Fansite friday? 2/11

Wheres the fansite friday for this week? I'm anxious to read it!

Some site called Guild Wars Guru got it. I have no idea who these guys are, but people tell me to expect big things from them. The article should be up, now.

Fansite Saturday????

Sheesh!

You give a new site with a bunch of unknowns [SIZE=1]well, ok, not precisely unknowns, but it sounded good[/SIZE] a much-sought-after interview [SIZE=1]fine, maybe it's just my big brother who thinks they're much-sought-after[/SIZE] and you hand it over [SIZE=1]ok, admittedly half a day late[/SIZE] and you get this sort of disrespectful headline?

HUMPH! *tosses hair indignently*

congrats, your first post from the Glorious Gaile (or did i miss an earlier one? nooo!)

Hey, it's still Friday in Guild Wars Time!

A person's post count should be right on the left, right under their names. And, yes, it's Gaile's first post, although she's been poking around for a little while.

It's ok Gaile, we still love you - especially after the cute intro we got on the official page. We're well known!

It's still Friday on Arena.net time too, not just American Samoa, so technically you got it posted before Saturday, depending on whose time you choose to go by(I vote for PST). Otherwise, very good FF(never FS), sleep deprivation doesn't leave room for intelligent answers, nor speady posts for that matter.

Oh snap, was it just me or did that seem shorter than normal? maybe we got shafted

ah I see, we didn't get a bonus question, that was the problem!


bobert

Thats cause we are cool enough, that we don't need a Bonus Question to make us feel special.

Edit: How do you get peoples names in the quotes?

This should boost site popularity by quite a bit, considering that's it will be on virtually every Guild Wars website, including GuildWars.com.
Was this expected, and therefore had the site planned to be released at this time?
To quote a person's name, which often isn't too nessary though, just type [QUOTE="<insert name>"]then [\QUOTE] (not backslash though)

[QUOTE=Xapti] To quote a person's name, which often isn't too nessary though, just type or press the "Quote" button at the bottom right of each post

No, the site wasn't launched in order to coincide with a Fansite Friday. Now, was there a shadowy and long-held deal that once the site was launched we'd get a FF? No comment...

In all seriousness, Spooky, THX, and I are members in long and good standing in both the alpha test and the community at large. We've all known Gaile and other developers, we've all worked with ANet on other projects for other sites, and we'd like to think we're well known and respected, so I don't think it's that much of a surprise that our request for this rather important and exclusive mini-interview was granted in short order. We're, of course, very grateful to have it but, come on, we're the Gurus, and while there may have been a few stumbles along the way we're working to be the best GW fansite around bar none, was there ever much doubt we'd get it eventually?

[QUOTE=Xapti]You don't need the quotation marks, the ", (on these boards at least, other board programs do) although that's otherwise correct.

Why, yes, yes, there was, Saus, until that box of deluxe Belgian chocolates magically appeared on my desk.

Ok, seriously, we've welcomed a few new fansites to the community with a warm and cordial "welcoming hug" in the form of a Fansite Friday. Such was the case last week when the Tip o' the FF Hat went to Guild Wars Tome. Now, mind you, these days we do check to make sure the site's up and running and seems likely to survive, after the time I gave an FF to a site that fell apart before it ever came to be.

It's sort of interesting that we have had 32 Fansite Friday Interviews, and not one has gone to the same site twice. Doesn't that say just a ton about the growth of our community, and the support that fans give to Guild Wars? Boy does this community warm the heart!

Tch, I guess the cat is out of the bag.. our good standing came at the price of many, many confectionary bribes. The sad part is, I still haven't made enough cakes to get the neko mimi headband for my Ellie yet!

Great stuff guys ... all round. Too bad you didn't get more questions however.

I have to say that I really liked the questions this time around. Some questions are, y'know... weak-kneed. Or something.

It was nice to see forum discussion going into a question, too. You guys are excellent! (Or maybe you were planning that question, and started the forum discussion beforehand in your shadowy attempts to take over... what? I need to find that last clue to the puzzle.)

THE WORLD!

Nah, that's been overdone. This lot here, they've got more imagination than that... I need the answer... but what?

*Goes off in a detective noir sulk, having removed the thread enough from its original topic*

This definitly was a good Fansite Friday. I especially am interested on the 3rd question about the in-game economy. I also think you guys have an amazing site I have found it to have more useful information than any other fansite.

Our connections to the underground confectionary syndicates pays off once again!

However, I feel I'd be remiss both to the rest of the community as well as our posters here were I not to try and further things beyond the simple question and response of a Fansite Friday. We, after all, are Gurus and here we don't simply deliver sermons of wisdom but engage and encourage the sorts of debate wherein such wisdom can be found. We, all of us here, are not experts here but students and we learn from one another in kind for the betterment of all. That's what we're here for, that's what I'm here for, in this community and this site : the betterment of everyone involved through the dispersement of knowledge.

Also, while the questions were put togetehr via committee and well vetted by the staff here, I think someone's shall we say *distinctive* style of writing is readily apparent in those questions...

An well-phrased and intentioned response and certainly one that everyone reading is glad to hear. However, one that appears to miss entirely the whole point of the question. To say "When you play with skill, you will always be competitive." and that "Victory in Guild Wars will seldom, if ever, be based on what you wear or what you wield." is all well and good as far as copy on the back of a game's retail box but it's become increasingly divorced from the reality of the game in its current form. And about as intellectually honest as saying that a level 1 character will be "competitive" against a level 20 character because the most important factor is the skill of the player's involved.

That's simply not gong to be a fair match. The amount of health and attribute points - to say nothing of the better armor and gear available because of those levels and AP - given to the lv20 character by the very rules of the game form an increadible advantage and one that's all but insurmountable. After all, that lv20 charcter is capable of hitting that lv1 hard enough to kill them in one shot, I don't care how much more skillful the lv1 player is, there's simply no chance of victory when they have to be flawless for the long seconds it will take to chip away at the lv20 character and the lv20 character only has to land a lucky blow once or twice.

Skill is *a* factor involved, to be sure, and a welcome one. Much more welcome than random chance or the amount of free time both parties have but it is not the *only* factor. That being the case, is it not conceivable that another factor might be *the* factor on which a battle turns? Especially were the parties involved to be equal in every other respect?

What concerns myself, and many others (as you can see in this thread about how to derive the most benefit from your items), are concerned not about "uber" items - those items which are going to give an overwhelming advantage - but about just plain old "rare and unique items". It's in that match-up of equally skilled players where such items can tilt the battle one way or another. It doesn't matter how much of advantage they give, they will give some advantage if only it's a sliver of one, and they will give it not based upon player skill but based upon how lucky a character is with their drops or with how much free time they have to spend farming. That fractional advantage is something players, the players who care about competition, anyway - and you must admit the existance of such players because you mention them yourself further on in your responses - will spend the time and effort in acquiring. If this weren't the case then why do alpha players spend hours before All Calls trying to find the right equipment? If there wasn't a significant advantage to be had - or even to be countered by having the advantage yourself - then why would people bother to do so when preparing for what's the most competitive environment in the test? The question, then, is not whether or not such items will increase your chances of winning but by how much.

You say "in cases where you and your opponent have different inventories – say you are a good player with average items playing against someone who has invested a thousand hours in acquiring the best of everything – the chances still are great that you can win." and that much is perhaps true. But the chances might be great but they would not be nearly as great as if you had the "proper" equipment. Equipment can make up for a lack of skill or a flaw in strategy. If this weren't the case then why was War Machine extended the invitation to join the alpha test?

For those who don't know the story, War Machine was one of the top 5 guilds in the ladder competition. And they won their spot mostly by having better equipment than most other teams. They had one or two alpha members who spent the days before the BWE farming and gathering the best weapons, the best foci, the best shields, and the crafting materials to make the best armor and the runes to stud that armor with. With all that, they were at a huge advantage compared to other guilds in that competition. Their Warriors could stand in Fire Storms with their Runes of Absorbtions. Their healers had that much more of a margin of error when everyone had a Superior Vigor Rune. War Machine was a guild firmly in the middle of the pack during the previous BWE and, while I never played them myself - I'm not in a guild so I spent most of my time with PUGs in the Tombs - I did hear from several well-experienced and well-versed players who did and they were nothing memorable. It was their superior equipment that made the difference in the run up the ladder not their strategy or their skill.

What it means to be competitive is to maximize your chances of winning. You want to win more than you lose even though you'll never win them all. That's just the way competition works, some time you'll be at your worst and someone will be at their worst, or you'll run into someone's strategy that trumps your own even though it won't trump anyone else's. So, it's about just how far above that mythical .500 mark you can place your winning percentage. It's all about increasing your chance to win against any foe. Having worse equipment doesn't increase your chances, it worsens them as it allows your opponent to make up for their flaws. Even if it's as little as having the equipment to go from winning 51% of those matches to 52% of those matches, a competitve player will take that in a heartbeat. That, after all, is what it means to be competitive, to grab each and every advantage you can to increase that percentage.

Therefore, if player skill isn't the one and only determinant of success in Guild Wars - and it isn't, not if that level 1 character can't beat that level 20 character, there's a host of factors from character level to connection times to equipment beyond player skill that will determine how likely you are to win - to be well and truly effective a player will need to make sure they're at thier best in each and every aspect. Equipment is not merely something that helps you to be competitive it's nearly a requirement. How many players are goign to waltz into the Tombs in their starting armor without a single rune and walk out victorious? How much of a chance does that PUG with merely "decent" gear have against the War Machines and the guilds that devote their time and resources to acquiring that gear? And how much time does the average player have to spend to get that advantage themselves?

The problem is one inherint in the very design of "rare and unique" items. "Unique" means singular, that's there's only one of an item. And "rare" means that it's going to be something hard to find. In other words, items that are more powerful than other items are going to be, by design, scarce. The issue at hand is how scarce they're going to be because scarcity and balance are always conflicting tendancies in game design. It's really the issue of just how much effort one has to expend to run the Red Queen's race and stay in place as everyone else grabs for better equipment. Scarce items are necessary, crucial even, to the development of a healthy and thriving ecconomy but problem becomes when they're *too* scarce. That opens the pandora's box of a secondary market as players seek a short cut to become equal to those that have obtained that scarce item themselves. If it's an advantage and everyone else has it, it's not longer an advantage for them, it's a disadvantage for you. What cost, then, do you pay in order to become the equal of everyone else?

Dodging the issue by assuring everyone that ph4t ub3r loot won't be found in Guild Wars does no one any good. What those of us, and there are many, who care about such things want to know is not whether or not items will be overpowered - we trust the design team to keep things in balance - nor is it whether there will be an advantage to wielding them - that's an undeniable fact if such items are going to be worth anything at all to anyone - but it is just how hard we'll have to work to obtain them. People grind and farm away in games like Lineage 2, Worlds of Warcraft, Diabloe 2, Final Fantasy and beyond, they might not realise it, they might not like it, but they do so because that's what's required in order to be effective at the game. Unless characters are going to begin play at maximum level with fully optimized skills and gear, there's going to be some work involved in establishing a truly competitive character - in the sense that it's going to be able to go up against similar characters and have at least an even chance of success - in Guild Wars. We want to know how much.

If, then, you've designed the PvP portion of things for "most people who choose this type of gameplay" then what about the rest of the people? Or even those who might be disinclined to choose that type of gameplay in the first place? Perhaps they are not so "highly competitive by nature"? Perhaps they might enjoy or be enticed by a scenario where there is no, single clear winner but instead prefer the idea of working together as a team to achieve a goal. That pulling together and coming together that defines not just civilization but humanity? Might not the game might be well-served by interesting more of those people in just one of the aspects of the total gameplay by providing a concession and a gateway to their sensibilities? Has ArenaNet come to the conclusion that all those who enjoy PvP are bloodthirsty and selfish persons who only care about their own personal success and made the game based around that sad and hopefully untrue fact?

Perhaps so, and if true, then perhaps that's a wise decision. But it's not a decision restricted to PvP. PvE is no more co-operative or conducive partnering and team play than PvP. It still remains your party against all opponents, it's just the opponents are computer controlled rather than other players. Why not introduce that element of co-operations between parties in PvE? People may choose PvP only for the thrill of victory but what about PvE? Why can't two teams work together in concert inside of a mission or an instance? Why can't the instance of one group impact the instance of another? In short, where's the Co-operative play? All we have is our guild or our group, there's no sense of being part of a larger group, a larger mission, of being connected not just to those you're playing with in an instance but with everyone else playing the game at the same time.

But you do raise an interesting point with this "two types of cooperative gameplay are supported, the established group who plays together often, and the informal pick-up group who comes together for a single mission and may disband immediately afterwards". A view of things I've long held myself. "Established groups" and "pick-up groups" are the main ways that players will come together and experience the game. But my question is just how well each style of play is supported. An established group is that guild team in the Tombs, the pick-up the PUG. Even in a quote unquote co-operative mission the difference in familiarty, co-ordination, and strategic confidence will be telling. How does the game accomodate the fact that there will be teams of well-coordinated and well-equiped players tackling the same missions as the great unwashed masses of the rest of the gaming populace? How can missions, how can PvP, how can the game be made fun and enjoyable as well as challenging to both groups? Is it even possible to satisfy both groups?

This is a question that arose from my discussion with Thom, who's far more well-versed in the minutiae and complexities of fiscal matters both real and imagined than I'll ever be. I'll be the first to admit that my coneption and understanding of wealth begins and ends not very far from "It's nice to have". Still, it's a question that intrigues me because of the inflationary element that an online game is going to suffer from as time goes on.

Wealth in an online game is created by players. Just as wealth is created in real life by people performing productive acts, so too is it created in game by players. It's just that productive acts in a game are generally a lot easier and a lot more fun than those in real-life (The wild stories of fun and games we've all heard about ANet's home office notwithstanding.). As more players enter that system more wealth is created just as when players labor longer more wealth is created. Money, gold in this case, is what's used to transfer wealth from one place to another. It has no inherint value in and of itself beyond what the parties involved in an exchange can agree on. It's a system ripe for inflation as players will accumulate more and more wealth as the game goes on. More wealth means more gold meaning that each individual will start to devalue their own pile of gold. After all, when you have a few thousand gold pieces or their equivalent in crafting materials or other goods you don't scrimmp and save every last piece the way you do when you're first starting out or even if you only have 5 gold to your name. That's where things like money sinks come into play such as the infamous "Having to repair your weaponry" and other mechanics designed to separate your character from its hard earned wealth. By limiting the amount of gold in circulation by burning it off through maintainance - the sort of "morning coffee" expenses that we incur and accept in real-life but prefer to keep out of our fantasies - the value of the gold still available remains. Gold sinks, then, are often used in games to prevent the massive accumulation of wealth.

There's another route, though, and one that's alluded to in your response, and that's merchants. Guild Wars is full of NPC merchants who'll buy and sell only in gold. They serve to "fix" the price of various goods. Especially as they move and react to market conditions over time and raise and lower their prices accordingly. Note that merchants are also a gold sink as by selling and then buying the same item to a merchant will usually involve a net loss on the deal. But at the same time by establishing the "real" price of many items the merchants provide an underlying consistancy to the overall economy. Just like when *our* money was on the gold or silver standard you can always take your 5 gold (or whatever the price is, NDA and all...) to a merchant and get a stack of Iron Ingots or vice versa. They provide that consistance and reassurance that allows the rest of the economy to flow.

However, they don't solve the underlying problem because they create an infinite supply of gold. As long as someone can go out and create a good by kililng a monster and getting a drop they can get some gold. They don't stop that inflation of wealth, they merely stop the inflation of pricing of those items that they sell. The question is not whether or not things can still be bought but if gold can still be used outside of those items available at the merchants as players and characters begin to pile up their gold. There's no Rune merchant, for example, so the price of a rune isn't in anyway controlled by that limiting mechanism of a merchant. The value of your runes is whatever you can get for them. When people walk around with 50 gold, you might be able to charge 5. When people walk around with 50,000 you can charge considerably more. The only force is the market, there's nothing external checking things. The danger, then, is what happens when gold becomes so common that it's forgettable and players will need to turn to such non-controlled commodities to make exchanges. After all, while the market's going to fluctuate, the merchants will still see to it that in the economy of
50 gold is wealthy" and the economy of "50,000 gold is wealthy" that their prices are sensible. The more they sell the higher prices go and the more they buy the lower prices will dip. But, at a certain point characters will have more gold than they could ever spend at merchants. At that point, instead of trading, say, a rare +1/-1 sword with max damage and a rare +1 to Illusionary Weaponry focus with a 9+ requirement and tossing in a few hundred gold to even the sides out, someone will instead chip in what can't be bought with devalued gold such as a Superior Vigor Rune. Something rare but common enough to become a commodity of exchange. Gold becomes useless if you can't spend it and the economy shifts from cash to barter.

Nifty purchasable items and perks are fine and will function as effective gold sinks but they don't necessarily solve the problem of the continuing accumulation of wealth by players. Of course, the real question here would be which is better the cash economy or the barter one? And it's one that'll need a better mind than mine to contemplate.

Is there an abridged version of the above essay available? Or a telemovie with very low production values?

I've got a book report to hand in tomorrow, and I really don't want to have to read the whole thing....

Someone sum up his post in 50 words or less, no punctuation.

For kunt0r:

gaile avoided a question on the idea that gw is not just skill based arguing that it is and then he described other possibilities of how to create a stable economy

That is hard to do...

Very informative/thought provoking post Saus.

As far as whether something or another is going to make an individual or guild more competative, its inevitable. In fact it will make the game a bit more realistic. Yes, those of us who are competative will do everything in their ability to tip the advantage in their direction, but I think, (maybe I have interperated you wrong) it not going to be near as bad as you make it sound when the game has had a chance to stablize a bit.

Yes, for the first X period of time it may be most unbalance that it ever will ever be, but like I said its going to take a period of time to reach some sort of slowly changing equilbrim. At that point sure you will end up fighting guilds with better gear, and thus will have a slight advantage, but if your team skill and stratagy are slightly better, if not way better you will steam roll them. The aspect I think that is going to most affectively help this situation of severely uneven matches, is going to be the algorithm that works to match guilds by winning record, and other parameters. Of course this will be unstable and faily worthless in the beginning, but as time progresses and things begin to neutralize out, it will become a significant tool in progessing the ladder and competition in the right direction.

Once the game finds a near stable equallibrium to this dynamic system... I believe those item/weapon type advantages will be easily neutralized and better yet made near negilable due to people really beginning to adapt to well executed team strategy, and player skill. The key is that the game must find an equilibrim and when adding new content, it will cause a new imbalance that will eventually find another equillibrim. The key is that there needs to exist an equillibrim, new content (item/weapon and skills) shouldn't be added at a rate faster than the gaming universe system response, otherwise an equilibrim will never be reached. So it will be a huge balance of economy, rare item find rate, and newly added content, etc etc... to keep the game fresh, while still keeping a fairly fast response rate so that an equilbrim can be reached quickly, thereby making weapons/items/skills relatively neutral in creating advantage (thus skill & strategy remain deciding factors for winning or loosing), but still fun for PVE'ers to go explore and find new valuable things.

Its a huge problem, with way too many degrees of freedom to be able to model and thus allow you to have decent control of. A nice idea for one area creates a spiraling effect for the other area of the game. There is a bit of juggling involved, and most of all this equilibrim will constantly be changing making one aspect of the game a bit more appealing than the other. Lets just hope it stays fairly balanced between PVP and PVE areas. Otherwise, there is a good possibility that one area will completely collapse, and thus be a game of PVP or PVE only. I guess you could liken this process to balancing a ball on top of a pinnacle with hopefully a "slight breeze" disturbing the ball one way or another. At the start of the game, that ball is definitely going to be well on PVE side. It will be interesting to see how it equilibrates... if it ever does... I think I'll put my faith in Anet until, proven otherwise.

BTW great post Saus!

One's spot on the ladder is not a function of just player skill, but of player skill and equipment / skill availability. Guilds with much better equipment access will be competing about their 'natural' level - those with worse equipment will be competing below. This is true as long as there are equipment disparities, the only question is their magnitude.


I draw the opposite conclusion from the same points. Reaching equilibrium is reaching a point of stagnation. Once people have fully explored the limits of a skill base, of the equipment available - once new tech stops being developed at a reasonable pace - then it's time for an expansion. The fun of the game is in the unstable phases - merely rehashing what everyone knows is not particularly exciting.

Peace,
-CxE

First of all I don't believe I ever said it was only a function of player skill... in fact I believe I eluded to the fact that this function was highly dependant on many aspects of the game. ie the ability for the player to win or loose is more dependant on either player skill/team tactics, and in the worst case scenario, described by Saus, skills and weapons/items. These dependancies are merely weighted more heavily depending on how far the game is from an equilibrim state. I was mainly trying to say that as the game approaches an equilbrim... ie no huge influx of new items/weapons or skills (game just released), winning would be more dependant on player skill / and teamwork, especially because people will try and get an edge by creating fancy team tactics because they can't rely on new gear as crutch to boost thier advantage ie those guilds who are very competative will have nearly all the best gear. So the most likely way to create a large advantage in this case is tactics and player skill. Its just my opinion.

Basically all I was try to say is that magnitude will be far less of a deciding factor in the game when enought time has passed since the release, and there will be other factor in this infinite varible fnc that are probably going to make equipment advantages look like peanuts. Again this is all considering that Anet sticks to their game design and doesn't create uber uber weapons.

I will agree with you if people didn't have a clue/couldn't figure out how to come up with creative strategies or strategies at all, then equipment would yeild a significant advantage even if the game had nearly reached an equilibrim, no matter how small of an increase in weapon dmg or increase in AL or etc etc. There is always going to be relative magnitude differences.


I agree with you that yes if you reach an absolute equilibrim in this case the freshness of the game would stagnate. My point was not to argue that we need to reach an equilbrim, but to fluctuate around a point of feeding new content at a rate that wasn't too fast that would drive the game to be something where equipment was always a large deciding factor on PVP battle outcomes. This would affectively squash the value or desire for PVPing... because it sounds like people want a battle to be won more often based on skill not equipment, Saus' arguement. I'm pretty sure I said something along those lines, And yes I agree with you that its important to add new content... just not too fast that you out pace the response time of your gaming virtual environment. Outpacing will cause a "large" instablity and more than likely create an adverse effect causing gamers too loose interest in a certain aspect of the game or the game entirely... ie too unbalanced. By this quote I ment tend to an equilibrim... and the rest of the quote implies that game will constantly fluctuate around some equillibrium because new content will be continually added. This bit of my response implies that if content is added too rapidly an equilibrim will not exist (ie its @ infinity) and the game will staturate in some fashion, reduce the value of gameplay options of one extreme for many players.

All in all I was trying to make the point that fluctuation is indeed necessary, (just not drastic) to keep the game fresh for both aspects of the game PVP, PVE. I also was trying to point out if Anet does there job and the game fluctuates about an equilbrim (not too drastically) that PVP has the potential to be highly based on player skill and team tactics, and that the PVE content will stay fresh. This of course is not the ideal solution for either PVP or PVE extreme players, as game content will tend to stagnate for both at some period in time, and will be refreshed as the balance fluctuates about this "equilibrim point". The method of including both PVP and PVE and trying to highly please both PVP and PVE extremer's is impossible because like I said when highly pleasing one extreme the other is going to feel like they are getting the shaft because both play styles are completely different and the driving forces behind them conflict. So basically Anet was trying to target a wide varity of people that aren't too attached to one extreme or the other.