Controversial Guild Wars Game Design changes

Done
.

"Q.2
Loot Scaling (replaced Full drops for soloers with Anti-Farming Code that made value of drops worsen after multiple zone re-entry)"

That's not what loot scaling does.

Took the poll, but I hadn't been around for some of the updates, so I may or may not have altered the results.

Also, some of the updates had been good in theory, but handled badly, in my opinion (I won't name which, but I think people can guess).

Looking forward to the results.

answered them, and looking forward to the results aswell

The 'gear' trick you are referring to was made obsolete just before Factions came out because of the Ritualist class.

Done, looking forward to the results.

Answered for great justice.

Done. When the results do turn up, I'll demand a recount. j/k

people seem to think the items you included/left out of your poll is controversial.

we should have a poll about it.

Done, and looking forward to results.

We're up to 261 respondents, and now only 51% are from the US. I am going to report results so far, but I will leave the survey open and report more later.

Although I can do a country-by-country analysis, for the purposes of this report, I'm going to talk about the total, the US only, and the "non-US" result". For some questions, there was no difference. For others, there was a big difference.

Countries that made at least 3% of the total include

US: 51%
Austrailia: 8%
UK: 8%
Canada: 8%
Netherlands: 3%
Everyone else: 22% (If I did my subtraction right)

Of the 10 questions, only one was not controversial in the least, and as several people suggested should probably not have been included. That was the addition of the search menu (Q3). Of those who expressed a preference, 97% thought it was either somewhat or much better than what it replaced. That was as close to consensus as we got on any question. In my defense, I remember some pretty hot threads about it back when it was introduced. It appears, however that the community has embraced it. This is, of course, not to say that the search menu is perfect - only that it is universally recognized as being better than what it followed.

Of the 10 issues, 5 are now seen as net positive changes, 3 are close to 50/50, and 2 are seen as clearly negative overall. In general, the older the issue, the less polarizing it now is. By comparing US responses to all others, we find that the US generally sees things the same as the rest of the world, with a handful of exceptions that show very different results.

I have all the raw data, so you can slice and dice it in almost limitless combinations. To create a high-level, single number to represent overall acceptance of a change, I threw out the "did not affect me" votes and just compared the percent positive versus the percent negative. For example, if 12 people voted with 4 (worse), 2 (neutral) and 6 (better), I would call this a 60% in favor [6/(6+4)]. As I said, I have all of the raw data, but was looking for a way to get a high level, single representation of acceptance. I will try to include as much of the detail later, so people can do their own interpretations.

Oh yeah. Those two deserve to be in your next poll. It'd be great to see the results of that and your current poll.

The 5 net positive changes:

In decending order of the overall level of acceptance:

Search menu: 97%
In-game report: 90%
Heroes: 85%
Favor: 69%
PVP/PVE skill separation: 68%

The in-game report system is the 2nd most accepted change. We see a marginally different response from the US versus non-US survey takers. Non-US respondants (97%) are even more supportive of the change than those in the US (84%).

9 3% much worse
11 4% somewhat worse
55 21% neutral effect
73 28% somewhat better
113 43% much better
90% of those who saw a difference thought it was a change for the good.

Heroes were the next most supported change. The overall score was 85%, and there was no real difference between US and non-US support. Very few people (2%) saw this change as inconsequential. No othe question had so low a "neutral" response.

13 5% much worse
25 10% somewhat worse
4 2% neutral effect
52 20% somewhat better
167 64% much better
85% of those who saw a difference thought it was a change for the good.

The change to the Favor system is generally seen as positive, although it does show a difference in regional support. The overall score is 69%, but this drops to 61% outside the US. The US support is 76%. This makes some sense in light of the fact that the US region rarely had favor at the time the change was implemented.

23 9% much worse
37 14% somewhat worse
67 26% neutral effect
74 28% somewhat better
59 23% much better
69% of those who saw a difference thought it was a change for the good.

PVP/PVE skill separation is more popular than I expected given how recent a change it is. The response between US and non-US was nearly identical.

46 18% much worse
25 10% somewhat worse
40 15% neutral effect
52 20% somewhat better
98 38% much better
68% of those who saw a difference thought it was a change for the good.

The 3 "split decisions"

BMP. The decision of Anet to offer the BMP for sale in the store provided some unique results. It had the highest percent of people who felt the decision had little ultimate effect on the game (49%), but those who did have an opinion were almost evenly split. Also, outside of the US, this change is laregly seen as a good thing (68%), but within the US, it is seen as a net negative (43% support).

42 16% much worse
23 9% somewhat worse
128 49% neutral effect
18 7% somewhat better
50 19% much better
51% of those who had a preference thought it was a change for the good.

Soul Reaping. Anet's change to soul reaping to limit the number of times it will trigger continues to split the community. It could hardly be closer with with 50% support. It too shows a sharp a regional difference with 39% support within the US and 60% support outside.

46 18% much worse
42 16% somewhat worse
86 33% neutral effect
47 18% somewhat better
40 15% much better
50% of those who had a preference thought it was a change for the good.

The community is fairly divided over the introduction title-based skills although is tending negative with 41% support. The US versus non-US response is trivial. The "no effect" votes were comparatively small, (only the addition of Heroes had fewer "neutral" votes). Given the strength of the votes -- many more "much worse" votes than "much better" -- this change could arguably appear in the next category - net negative.

80 31% much worse
53 20% somewhat worse
37 14% neutral effect
64 25% somewhat better
27 10% much better
41%

The net negatives

Loot scaling remains unpopular (despite many posts I've submitted supporting it!) with 29%. There is almost no difference in the US vs. non-US lack of support. This is considerably higher than the prior Guru poll which had support around 14% if I remember correctly. This may be due to its inclusion with many other issues or it may have to do with the wording of the poll.

91 35% much worse
60 23% somewhat worse
48 18% neutral effect
38 15% somewhat better
24 9% much better
29% of those with a preference think it was a change for the good.

That takes us to the most unpopular change amongst those polled: Ursan blessing. It has overal support of 26% with little difference between US and non-US survey takers. It should be said that even though it was the most unpopular change amongst Guru voters, it has its supporters. More than a quarter of those with a preference support it.

119 46% much worse
38 15% somewhat worse
47 18% neutral effect
30 12% somewhat better
26 10% much better
26% of those with a preference think it was a change for the good.

I am confused

Was this poll posted anywhere else? In game, guild forum, etc.? Because if it was just guru, then you've also got to account for "selection bias"

Just shows that people don't know what they want.

Hah, nice call, Zwei.

Done.

Pretty much answered "made the game worse" for all of them.

Interesting results. Half of people think Soul Reaping was better? :/

Also, is there a way you could weight the extreme options? Because as it is, you're only counting three alternatives (oppose, neutral and support).

Kinda late to the party, eh?

Another 'late comer' here, but I took the poll anyway.

The poll results show what I've always felt, people love heroes. It's one of the certainties Anet has. Giving 7 heroes would satisfy a large portion of the players. With this move only, Anet could get a lot of love back.

About Ursan, it has both pros and cons and I've been thinking a lot about it last months but never posted anything about it as there is no real ursan thread (like 7 heroes). An Ursan thread will be closed at sight, mostly because they are QQ threads. I'm looking for a decent debate though.

About lootscaling, comon sense tells me people want loot. You're killing creeps and as a reward you get the creeps posessions, either its gold or weapons etc. It's holding an axe or whatever which magicaly disapears when you kill it, how lame. Loot is a big part of the fun factor.

Just shows that there is a stigma attached to the skill, rather than the idea and/or perceived flaws behind the skill.

Also took the poll.

I think it's a good initiative, if only only ANet would try this direct way of approach, but then again, as Avarre pointed out, I'm not sure if I have much faith in the avarage GW player ...

I've doned it.

So they shouldn't have a say because of such? Most Americans don't know how the political system works, should we disregard their vote?

From a purely business standpoint, what do you think would be better: taking the average player's opinion or your own? I'm curious as to your answer.

I still think this poll is wrong. 10 different people could have hopped on proxies and voted 10 times each. I'm not saying anybody has actually done this, but the fact that it's possible ruins it for me.

You should try to be more positive man. Don't rain on everyone's parade.

The poll results are a bit funny, I'm sure we have a lot of people who don't like Ursan who just voted against it. Course I voted against it because it's not good for the game, or wasn't..now it doesn't matter.

Course, if you read the question you'd know The PVP/PVE skill separation question had nothing to do with Ursan.

I think it does.

PvE/PvP skill separation = Makes some skills in PvE overpowered.

Ursan Blessing = An overpowered skill.

Same thing.

The BMP being offered for sale makes sense that it had so many "nuetral votes." Many people, like myself, did not get the BMP, and all those people probablly answered nuetral (since it had no impact on titles/the economy).


And Targen, read the posts on page 2. Its not supposed to be scientifically accurate. It is only for our curosity.

I voted..even though im kinda late..but I hope the results are updated

Considering the average player doesn't know about the game as much on a mechanical level, asking their opinion about game workings isn't going to give an informed response. From a purely business standpoint, as you say, it would be better to take the views of experienced players, simply because they understand the game better, in both theory and practice, and thus have a better idea of what will help the game in the long run.

While average players can definitely have an idea of what problems in the game are, I wouldn't expect them to be able to pinpoint the cause, and asking them for opinions could just result in bandaid fixes.

When I hear talk about casuals and experienced players, it reminds me of the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie, as if they are some sort of opposed classes. This is not the case - the advice of experienced players is not out to ruin the casuals, it is to improve the game on the whole altogether (and yes, the accessibility of the game to new players is important to experienced players).

IMO we should.

Voters should take a quick and simple quiz on the ballot (say, 3 questions or so) about how the election works. Ballots with incorrect answers should be ignored. Because if you think about it, listening to someone's opinion on a subject they do not understand is not a good idea.

This is incorrect. Being for a PvE/PvP split does not mean they are also for imba skills. I, for instance, still love the idea of the split, but hate how Anet did it with freely giving out overpowered crap. This also means I disapprove of Ursan for the same reasons. The poll is nice, but little things like this can skew the results and lead to inaccurate assumptions like the one quoted.

I am willing to bet most of those who voted for the split were in the very large crowd of PvErs that raged when PvP balance affected PvE, even if the balance didn't affect any of their builds. That doesn't mean they want overpowered crap, that just means they didn't like change without reason (that they could see). I'm sure there are a few in my boat, as well. I wanted the split so there could be more creativity and balance in the skills for the very different game that is PvE without it affecting PvP and vice-versa.

I would like to know the answer to this question, too!

PvE / PvP skill split i dont think was too clever.
Dont nerf UB just make it Norn area specific only.

Just wondering, but you did vote for "made it worse" then right? Since I thought we were voting about how it turned out, not about what it might have been. It was also kinda naive to expect anything else tho. The whole reason for the split was that Anet didn't want PvE players to be effected by (PvP) nerfs. In other words, no nerfs for PvE anymore.