Controversial Guild Wars Game Design changes

Took the poll. I would like to say well done on showing some inititiative.

Interesting to see how time has not diminished players disliking of ursan, lootscaling.

Hey guys.

I'm going to do at least one more update. The voting has slowed a bit and the overall numbers are only changing a little (we would expect this, mathematically).

I will also include all of the questions in the first page and below. Sometimes the shorthand description I used does not do justice to exactly how the question was worded.

People can also see if I may have unintentionally swayed things by wording things in a particular way. Reading thru this again, I may have been a bit harsh on Ursan.


Title-based, cooperative Favor System for entry into the Underworld and Fissure of Woe (replaced PVP competitive, regional favor system)

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

Trading with Search Menu (replaced trading system based on All channel trade spamming in dist 1 of certain outposts.)"

Title-based PVE skills (replaced system of all skills being class-specific and unable to be improved after maxing attribute points and applying runes.)

Soul Reaping changes (replaced no limit to Soul Reaping triggers from all deaths including pets & spirits)

BMP offered for Sale (replaced assumed exclusivity of BMP to original promotion participants)

In-game report system (replaced external reporting system & an easier way to get AFK faction)

Heroes (replaced a system of human and/or hench only grouping.)

PVP/PVE skill separation (replaced a system where PVP and PVE shared skills, although skill balances were primarily PVP driven.)

Ursan Blessing (replaced a system where elite areas required particular class/build combinations or high degree of skill to complete)"

You're right, but still I favor the split because of that potential, and I know there would be absolutely nothing done the way it was. Also, despite my dislike for many of the balance choices, there are a few I am all for, such as WY!.

Either way, it doesn't mean I favor imba skills, and that is entirely an assumption. Not to mention, look at how this is worded (thanks hallomik for re-posting these):
Note the bolded - this is the idea behind the separation that I think many were answering. I admit, I got caught up in "the idea" of the split, too, and probably answered "made it better" for that reason. Still, like I said, I'd keep my answer since I think it can be a good thing, even if some bad came from it.

Ursan Blessing differs from other OP PvE junk in the following ways:

1) It eliminates the need for a TEAM BUILD altogether. The whole idea of a multi-classed party goes out the window. You don't take 6 imbagons and expect to get anywhere for example. It also works just about everywhere, so you don't need to consider build modifications before going to X or Y hard PvE spot.

2) It eliminates the feeling of playing your favorite class, especially since it's nearly the only option for pugging anymore.

3) It requires title grinding to get good, and it brings "Rank Discrimination" to PvE PUGs.

I don't like the PvE/P split and overpowered crap either, but I'm much more tolerant of it than the bear.

I keep getting problems with the survey. It won't let me complete the whole thing.

If you do make another poll, can i request having Survivor and LoDA titles.
Mostly i'm concerned with what what anet didn't do with adding an alternative for older characters, seeing how the extra title help alot when u hit 28 max titles.

Great work Hallomik. Interesting results. Thanks for all the work you put into it. I wish all the polls were broken down like this.

Although Ursan was not the best solution, it was better than just 4 professions with the same build entering elite missions.
Now it is all professions with the very same build, XD.

Let's wait for the results and see...

I'll go check polldaydy and see if the results can be tempered with or not.

Filled in, waiting voor the results.

Wow. That was a horrible logical leap.
The PvE/PvP separation has nothing to do with "Making some skills in PvE overpowered". It's about changing the effectiveness of skill in 2 totally different situations. (Some of which are more powerful, some of which are WEAKER)
He made it clear what issue you were voting on was:
Instantly associating PvE/PvP separation with Ursan (which doesn't even have a PvP counterpart) is about as nonsensical as saying monster skills are unfair because they are too powerful for PvP. You are projecting your hate of Ursan on things that don't even deal with it.

While that was the PvE/P skill split is aiming to do, it's provided nothing but a myriad of buffs to an already balanced assortment of normal skills.

But this really isn't the place to talk about whether or not PvE/P was good or not. That said, I agree that it isn't completely fair - only a bit - to compare the two as such in this thread.

the two have nothing to do with each other. the PvP/PvE split question referred to skills that could be used in both formats, and the differences of the skills with respect to the two formats. Ursan is a PvE only skill. it cannot be used in PvP at all and is, therefore, a completely different issue.

very interesting poll and results. i would have to guess that the majority of the GWG users who took the poll are more experienced players of the game and probably have more familiarity with the situations and changes the questions refer to. i don't think you could poll your average player and expect them to be familiar with a lot of these changes. you have to have been around and playing the game for a couple of years in order to be familiar with some of the questions. that being said, i think the more experienced audience is the one that should have been polled, due to their familiarity with the issues, and in that regard, i say good job!

The existence of the seperation does nothing. Hell, they're not doing nearly as much with it as I'd expected them to (or even as much as I hoped)...

And for the record, most PVE skills are mediocre at best (and a lot of them outright crap). There's really only a handful of imbalanced ones (Ursan, SY, TNTF, a few others. Maybe [pain inverter], but I'm not sure that counts since it's only as imba as whatever's attacking you...)

this info is quite interesting and will be even more interesting when you up date it. you should do a follow up poll that puts up the top changes and see how much people like them. this also makes me wonder what anet has to say for it self.

PvE only skills suplimented the old skills, they did not replace any skills.

Though for some they did come close as you have a PvP(if you will) skill that very much resembles the PvE skill but is weaker or less effective.

All in all a good poll, and since there is much ongoing debate on several of these topics on Guru I would be interested if the split is 50/50 or 90/10 for some of these changes.

For the most part, PvE/P seperation was is just to avoid upsetting people when their favorite (but not necessarily good) skill had to be nerfed for PvP's sake. It isn't there to make PvE more balanced.... aside from Ether Renewal, it's not really making it more imbalanced either.

@ Hallomik: Great job btw

How many people took the poll so far?

I'm going to repost the results in the main page, but most of the overall results only changed a little. I updated the wording here and there and updated all the numbers, but the overall conculsion is really the same as before. I have a little additional analysis by country below as well as answers to some questions (413 completed votes out of 434 attempts) that have come up. I probably won't do another big roll up for some time if at all. Thanks everyone.


Country Analysis:

As with the US, most of the countries with significant participation mainly followed the general pattern. However each country had a few exceptions. Statistically, one should be careful to draw too much from the differences, but I found them interesting anyway! So, here they are:

Great Britain:

Those in the UK had less support (58%) for the new Favor system than the average of everyone else (69%), although they do support it overall. The less than average support may be due to Europe’s dominance of the halls at the time the change was made.

The only other difference was a markedly less support for title-based PVE skills. Their support was only 29% versus an average of 42% for non-Brits.

Canada:

The Canucks only deviated on one question from the rest. They really like the separation of skill balancing between PVE and PVP with 80% support versus 68% for the non-Canadian. Lot of farming going on north of the border?

Australia:

The Aussies had a number of interesting differences. They support loot scaling more than anyone else (I knew I liked those guys). 40% support for LS versus 28% for non-Aussies.

On the other hand, like the Brits, they really dislike title-based PVE skills with only 19% support.

Finally, no one hates Ursan as much as those down under: only 5% support!

Netherlands:

My Dutch friends blew me away with this stat: 92% support the changes to favor versus 67% for the non-Dutch. This, despite the fact that as Europeans they were disadvantaged by the change! Americans and Brits both tended to vote more consistent with their self interest. Impressive.

On the other hand, boy, do they hate loot scaling. Only 17% support versus 30% for the non-Dutch.

Finally, like the Brits and Aussies, they dislike title-based PVE skills more than most. 27% support versus 41% for non-Dutch.


I would like to answer some questions that have come up.

First, this poll was only given to Guru. This is really the only GW site I visit, although I know there are other good ones out there. I was most curious about how “we” really felt about things.

Second, I am well aware of the limitations of a poll like this. I didn’t really even think about arguing with the criticism because, actually, I agree with almost all of it. You should take any online poll with a grain of salt, and this is no different. There are steps taken by the website I chose to prevent multiple voting, but I imagine a lot of people could get around it with out too much effort. That said, I saw no sign of cheating. I ran some analysis for multiple similar votes and I found none. That’s no guarantee, of course, but if some people did cheat, my hat is off to them.

Sorry about any problems had with people voting. 95% of the people who started completed it, but that means 1 out of 20 had some issue or just gave up. I wish I could do something, but I’m not affiliated with the host site.

Next, I apologize for how I worded the Loot scaling question. It should have said (replaced Full drops for soloers AND Anti-Farming Code that made value of drops worsen after multiple zone re-entries). The word in the poll instead of “and” was “with” which made it sound like loot-scaling = AFC. I tried to change the wording mid-poll, but doing so would have tossed out all votes so far. Most of the people who participated surely understand LS, so I don’t think this typo messed things up too much.

Next, I am still taking suggestions for another poll, so if you posted one, I will definitely consider it.

One final thought. I happened to be online when upier posted about how he thought Ursan was worthy of support based on how the question was posed (i.e., as an alternative to the ‘holy trinity’). Of the next 10 or so votes, most were pro-Ursan, but this effect faded quickly. I don’t suspect cheating because there was no other similarity in any of those votes. What I think happened was that a few people reading his post had their positions altered just a bit. It just goes to show how much influence we can have over each other.

Very nice survey, but.....those results are such a pain to read

Added some underlining and bolding - formatting HTML is not my strong suit.

I'd like to congratulate the Australians on being correct.

I voted. /bump

Fly my minions, FLY!11!
MWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!

Be interesting to see what difference this will make (if any) on future updates.

Great job!

And very valuable information to the GW2 dev team, I am sure.

The only quandry I have about the poll is how many people who have taken it are likely to still be still playing the game? It would be interesting to see what results would be like if people who quit playing during the last year or since the release of EotN or since factions, etc...I am interested, of course, in the statistics per country, but I can't help but wonder if the poll would have different results were it taken by folks who had a reason to quit...my own morbid curiosity.

Otherwise, great project with interesting results. I would have thought more people were pro-Ursan given the vehement support so many vocal forum members express with such regularity...vocal minority?

Seems to me ANet could easily benifit from such polls were they to post a link on their own site with the questions they need to hear the answers to...always flawed, given that people with multiple accounts can vote twice, three or twelve times...but still, it could give them some insight they seem to be lacking, given a few of their questionable decisions.

Good work *pats back*

Since forum polls can never be a consensus of the community as a whole none of those figures are accurate and only biased views of those that post online. You can't take 100 people or even 200 peoples votes and get any kind of accurate opinion when you have a million participants. The ONLY POLL that will EVER be VALID is a popup ingame poll that won't allow you to enter GW until you VOTE. I took my own personal INGAME Poll of the first 100 people I asked about URSANS BLESSING (in Temple of Ages) and it got 99% of the good popular vote, so, you see these silly polls are inaccurate and invalid because when you ask at a particular area/site you are going to get biased and skewed opinions.

You can't get an accurate opinion from the entire playerbase because a huge overwhelming majority of it don't know how the game works, so taking that input in mind when coming to game balancing and changes is...well, not smart.

Also, Master Knight and others have CLEARLY not read the entire thread, since this issure has already been addressed on page 3.

This is not, nor was it ever designed to be a "scientifically accurate" poll. It is more for our own curiousity more then anything else. As such, of course you are supposed to take the results with a grain of salt (the OP freely admits that).

Ahhhh good then I rest my case your honor. <(,)(.)>
____

I wouldn't say at any given point in time a single faction "dominated" Halls. It was a daily cycle based on who was awake at the time.