Does the community know what they want?

In a game as large and complex as an MMO, simply giving players what they want is usually not good for the game. This is because what one person wants isn't what everyone else might want, and changing one thing can have innumerable negative effects on other areas.

This just hit me - but don't we actually HAVE this system?
In PvP the best players are catered - and in PvE the not-so-good ones are.
The problem appears when the good swimmers refuse to leave the kiddy pool.

a community will always have over 9000 different oppinions. It's completely normal and impossible to leave everyone satisfied. Therefor it's indeed stupid to adjust your game design to please (part of) your fanbase cause you're just as likely to piss off even more people with that exact same change.

Just like direct democracy doesn't work, catering to an entire gaming community doesn't work either.

Almost. The problem is when your choices are limited to the kiddy pool or the shark-infested spumes.

And most here are what I label "freeloaders", we have all (99% at least) finished the game. And PvE/P separation is labeld good by just as many here as bad, as I said it's evolution, live with it


Too us the majority might be silent but to A-Net that can look at the statistics of the game the majority is never silent, never make assumptions because you can't hear the majority.




And perhaps that's the reason the PvP is almost dead. I mean the whole game had to evolve every 2 weeks for over 2 years because they gave players what they wanted regardless of the consequences to the game as a whole.



Back then the answer was all ways " change is good for the game" "game would get stale without change" "PvE noobs, it's our game, Pvp rules, get out or change".



Now it seams like they actually look at what the majority is using (skills) and like to use when playing, sure seams like the majority is happy.

And no one is handed anything for free (not counting festivals)

Hey - you can always take the boat to WoW.

And he can play gear battles all day long... Anyway you can't balance a game around 1 person. You have to balance it around millions of people.

There are smart players in PvE as well. Being able to cater to both the inexperienced and the knowledged is what adds more stars to your games, which is something ANet has done in the past (and have stated of doing in the next patch). But now it doesn't matter how good you are.

I hope you're not using the "go to PvP for a challenge" to excuse all of what's happened in PvE, though...

So it's "evolution" to cater to bad, impatient, and unlearning grinders? It's video game progress to eliminate the depth of a game just for a minority who don't want GW to be unique? I'll keep that in mind.

Interesting that you use the word "evolution", though. That would have to imply that the game had to "evolve" (make changes) in order to survive (be successful). As such it was already surviving very effectively, so why the need to (d)evolve?

Numbers don't talk. They don't give opinions or feedback on the game, they either show "hey we're liking this" or "hey we're not liking this" - but they don't say why which is essential. Hence community feedback.

I highly doubt the players asked for imbalanced mechanics and classes.

every person has an opinion on whats best for them and thats what most of the threads are for

people expressing what they want, what brings them most "joy" out of the guild wars but that usually tends to be really unnecessary and greed type things like more superficial stuff catered to giving them more and more

MMOs are somewhat a revolution as no one would ask such a question in a game. It's a as if the game becomes a bit more, something almost serious as a society, a group. It reminds us that we, humans, are social beings.

Is it good for game design? Yes and no, depending on how "social" (or e-social?) you are Of course, there are various levels, some players will consider the whole GW community as something they don't want to be part of, while they'll be very active in their guild or alliance (or fansite).

Globally, such generic questions will fail to find an answer, because there's no "community" in the sense that there are only fansites which fail to capture the concept (trolls, drama, +1's FTL). It'd be good to have an organised community, a huge task in a game as varied as GW...

No, no, no.
I am not saying there aren't.
PvE has good and bad players.
PvP has good and bad players.

But in PvP - you don't go around and trash skills because they are seem godly in RA. You trash skills because they cause problems in places that are played by better players.
Where as in PvE - they cater the worst players. The better players will never be challenged to the extent that they can be in PvP - so there is little point in making the game more difficult for them - and much more (or impossible) for the worst ones.
The best players can always move to the real hard mode of GW - PvP.
Where as the shitty ones can't exactly move to anything that is easier then PvE.

If you mean that GW was keeping a few "Power Traders" happy, then yes GW was doing great, you seam to still think that the forum click is the majority of the player base and they are the once that needs to be kept happy. WRONG.


If you don't think that the "high end PvP" players asked for nerfs/buffs that would help them win you are delusional

I thought the incentive in a game was to have fun.

Game developers want all kinds of people to play their games, because it gives them a confidence boost knowing that they made a great and popular game, and they can make more money off it to do what they want to do in their free time.

This conflicts with why we play multiplayer games. We buy them to play with the people who play for the same reasons we do.

I know what I want!!! ME = GOD of PVE FTW.

Then if it's so easy, why make it easier? Why make a Hard mode and then continue to make it as simple as the Normal mode when players can just stay in the Normal mode?

And if they only catered to the "worst" players in PvE, we wouldn't have seen a nerf to SF, and we definitely wouldn't be seeing an upcoming change to Ursan Blessing.

Nope. I've been saying the knowledgeable players provide worthwhile feedback. ANet should take their opinions while keeping in mind the interest of the majority. They should not cater exclusively to one or the other. The only problem is that the casual majority is a bit more easier to please. It's not that I'm calling them "stupid", in fact far from it. I'm saying that they're intensely casual. They just log in for a few hours a day or week, just to mess around and have fun. Everything that's been discussed on these forums has never concerned itself with the casual majority. It's all been about the deeper level of the game, a place where the casuals don't care about.

What I'm saying is that it's utterly ignorant and frankly stupid to completely toss-aside valuable player feedback. It's not elitist, it's a fact: Players who know the game from so many separate angles and have a long time run of experience know a lot about the game. That's why so many were displeased with Gaile; as nice as she was, she never understood many of the concerns that were laidout by some of the most valuable players.

They asked for balance and variety, not a bunch of overpowered crap. They didn't want mechanics introduced that completely negated long-time tactics and strategies, or professions that couldn't exist in a balanced game. New skills would always keep things a bit fresh in addition to the constantly changing meta, but mechanics that completely negate positioning (shadow stepping, which they've finally fixed) and other effective gimmicks (dervish forms, Paragons, etc.) were definitely not on the list.

More than anything, though, is that they wanted understanding. They wanted Izzy to pay attention and address outstanding issues. They wanted ANet to show the same concern and care that they had held for PvP in the past. But things degraded, the game got more stale and broken. The people who offered so much insight into the game haven't left because it's "no longer the old days" but because of the nearly complete disregard from ANet for PvP.

The best players may not always want to PvP or may feel like they do not have ideal conditions for PvP, especially re the internet connection: I know people who have the occasional drop to 1k+ ping or more - this is OK if you're in PvE, but heaven forbid you're in anything remotely PvP, even AB.

Hall of Monuments made it vital that people get as many titles as possible, so of course more inexperienced/less skilled players are going to use the cheapest, easiest ways possible to get their titles, since that's the flashiest thing a PvE player can display (aside from armor and weapons, etc.). Of course, the fact that it's linked to GW2 makes it even more essential for everyone to rush off and grab as many titles as possible. If you're one of the more skilled players, you can probably create strong builds on your own to get through these titles. If you're not, you might very well end up over-relying on things like consumables and PvE skills, which means you're going to complain if and when they get nerfed.

Both sides are part of the community, and I'm quite sure both sides know what they want. Sometimes, at the end of the day, the voice that shouts the loudest is the one that gets heard. If the people you consider inept and shitty players complain more than the supposedly skilled players do, then they are more likely to be heard and catered to.

Just my rather long two cents, I guess.

That is who GW is aimed at, the casual players, hence the business model they came up with, no monthly fee's. You play when and if you feel like it.
It was never meant to be a permanent home for strays.

And then you have to go and start that shit about deeper levels only being for certain people, there is no such place even if some want it to be.
Get over your self if you think there should be places where only certain players should be able to go.



BS. Some people where displeased with Gail because she couldn't care less for PvP and that rubbed the "power full" players the wrong way when they thought that PvP was all GW was about.


They asked and they got for 2 years at the cost of the rest of the game.

A-Net gave them 2 1/2 years of undivided attention, what more can you expect for $150-200? They had all the power to make Pvp the part that A-Net wanted it to be, but their "elitism" spoiled that chance.

She is was in charge of community relations and so she should have taken care of ALL of the community not just the parts she liked best/cared about more. So no shit the PvP'ers dont like her she never did anything for PvP. If she had done everything for PvP and nothing for PvE you would be the one bitching right now.




When something is broken in PvE you want it fixed, same goes for PvP. Not only that but changes in PvP very rarely affect changes in PvE (today they don't at all). Everytime Anet nerfed something for PvP in PvE you always found a way around the nerf so it didn't matter anyways. TBH the only skill i can think of off the top of my head that has been nerfed beyond use as a result of PvP is EW.

Rest of the game didn't suffer at the hands of PvP you can say it all you want its not true.

I wanted to emphasize on the bold, since nearly everything being debated about here on the forums - all the changes and likewise - have never been for the casual player. They're for an entirely different minority, as seen below.

Sooo...who're harder difficulties aimed at? Never for people who just picked up the game. Why do you think a person who's just been playing for 2 minutes be able to experience the hardest content in the game?

This is why many are displeased: making the Hard mode difficulty as accessible as the Normal one. That doesn't make sense and in practice is just a pointless and bad move, since if a player is having a hard time in HM they're just supposed to stay in NM.

I don't mind it when a game is catered entirely for the "newbies". But none of these changes have even been for them. If they were, that would be the only satisfaction I could get from these additions. But instead, they're catered towards an entirely separate community of players, one that's no larger than the "elitists" you see here.

It especially makes no sense when GW was one it's way to reaching the four million copies mark. Why did ANet have to revert the "skill>time" principle when their game was a large success?

In regards to the rest, Ravager's pretty much stated what needed to be said.

QFT, especially the bold part. I just thought it needed to be said again. As soon as I read the post this was a response to, I immediately thought the same thing, especially the bolded part.

Before the separation of PvP and PvE skill balancing, the PvE community whined out their asses that their game was being ruined, and now that their switched, PvPers don't really care, since it didn't affect them at all, and PvEers still whine about all their old IMBA skills that they think should be reverted. Yes, I am generalizing, but I'd say it is a pretty fair stereotype.

I'm not trying to start a PvP vs. PvE war, because, being a PvPer, I know the PvP community still whines about WS and the 3 year desecration of Tombs/HA as being nothing more than OP gimmicks, and [Signet of Midnight] and Daze being insanely overpowered in 4v4 arenas. By the way, the "fix" to shadow stepping was the worst idea I've seen in a long time. Seriously, if a 1 second cast was given to shadow step spells/skills, I'd have no problem, but the aftercast was a terrible idea.

There are a lot of things I would want but most are close minded and won't support them.

Let me try to analyze the general definition of that skill over time idea. Skill over time basically should mean if a person is able to adapt to his or her skills efficiently and use them wisely, this person can proceed in the game faster than the people who can't. And consequently, people who cannot do the same will spend more time either learning the skills or earn some gold to hire a runner. In all honesty, this has been true since the very day back in 2004.

However, from the arguments I have been looking at for a while now, most the so-called skill over time idea is that you can only proceed in the game if and only if you have the skill. I believe everyone has a different definition to what skill is. Perhaps by meeting the definition of skill to one person will do good for this person's game, but what about the rest of the population? Will it really be good for the game in the general sense? I don't think so. In fact, by forcing one person's moral down to other people, people will just leave. So with most people leaving the game, how is that good for the game again?

Nonetheless, this is just an example to the point I'm about to make. Most people, whether it is on the forum or in the game, they know what they want, but most of them don't know what others want. If one would look through most of these suggestions or arguments, most of these creators would never consider the existence of other people, or even the need of other people. It is not the case that these ideas aren't implemented because people don't know what they want. It's the case that these ideas aren't implemented because they will do more harm than good. To be honest, I doubt any of this will change any time soon.

This isn't in response to your whole post, but into this very interesting snippet:

You provide easier accessibility. ANet had the opportunity to do this with the release of Hard mode (dumb down NM while keeping HM for those who want more of a challenge), but the only instance they really put it to good use was for NM DoA.

Another interesting little tidbit:

Just the first step of many.

She was not the only community relations manager! What about Mr. Patrick?

Of the 12 friends I originally bought guild wars with on release, only I actively still play. Eight of them quit after the first two months. The playerbase has really grown since then.

The game is a hook. Those of us who get hooked and stay are the bait.

The idea is to keep the community stoking to generate more sales. I'm sure the vast majority of the playerbase no longer intends to log in anymore, so the upkeep cost is really not that high. During this last event, only three of my release friends logged in.

you've ask a very difficult question!

People spend years, decades even, collecting demographic data! if and when you can pin point exactly what a community wants, you'd be very rich!

Andrew Patrick was only a PvP community relations guy for a very short time. The best community relations guy Anet had was Alex Weekes, he did things for both sides and he did them well. Gaile is really good and I like her, but she only did stuff for PvE. Andrew Patrick is a good guy and I like him but he could be pretty dumb sometimes (Splinter Weapon isn't imba just heal all your NPCs!!11!11!!). Regina is a great lady, and I like her style, but she is not there for PvP at all unless if you push on her about it. No one is there for PvP atm. One could argue given how stuff turned out even with Patrick doing stuff, no one has been there since Alex Weekes quit.

My guess is that because the only point of HM are the titles.
So if you aren't good enough to venture into PvP or dislike PvP - you evidently aren't playing the game seeking a challenge. You are playing for different reasons. And this caters those people.
(But of course "answers" like this can't exactly be used as the basis for a discussion - since A.Net would have to state this. Otherwise it's just speculation.)

If Ursan stays in the game, if SF can be kept up indefinitely and if SR remains in this form - then A.Net is catering bad players in PvE.
It's not just the nerf that is relevant - it's how the nerf is executed.

Like I said - then you are obviously not looking for a challenge (if you don't want to play PvP - because we already established many times before that foes in PvE will NEVER be as challenging as players) plus you can't really blame A.Net for your bad internet connection.
If you aren't able to play (because of objective reasons like bad I-connection) the game you want - you can always quit.

True - but currently we pretty much have the best PvE players complaining about PvE. The best players aren't acting the way you described.

Does this happen in PvP?
I think that skill balances because of bad players are pretty much limited to PvE only - since otherwise we'd see the death of touchies ages ago.

i don't speak for the com, but at least I know for myself, what I want XD as extreme tiny part of the community *gg*

Not arguing here. I don't want to decide to randomly do something, zone to (insert area here) and end up teaming with a bunch of people who have completely missed out on the idea of pulling.


You shouldn't have to play PvP to feel challenged. I meant that for those who choose not to venture into PvP for whatever reason, there has to be some kind of kick. You say Anet is catering to bad players, which is probably linked to that - I know that if I PUG, I expect nothing but ursanway and players of differing levels of skill (but generally stuck at the bottom rungs of the skill ladder).


The best PvE players are complaining about PvE, yes. I'm aware of that. However, if they choose to listen to the best PvE players, then the weaker players who rely on consumables/PvE skills/ursanway etc. will start complaining. They're both parts of the community. Once you cater to one of them, there's a fairly good chance the other side will start complaining.


In all honesty, idk. I'm using PvE mostly because the loudest complaints seem to be about PvE skills and how imbalanced they are.

Mind, since they're considering nerfing Ursan Blessing, I now have hope - it's gone unnerfed for far too long.

So people don't play HM for an increased challenge, to get better at PvE, and for fun?

I also don't think we're in any position to say how "easy" GW is, by the way, since there's a point for every player when the game becomes "super easy". Like me, I cannot stand up and say "oh GW is easy". It'd be like me saying that Nightmare mode in Doom is easy. There is a threshold in any player vs. environment game where it becomes "easy". It's how and how quickly you reach that that matters.

Speaking for myself, I can say that GW has challenged me very well. It's taken me nearly all of those three years to become the player that I am and be able to solve the solutions I face.

And that's what's the problem: you don't have to go through this to experience the game. ANet has effectively removed their difficulty levels. It's not a problem when they provide easier and more accessible methods (ex. Gears of War 2's new easiest difficulty) but when you make the largely unaccessible methods, well, accessible. It doesn't matter how long the game has been in existence or how much it's "dying" (which GW is *very* far from) - you do not eliminate the depth of a game. It turns away players just as much as it ties in new ones, if not moreso.

Many of the people here against these changes are no longer actively playing. We're not saying that we want to stay in GW and have it be meaningful, we just don't want it to become meaningless. HM, as it is, is *very* meaningless since you can just up title ranks and succeed anywhere in the game.

...And how it's execute determines who's in favor of the catering. If they nerf UB, I think that shows something. Previous gimmicky builds still exist all over GW, but are many of them still effective?

The SF example was brought in not in a sense of catering/uncatering to the bad players but to show that ANet does care and want to improve PvE. As it is it's still maintainable, but less in an accessible sense.