, but becomes easy with practice.

 

Sounds a lot like TT to me. If people aren't experienced they lose their harpoons, miss their jumps and lose their kegs etc. Correct execution is vital.

 

Actually, now that I think of it, TT does seem more complex than something like Gorseval.

[Zok.4956]

> @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > @"Zok.4956" said:

> > > @"Trise.2865" 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.

> > >

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

> >

> > Nope. BTW: A 10-player instanced content (i.e. raid) is not really a large-scale boss fight.

> >

> > In a raid, knowing the mechanic of the fight is (usually) not enough, but only the first step. The second required step is the correct execution according to the fight-mechanic and fulfilling the own assinged role. When my guildies and I started raiding some time ago, we needed several weeks/months before we killed Vale Guardian the first time. We did understand the fight mechanic fully, but we were not good enough at the beginning. With more and more practice it then became easy for us, but for new players, it surely is not.

> >

> > Triple Trouble on the other hand needs only a few experienced leaders/commanders that know the encounter and how to organize it and a lot of zerglings, that just follow the commands of the commanders/leaders. The zerglings do not need to be experienced in the fight mechanic.

> >

> >

> >

>

> So they have to correctly execute a mechanic, like carrying an item to a specific location while also doing a JP and not losing the item, or picking up an item and using it at the correct moment, or picking something up and standing at the correct position. Something a new player wouldn't understand instantly, but becomes easy with practice.

>

> Sounds a lot like TT to me. If people aren't experienced they lose their harpoons, miss their jumps and lose their kegs etc. Correct execution is vital.

 

Yes, TT has a mechanic that has to be executed. But TT is still easier than VG for an unexperienced player.

 

Your argument is like: Correct execution is vital in fractal level 1 and also in fractal level 100, so fractal level 100 is not harder than fractal level 1.

 

I disagree.

[Dante.1763]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Yasi.9065" said:

> > 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.

>

> Which HoT mob requires more than being semi-afk to kill? I'd like you to kill a Djinn while semi-afk and compare it to any HoT mob.

>

 

Theres quiet a few in HoT that still cause issues depending on your build and setup. I have issues with the frogs due to the leaps -and- the amount of damage they do in one hit. I can 111111111 Djinn to death constantly, but im alot more active fighting frogs, and -very few- enemies in HoT, than i am fighting just about anything in POF and its LS.

 

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

>~snip~

>

> 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.

>

~snip~

 

Well, the average age of gamers is now 34, and if you don't believe me just refer to these two different studies: https://www.statista.com/statistics/189582/age-of-us-video-game-players-since-2010/ and https://techjury.net/stats-about/video-game-demographics/#gref

 

 

[Thalimae.3406]

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

 

Your own reply says you changed your play style from running around in a sandbox to following the main story. So yeah, your perspective on what the game is or should be changed because of that no matter how much you want to deny it.

 

And I don't even mean it as an accusation but it's a fact that at the beginning you had a ton of space to run around in. So I'm not blaming you for doing exactly that. But that doesn't mean that the PS wasn't there or that the content of the maps wasn't designed around the journey from where ever the character starts out to becoming the Commander. You just didn't notice it as much cause you played it later. But the character's journey right down to what you call narrative rpg elements like branching stories and different personality options have been a selling point in the marketing when GW2 was released. So the idea that they turned it into that only after PoF is just down to your personal feeling and not the actual facts.

 

Another point you bring up is that you don't like some of the new maps. You'd like for PoF and LS4 to have more dense maps and that's fair, sure. And sadly yes, some maps have turned out better than others (we all know that Kourna was a pretty botched job). But the reason for why the maps are the way they are is a different design philosophy due to the new mount system. They are big, mostly flat maps so players should have fun running around in them with their new mounts. Similarly HoT had a new design philosophy due to their new mastery system that ended up with vertically dense maps. You prefer one over the other and that's okay, we all like what we like. Point being that it's all very subjective. ArenaNet is trying new things and some of them will be liked by the players and some not.

 

I would agree with you that I think a huge strength of ArenaNet is actually the world design and filling those maps with interesting corners to explore and setting up quests and event chains that tell their own little stories that add to the rich lore of the world - and they should totally lean into that more. But I do enjoy having the PS as a guide through all those maps. (The problem I see with that of course is that ppl will continue to rush through the story and then complain there is nothing to do cause they don't actually like exploring their sandbox - so damned if you do, damned if you don't!)

 

As for challenging content, well that is pretty subjective again. ArenaNet said they found that there's a huuuge gab in skill between the average player and those who are really good at the game. Most of it isn't a big problem for me either but there are soooo many threads here alone of players complaining about things being too difficult. I'm sure ArenaNet have an eye on that but trying to find just the right amount of challenge is tricky. When HoT came out it was brutally hard for most average players so they corrected course. But as you can see in this thread even there are people who find PoF more difficult than HoT. It all depends on your skill and play style so it's not "HoT was hard and PoF is easy mode!" at all.

 

Bottom line, you have your experience with the game and I have mine and we clearly have differing tastes. You like LWS3 better and think it has a better re-playability. I couldn't care less about the LWS3 maps and find myself replaying the LWS4 and LWS5 maps much more frequently. It's a matter of opinion.

 

[Mortifera.6138]

Lay-offs happened. Then people left. Then MO left. Who’s even here from the original team anymore?

[Trise.2865]

> @"Mortifera.6138" said:

> Lay-offs happened. Then people left. Then MO left. Who’s even here from the original team anymore?

 

Mike Z

[Yasi.9065]

> @"Thalimae.3406" said:

> Your own reply says you changed your play style from running around in a sandbox to following the main story. So yeah, your perspective on what the game is or should be changed because of that no matter how much you want to deny it.

I expressly explained how my playstyle did NOT change.

 

> @"Thalimae.3406" said:

> And I don't even mean it as an accusation but it's a fact that at the beginning you had a ton of space to run around in.

I still DO have a ton of space. As I wrote before, I re-visit "older" content regularly if its fun content. No, Im not just following the story. Exactly the opposite. Ofc I play new content when its out, but that doesnt keep me from replaying old content like dungeons, HoT metas, core tyria meta events, fractals, raids etc.

 

> @"Thalimae.3406" said:

But the character's journey right down to what you call narrative rpg elements like branching stories and different personality options have been a selling point in the marketing when GW2 was released.

The "branching story" in GW2 always has been a joke, since the branches always merged back to the same outcome after a couple of storysteps. The character developement mechanics like personality were never implemented past the UI elements. Openworld and WvW, the combat system etc. were on the other hand fully implemented. I stopped long ago to listen to what marketing labels a game and instead judge the games by their content. And for over 3 years, GW2 was developed as a sandbox action mmorpg, not a narrative rpg.

 

> @"Thalimae.3406" said:

> Another point you bring up is that you don't like some of the new maps. You'd like for PoF and LS4 to have more dense maps and that's fair, sure. And sadly yes, some maps have turned out better than others (we all know that Kourna was a pretty botched job). But the reason for why the maps are the way they are is a different design philosophy due to the new mount system. They are big, mostly flat maps so players should have fun running around in them with their new mounts. Similarly HoT had a new design philosophy due to their new mastery system that ended up with vertically dense maps. You prefer one over the other and that's okay, we all like what we like. Point being that it's all very subjective. ArenaNet is trying new things and some of them will be liked by the players and some not.

Again, you misread what I wrote. Its not about density. Its about the quality of whats in those maps. HoT maps are very detailed with small sidestorys all over the place. They are teeming with "live". PoF maps outside of the questing hubs are... empty. Liveless. And even the questing hubs themselves feel soulless. Its NOT about quantity. Its about quality. And PoF is sadly lacking in quality content in openworld.

 

> @"Thalimae.3406" said:

> I would agree with you that I think a huge strength of ArenaNet is actually the world design and filling those maps with interesting corners to explore and setting up quests and event chains that tell their own little stories that add to the rich lore of the world - and they should totally lean into that more. But I do enjoy having the PS as a guide through all those maps. (The problem I see with that of course is that ppl will continue to rush through the story and then complain there is nothing to do cause they don't actually like exploring their sandbox - so damned if you do, damned if you don't!)

Anet changed the core storyline to force you to explore between story steps, and imo that made the coregame really weird, since the story instances didnt get scaled up. So you do a lvl30 story instance that you can finish easily as lvl10 character. And thats exactly the kind of decisions that tried to push the game more into the narrative rpg genre, but ended up just being bad design decisions.

Also, a huge part of the problem Anet is having and why they are spread so thin, is because they try to cover everything. Story, sandbox, dungeon crawler. In addition theres WvW and PvP as completely separate gamemodes that need maintenance at least (though they are quite resilient). Other mmorpgs, like Final Fantasy, they mesh at least the PvE elements more together and/or ditch either sandbox or story. Anet started doing that with the first StrikeMission, which is, well kind of, a dungeon crawler element AND part of the story. But with the first chapter in their saga, they already changed back and made separate StrikeMission bosses. The reason, probably, because theres no proper scaling system in GW2. Theres no easymode (aka storymode in other mmorpgs), normalmode, hardmode system that applies to all instanced content. Instead theres special sauce for everything. Dont get me wrong, I totally enjoyed the challenge motes in LS2 and challenge mode in raids. Im one of the few people that love the instabilities system in fractals. But it doesnt help Anet design new content easier/faster. And so either we have to wait quite a long time between new releases - or the quality suffers a lot.

 

> @"Thalimae.3406" said:

> As for challenging content, well that is pretty subjective again. ArenaNet said they found that there's a huuuge gab in skill between the average player and those who are really good at the game. Most of it isn't a big problem for me either but there are soooo many threads here alone of players complaining about things being too difficult. I'm sure ArenaNet have an eye on that but trying to find just the right amount of challenge is tricky. When HoT came out it was brutally hard for most average players so they corrected course. But as you can see in this thread even there are people who find PoF more difficult than HoT. It all depends on your skill and play style so it's not "HoT was hard and PoF is easy mode!" at all.

Anet caused that problem all by themselves. In ESO for example, you have to level up every character separetely. Theres no levelboosts. The fastest you can levelup is via a farm-event but that still takes hours. And when you finished leveling up, you still have to unlock and level your skills. For that you need skillpoints, that you have to farm separately. Its annoying, but at the same time, due to how skillpoints are limited, you read every skill you could unlock. How many players levelboost in GW2 and then just either copy&paste a build from metabattle, SC or whatever... or keep the build they got boosted to. The skill gap is so huge because GW2 allows you to skip out on a huge part of any mmorpg - the theorycrafting and buildmaking part. You dont have to know what skills cc for how much or even which skill does most dmg, what boons are or what your stats do. Until you want to step out of the openworld/story part of the game and into instanced content/WvW/PvP. Then all of a sudden you get slammed with this wall of knowledge you were supposed to learn, but never did because there was no reason for it.

GW2 isnt a more difficult or intricate game then any other mmorpg Ive played. The only difference is that GW2 lets you get away with playing like a lvl1 newbie all through openworld and story. Other mmorpgs dont do that, and there the skillgap isnt as big or noticable.

 

> @"Thalimae.3406" said:

> Bottom line, you have your experience with the game and I have mine and we clearly have differing tastes. You like LWS3 better and think it has a better re-playability. I couldn't care less about the LWS3 maps and find myself replaying the LWS4 and LWS5 maps much more frequently. It's a matter of opinion.

Fair enough, but that still doesnt change the fact that Anet did a 180 on me and people like me, that preferred the "old ways". If GW2 released today with all the changes made, I wouldnt play the game. Now people will crop up and say "well, duh... then dont play the game". Its never that easy with a mmorpg. MMORPGs are a longterm commitment. Stopping and starting fresh in another one always takes a lot of energy. Believe me, Ive done it often enough already, and it doesnt really get easier. So when a company changes the game direction that much, starts catering totally to a different audience and neglects their old followers... not nice.

 

 

[Jimbru.6014]

Many players didn't make it past LS1, because the global events of LS1 pretty much destroyed normal PVE play with the constant waves of mobs spawning all over the world and the totally over the top impossible plot. A giant tower somehow built invisibly right smack in the middle of Kessex Hills, literally within sight of Fort Salma and other outposts? Seriously? I know we're used to the "It's magic!" excuse in fantasy games, but there is a limit, and LS1 far exceeded it.

 

HoT was the devs' "be careful what you wish for" vengeance on all the nimrods who complained that the game was too easy; to this day, HoT is still the hardest content in the game. And pretty much everything since HoT has been a roundabout apology for how awful the game was back then.

 

As for why the 180 philosophy change: #1 turnover at ANet brought new ideas, #2 because GW2 was shedding players like crazy. Something had to change for the game to survive. Well, it worked; the game is still here, with over 11 million active accounts if you believe ANet, though I subjectively disagree with that number. The crowds in DR ain't what they used to be. But ANet seems to have accepted and adopted the idea of GW2 being the most casual friendly MMO around, and that's where we stand now.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> 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.

True, individual mob strength didn;t change all that much beyond those you already mentioned, and downgrading some of the Hero Points. And, indeed, most of the mobs weren't individually all that difficult (unlike many mobs in PoF, with the special mention going to djinn). What changed in HoT, and got nerfed, was _mob density_. Mob packs got smaller, and the distance between them got increased.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Raptors never changed

The _size_ of pocket raptor swarms changed. Individual pocket raptors remained as unthreatening as they were originally, of course.

 

> 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.

HoT mobs are grouping by design. In PoF, there are some groups, but many more mobs wander individually. Unfortunately, the PoF mobs have greater aggro radius (i don't remember the exact values now, but people did the checking, and if i remember right they were a third or half again the size of the HoT ones), and they often have large patrol areas, which cause them to often aggro on you when you're fighting something else (which gives an illusion of grouping).

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > 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.

>

> That's not part of challenge

Indeed. The main problem with PoF was not that it became "too easy" (it didn't - and i personally think it actually could use a bit of the "easening up"). It was the replayability that PoF simply didn't have. Notice, how that problem persisted with LS4 (and LS model from LS3 onwards in general, with maps meant to be abandoned once the next chapter comes up), and is still present in current Icebrood Saga.

 

The problem with Icebrood Saga you keep bringing up is not due to it being "casualized" too much. It's because there's not much actual content in this content.

[Solvar.7953]

I sort of wonder if some of the replayability issues goes back to the original story, where several of your companions were annoying or not particularly likable (why do I have to bring you along X now?) And unfortunately, they never really fixed it. As such, instead of the stories being enjoyable to replay, most players (myself included) find them annoying and avoid them.

As such, for any new release, you get through the story pretty quickly, are then on a map, which you can explore pretty quickly and do most of the events, and unless you want to go for the grindy achievements, are sort of left with 'why should I keep playing this map?'

I'm not sure the fix - they have already replaced most of the characters, and the opinions of which are annoying or not can vary player to player. But from GW1, I don't recall nearly the same level of 'let me ditch these companions' as I do in GW2.

 

[Radiobiology.6185]

7 years of pushing new content into the gemstore made the game feel hollow. Its not a game with a gemstore anymore, its a gemstore with a game.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

> @"Jimbru.6014" said:

> Many players didn't make it past LS1, because the global events of LS1 pretty much destroyed normal PVE play with the constant waves of mobs spawning all over the world and the totally over the top impossible plot. A giant tower somehow built invisibly right smack in the middle of Kessex Hills, literally within sight of Fort Salma and other outposts? Seriously? I know we're used to the "It's magic!" excuse in fantasy games, but there is a limit, and LS1 far exceeded it.

>

> HoT was the devs' "be careful what you wish for" vengeance on all the nimrods who complained that the game was too easy; to this day, HoT is still the hardest content in the game. And pretty much everything since HoT has been a roundabout apology for how awful the game was back then.

>

> As for why the 180 philosophy change: #1 turnover at ANet brought new ideas, #2 because GW2 was shedding players like crazy. Something had to change for the game to survive. Well, it worked; the game is still here, with over 11 million active accounts if you believe ANet, though I subjectively disagree with that number. The crowds in DR ain't what they used to be. But ANet seems to have accepted and adopted the idea of GW2 being the most casual friendly MMO around, and that's where we stand now.

 

I think it is 'accounts created' rather than 'active accounts'. Big difference in facts.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

> @"Solvar.7953" said:

> I sort of wonder if some of the replayability issues goes back to the original story, where several of your companions were annoying or not particularly likable (why do I have to bring you along X now?) And unfortunately, they never really fixed it. As such, instead of the stories being enjoyable to replay, most players (myself included) find them annoying and avoid them.

> As such, for any new release, you get through the story pretty quickly, are then on a map, which you can explore pretty quickly and do most of the events, and unless you want to go for the grindy achievements, are sort of left with 'why should I keep playing this map?'

> I'm not sure the fix - they have already replaced most of the characters, and the opinions of which are annoying or not can vary player to player. But from GW1, I don't recall nearly the same level of 'let me ditch these companions' as I do in GW2.

>

 

Do you remember Alesia?

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > @"Solvar.7953" said:

> > I sort of wonder if some of the replayability issues goes back to the original story, where several of your companions were annoying or not particularly likable (why do I have to bring you along X now?) And unfortunately, they never really fixed it. As such, instead of the stories being enjoyable to replay, most players (myself included) find them annoying and avoid them.

> > As such, for any new release, you get through the story pretty quickly, are then on a map, which you can explore pretty quickly and do most of the events, and unless you want to go for the grindy achievements, are sort of left with 'why should I keep playing this map?'

> > I'm not sure the fix - they have already replaced most of the characters, and the opinions of which are annoying or not can vary player to player. But from GW1, I don't recall nearly the same level of 'let me ditch these companions' as I do in GW2.

> >

>

> Do you remember Alesia?

 

Hey! The only "annoying" thing about Alesia was that she spent so much time attacking. That's because she had a bad combination of a low energy bar plus a high energy cost skill (Healing Breeze). At least when out of energy, Alesia still _tried_ to be helpful. I wish I could say the same about most of the GW2 story NPC's.

[FOX.3582]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Casual players complained about HoT, Anet missed what their core complaints were, and did a complete 180 with the direction of the game.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Casual players left because of HoT, most didn't complain. Anet saw their new plan of catering to a niche failed, so they did a complete 180.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was nothing niche about the direction they were going.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was niche enough to make lots of players quit.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Like how lots of players quit after POF?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Drop off was way stronger after HoT. Also players that were scared off by HoT are hard to bring back.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Do you have a source?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Only the NCsoft earning reports: http://global.ncsoft.com/global/ir/quarterly.aspx?BID=&BC=&BNo=&SYear=&SType=&SWord=&PNo=1

> > > > > > > > > > Comparing post HoT and comparing post PoF.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > That shows nothing about player populations.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > TIL I can earn money with my game without a population.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There are numerous other factors which affect game revenue than just player population.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yet player population is a main factor.

> > > > >

> > > > > Source? Do you know how many players purchase gems?

> > > >

> > > > Only Anet/Ncsoft knows how many players purchase gems obviously. If you can't see a link between player population and revenue, then i'm sorry. Source? Just look at every game. Keep insisting that casual players "destroyed" GW2, it's funny, where's your source on that?

> > >

> > > I’m not denying that there’s a link. I’m denying your assumption that it’s a strong one and that it disputes what I initially stated in this thread.

> >

> > If you don't think players population is a huge factor for revenue, I can't help you. You can keep claiming casual player complaints are at fault, but I've yet to see someone proving that. In fact Anet went all in on endgame content after HoT for some time, yet their revenue didn't recover.

>

> You don’t know what percentage of players purchase gems and how much. Anet could add 100K new players and none of them could ever purchase gems.

 

 

Hahahaha.