Guild Wars 2 Shop

This post outlines a suggestion for how CDI members could format their ‘Proposals’ in CDI topics. It also puts forward a suggestion for general discussion post word counts.

Suggested Proposal Format:

Proposal Overview
<A short description of the proposal that is being put forward>

Goal of Proposal
<What problem are you trying to solve with your proposal>

Proposal Functionality
<How does your proposal work in regard in relation to the current design of GW2>

Associated Risks
<What risks or problems can you foresee with this proposal which you would like to have assistance on from other members of the CDI>

Please try to be as concise as feasible with your proposal. This however no suggested word count for proposal posts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Posts

No suggested format.

Suggested Post Word Count:

200

I wanted to post this first before putting up the new CDI topics to get a quick read on your thoughts.

Chris

Source :https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Format-Proposal/page/2#post3662970

PvP : Collaborative Development: Ladders & Seasons - John Corpening
La discussion ne décolle (vraiment) pas. A peine 2 pages.
Du petit nombre de participant, la majorité est pour le système de classement, mais qui reste encore à bien définir.
John Corpening s'est quand à lui, pour le moment, contenter de saluer le résumé des idées/propositions faites par un joueur

Pour moi les combat en plaine avec effectif moyen (environ 10 de chaque coté) que l'ont trouve en McM ressemble d'avantage à du PvP que ce que l'ont trouve en JcJ...
Le problème c'est que le McM n'est pas fais pour ça, et que les combat sont souvent déséquilibré (t'as rarement pile poil le même nombre de chaque coté), t'as des pick up qu'y s'en mêle et foutent ta strat en l'air, t'as des armes de sièges, t'as des bonus divers non accessible par tous, et surtout la seul stratégie réside dans le combat lui même, ça reste de la bash d'ennemie sans objectif secondaire immédiat, donc pas de split, pas de "défense" de position ect...

Hey everyone,
Before things get out of hand, I want to address the aspect idea so we can move on. First of all, it’s a great idea, but there are many current issues with the profession that need to be addressed first. Our priorities to make the pet a more viable option will likely remain higher than giving an option to “permastow” the pet.
We recognize there are a number of issues with the pet AI and general functionality, so that is something that will come first. Rangers are first and foremost a pet class, but they are also great skirmishers and some of the best sustained long range damage.
I don’t want you to think we’re going to ignore the idea or the feedback around the pet, but it could very well be the case that fixing some of the major nagging issues with the pet would make it a more desirable aspect of the Ranger.
That said, if you would like to consider discussing the aspect idea, I ask that you start a thread outside of the CDI to brainstorm.
Thanks so much for all the great, constructive feedback everyone! Let’s keep it coming!
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/16

That is exactly my point. We want to make sure we’ve done everything we can to make the pet desirable before we consider any options for those that don’t want to play with the pet as much.

The Ranger isn’t expected to do burst damage. By sustained, we mean that the Ranger should excel at surviving (resilient) through burst while still doing enough damage over time to take the opponent down.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/16

I realize that many classes have high burst right now, but our intent is to limit power creep as much as possible. Just because the Ranger’s damage is more spread out, doesn’t mean it does less damage than the burst of other classes. Does that make sense?
For example: One class could, in the span of 30 seconds, do 15k damage in say 5-10 seconds, but then their burst skills go on cooldown so they have to wait out the rest of the time before they can try again. A sustained class should be able to do that same amount of damage in that same amount of time, but the damage is more spread out (hence sustained). This can be better in certain situations, and allows for the sustained class to fill a hole in a team comp.
I’m not saying this is a perfect system or that it’s even fully functional in the game, I’m just trying to explain why doing burst shouldn’t necessarily be better than doing sustained damage. It depends on the situation.
We also know that some classes right now are better at burst than others, and those are things that we look to address in balance patches so there isn’t a surplus of any one class.

Yes, like I said about the sustained vs burst, it’s not necessarily fully functional in the game. This is one of those things that we would have to balance with bringing other classes down a bit as far as damage output. Burst damage needs to have risk involved, and we know that right now many classes don’t have that associated risk.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/17

We’re seeing that power creep is a big problem in the game right now, so bringing the Ranger up to snuff would only exacerbate that. When we do balance patches, we like to look at every class and where they are at so we can balance appropriately throughout.
Of course, it can be hard to account for certain things when doing these patches, which is why we’re trying to do the patches less frequently so we can properly gauge what needs to be done (that’s not to say that we won’t hotfix any major issues that arise).
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/18

I didn’t say Rangers are in the right spot. I just meant that we have to be very careful of the power creep.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/19

I agree that the ranger profession lacks active condition removal which limits build diversity. It is definitely something we are looking to improve upon in the not too distant future. =)
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/11

To those asking how far we would redesign – I can’t really comment on this specifically, but I can say that you should share your ideas because sometimes they inspire things to happen. Does that make sense?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/17

Romo.3709 a écrit :

How about Story Mode fractals, where you could pick a fractal you want to experience. Then upon arriving to said fractal we could experience the story behind thus level hence learning more about the history and idea behind the design of each and every fractal. To make it actually rewarding we could have a achievement system in place for each level, so everyone would play it at least once. And maybe a reward at the end (30s should be sufficient as it would be much shorter than a regular dungeon story mode) and some experience. It would also help new players get a hang of fractals a bit more understanding the layout and mechanics behind every level.

We could do something like this, but when ends up happening is the work involved ends up being a lot of additional work to basically build something people play one or two times and then are done with it. In that time, we could have probably half built another real fractal, which I think probably would be better for the game over-all. Maybe the real question would be → How do we try and get across better lore and stories with the current fractal system?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ion/page/9

This is a really good point:
I personally think a well made fractal either tells its own story in the case of the Ascalonian city fractal, or allows you to conjure up a story in your head for it. The cliffside fractal does this to perfection for example.
And one we should always aspire to regardless of additional exposition of law.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … on/page/10

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.
Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.
1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.
However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.
Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … sts/page/3

Interesting, I hadn’t considered using the 3 of 5 system there. Do you think that would really force groups to fight it out or would people just turtle up to prevent capture?

A short recap of the first few pages of discussion.

There have been a number of interesting proposals of ways to take some of the things from EotM into the other maps. Scaling creatures have some supporters, verticality without it being excessive is a something that has also seen support. There is definite push and pull between people that feel like any changes from EotM would be counterproductive and people who think there are some good parts.

Probably the most contentious issue has been the talk of getting rid of world’s and replacing the system with just the three colors. I think there is some merit to the idea, although I believe the worlds have a lot of value. I’d be curious to know if the folks who argue against and world pride feel that way because of being on underperforming worlds or not. I also wonder if there isn’t some work that could be done to restore that world pride without completely overhauling the WvW system. Someone mentioned alliances, which I think would work fairly well. If the less populous worlds were grouped together, does that seem like something that could reinvigorate them?

From my perspective, the discussion around changes to the matchup length are interesting. I originally proposed 8 hour matches, but someone else suggested a version that I think would be really interesting which is basically that the weekend is one matchup and the weekdays are another. I’d be curious to hear what people think about that.

I also wanted to continue discussion about changes to Stonemist that might make it a more engaging place to fight over. I think a move to multiple capture points could make it a more difficult place to capture and add some variety to the way the fight plays out.

So an open question to add to the brainstorm, when considering leagues rewards is always going to be an important component to driving participation. There is some great ideas in this thread on rewards already, but it’s worth delving deeper into what type of rewards will motivate different types of players in the league structure. Top tier players might be motivated only by $$$ for example, while lower tier players may be driven primarily to earn levels/gold. (These are just random examples)

With that in mind, what rewards would you like to see for a pvp league structure based on player categories who would be motivated by those rewards at different tiers?

I’ll give myself as an example: I consider myself competitive casual. I will never join a top PvP team to compete in tournaments to be the best in the world, I will however play in any solo play league or rated solo play if the rewards are compelling enough. I generally play hot join and custom arenas as my core game mode type.

For me, unique skins for my character that I can only earn from participating in a league structure would be the biggest motivating factor. This would allow me to show off to others that I was there, and also feel like I earned something unique and exciting for my time spent. Similarly, any rewards that help speed my progress towards building a legendary would provide a large amount of motivation for me. And gems would always be nice, can I always seem to be finding more on the gem store I want to buy than my wife will be ok wit

Hi Folks,
Good discussion. I am enjoying it. The discussion about re rolling is very insightful.
I would appreciate it if you could put some ideas forward for Leader-board mechanics.
Specifically in regard to the fact that I was unhappy with us putting out Leader-boards in their previous functionality (having lots of folks sitting at lvl 50 was not ideal) and therefore the feature was held back.
Obviously we have given Level 50 Leader diversification a lot of thought but it would be awesome to hear your proposals. Note there are a lot of logic problems in the solutions in this area so please do think about associated risks.
Cheers
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … on/page/11

MokahTGS.7850 a écrit :

I also would like Fractals (and to a lesser extent, Dungeons) to evolve to allow for 2-5 player scaling. I know they are currently designed for 5 people, but I’d like to see the balance code reworked in such a way that 2 people could run through a fractal and be rewarded for that level scale. Obviously 5-man fractals would reward more, but I personally just want to run through them with my wife…currently that isn’t possible.
Call it “Casual-mode” for Fractals.

Personally I would like to see Fractals be able to be 5+ as well with associated risk/reward mechanics.
Chris

I think there has been good discussion around the concepts of world pride and how the changes in EotM affect that. Let’s pivot to a different concept from EotM and how it could apply to WvW.
I’m curious what you all think about choke points as strategic ideas. I don’t think we’d ever want a map that was just a bunch of canyons, this isn’t Sparta or Thermopylae, but having areas that make it harder for large groups to get through if they are well-defended creates gameplay. Think of a tower that guards the only pass through a canyon, rather than bridges everywhere. Is that something that, in moderation, could provide for more varied and strategic gameplay?
For the purposes of the question, think in terms of building a new map from scratch, rather than retrofitting the current maps.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … sts/page/5

I think you’re using a different definition of competitive, and casual/hardcore than I would, so by your definition I agree with you, but using my own definitions I do not

We tend to think of our players in various categories, and one of the goals of any league system (or PvP in general) is to try and engage as many of those players as possible, because today’s casual player can be tomorrow’s top tourny player – if they reach the top.

My definitions, and why I think you need to think of rewards that motivate each of these groups to help encourage their participation, since they are often motivated by different things are:

Competitive Hardcore (the guy I set next to at work) – Want to win, and want to be the best. They fight for the top of the ladder, want to win tournaments, and be the best in the world.

Competitive Casual (Me) – Wants to win, don’t care bout being the best in the world and will never have time to do so, won’t ever be on top of the ladder. However, I want to be the best among players of my similar levels of interest/time, so any league that allows me to compete with people of similar skill sets/interest is one I’d participate in. If I have to also fight against the competitive hardcore, I likely wouldn’t participate. Has the potential to someday become competitive hardcore.

Casual (the gal who sits behind me at work) – Wants to play to unlock rewards, doesn’t really think they have a chance of winning or being very good and openly recognize it. Will play as long as the rewards exist, for example there are people who play PvP each day and get their daily, then run off to their next goal some place else in the game. Has the potential to someday become competitive casual.

And ideal league structure would provide motivation for people in each of these groups (by my definition of what they are) to maximize the player participation, and increase the odds that players in each category might move to a more dedicated category of player at some point.

Hope that helps explain in a bit more detail what I’m saying when I say competitive casual, and also what groups I think need to be included in a league structure – and why they may need different rewards based on their different motivations.

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … ons/page/3

Hey all,

Sorry I haven’t had time to comment in here. I went through the past 10 or so pages and tried to grab some of the issues that have come up and address them. The balance team has been keeping up with the thread, but they haven’t had as much time lately to comment on specific ideas.
Re: “Shot down” ideas
   

• The only thing we are not open to is a real permastow option that would essentially take away the pet completely (ie an option that said always stow).
          We kicked around the idea of giving the ranger an “aspect of _______” which we moved to a new thread because it is elaborate and should be a single topic in itself. The idea is that it would give the pet more utility with swapping/stowing, but it wouldn’t retire the pet completely.
              We want to fix issues with the pet AI and general usability before we consider doing something to this extent.

• We acknowledged that Pet AI does need help, but we did not say we would not be doing this. You will see some changes in the coming feature patch that should help with the pet’s usability.

Re: Lack of participation
   

• I apologize that I had been absent from this thread for a few days. I had to produce Ready Up last week and a number of other things came up that took priority (including getting a virus that meant I left early for the week). Also, I don’t work on the weekends.

• Just because we’re not responding doesn’t mean we’re not reading.
          Sometimes we just don’t get the time to respond, but we’ll try to get better about this.

Re: Fear that we will only work on pets
   

• Don’t stress about this. We wanted to look at the class as a whole with you. We didn’t make this thread specifically to get feedback on the pets. It just happens to be one of (if not the biggest) the top issues with Ranger right now.

Source :https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/36

That is perfectly valid feedback. Like I said though, we do have some changes coming that should help with this. Particularly with the one you noted (F2).
Thanks for your constructive thoughts!

Nike.2631 a écrit :

Maybe we can get some insight from our Host:
    Chris, what do you see as the long term value proposition of Fractals? Not necessarily the company policy, just your take as a well-informed designer. Why should players keep coming back after getting their rings & backpack and/or getting to level 50? What is the lasting appeal of this content? You’ve mentioned a blue sky dream of large-group fractals. Any other outside-the-box wishes that might help us better grasp the scope of changes this discussion might precipitate?

Hi Nike,
I am hoping that we can inject more lore and epic moments into the fractals. That we can transport player’s to even more iconic periods of Guild Wars history.
What if we could send players forward in Fractal time?
I am hoping that we can build on the strong foundation that we have with base Fractal mechanics and continue to build challenging encounters through strategic gameplay and strong ‘team’ centric inter-dynamics.
I as a player also hope that we can make fractals more rewarding, especially in regard to ascended acquisition.
I hope this answers some of your questions. Fractals are one of my favorite parts of the game and these are some of my wishes for their evolution.
Chris
Edit: I was also asked what my thoughts on rolling are: As a player i have no issue with that particular system as it currently stands.
I was also asked about Dredge: As a player I would love to see some work done on dredge.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … on/3709729

I can’t find it now but there was a post talking about secondary objectives and rewards for completion of said objectives.
We do this with the Grawl Shaman and I would like to see more of this in the fractals.
Essentially stretch goal objectives that add more optional difficulty but reward the players for completing the more difficult content.
The larger the sense of discovery and accomplishment the greater the overall experience in my opinion.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … on/3714304

I have a few questions for the thread. Sorry I’m a bit late (though I have been reading)!

First, I want to stir the pot on Instabilities. It’s been brought up a few times but never really discussed. In the conceptual phase they seemed like a great way to add replayability to the Fractals. Simple math seems to concur. Even though we built roughly 90 Instabilities, we were only able to ship about 20 because QA had to test approximately 300 configurations of content. That seems like a lot of variety, but obviously there’s some problems. Admittedly, some aren’t very good and they’re sorted in a less-than-stellar manner. They might have been more appealing and/or made more sense had we been able to implement to full plan. But then again, maybe not. I’d like to know what you think. Is this a good system? Does it add to the Fractal experience? Would you rather have 30 new Instabilities or 1 new Fractal? Which ones do you like/dislike? From reading the feedback, I’ve already been gathering some assumptions:

    Additive content is generally well received (extra creatures, environment effect)
    Slightly less popular are combat modifiers (exploding enemies, flanking)
    Stat modifiers are the least interesting. Specifically DPS reducation is a terrible idea.
    It’s more interesting to make builds instead of break them. For example, make condition damage more important than negate it.

Next is the difficulty/progression question. Personally I’ve always felt that the difficulty scaling in Fractals is a bit redundant. After all, once the creatures have started to one-shot you, does it continue to matter that they keep hitting harder? I know this has been commented on, but I’d like to hear some thoughts on alternatives. If not difficulty scaling (or supposing difficulty scaling simply stopped at a certain level), what else would add meaning to progressing through higher level Fractals? How does that align with your goals, whatever they may be (rewards, defeating hard content, discovery, etc).

Finally I have sort of a meta-question which is: what place, if any, does random have in the Fractals? While it’s easy to dismiss it because of the drawbacks, I think it’s important to talk about the drawbacks of not having it (or having another system) would be. Assume we solve re-rolling and make Dredge more reasonable, does random fractal selection add or detract from your satisfaction of playing in the Fractals? Was it more interesting at one time than it is now? Can we compare that with Instabilities, which are very predictable? Imagine if we completely strip random out everything possible and conjure a system where you complete specific sets of combinations of fractal/instability/difficulty to build specific items. Does that entice you or sound like a big grind?

Thanks in advance for reading and I look forward to continuing the discussion.

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … on/3714522

It’s no surprise that the “add more mechanics” idea comes up a lot for difficulty scaling. Not only does it sound really great, it was also the original plan. Unfortunately it’s just about the heaviest approach we could take because it implies that every boss in the fractal needs to be updated and rebalanced for every tier that we add. Assuming 2 bosses per Fractal (and we never added new Fractals), every time we add a tier of difficulty we have to do this 30 times. I’m not saying we can’t do it; I’m saying it would be slow. Much slower than say, adding one or two new Fractals per tier with entirely new content.

What I actually don’t like about that approach is that it has a lot of filler progression. Hypothetical levels 51-60 would effectively all be the same. We thought the advantage of assigning an MI to every level was that it literally made every level unique and also avoids the re-rolling problem that fractal selection has.

Back on randomness/replayability/rewards: I think the intent has always been to make the Fractals a very replayable experience by using random to create semi-unique iterations through the content. But the extrinsic reward motivators work to the contrary, making random unfavorable for optimal gain.

I’d like to see more speculation on middle ground solutions which both add meaningful variety to the Fractals without forcing players to feel like they’re trudging through non-optimal reward paths.

Also, this is all just speculation. I’m not advocating or declaring an official re-work of any system here. Just exploring possibilities for the evolution of this and future content.

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … on/3716117

Romo.3709 a écrit :

Also, Chris.
    I’ve been trying to avoid the question for a while now, trying my hardest to contribute to this CDI as much as the time lets me, while trying to push this question to the back of my mind. It never seem to be a good time to ask it, but then again I don’t think it’ll ever be a good time to. But you once said that you will give your opinion on fractal reset after you gave it some thoughts. I was wondering if you got anything for us. Will we ever be compensated for levels we lost and those over multiple toons? Just stating if it’s not even a viable thing for discussion anymore would suffice.

I am pretty sure Izzy responded to this question a few months ago. I will check with him.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … on/3721528

Ok as I thought my post has completely derailed the conversation. Please let’s continue discussing how to evolve fractals for the time being.
Thank you,
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … on/3722232

In regard to topics I would like to see (if that’s ok):
- Continued discussion about lore in fractals.
- Suggested scenarios (boss, encounter and level design) based on current mechanics and systems in fractals.
- Anything else that takes your fancy.
I am pretty well versed in all of your thoughts around rolling, rewards and leader boards now.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3722290

I’m not saying this isn’t possible, but I want you to understand exactly what that suggestion means. It would mean completely rebalancing the Ranger.
The Ranger is designed to have a pet. If the pet was taken away or didn’t do damage, then it wouldn’t be a Ranger anymore. Does that make sense?
The only reason Rangers lose damage is because the AI is not currently what it ought to be. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we should completely redesign the Ranger and get rid of the pet.
Think of it this way: You’re building a house and a 2×4 breaks while you’re trying to screw it in to something. Do you scrap the house and completely rebuild it because that one piece broke, or do you grab a new 2×4 and use that instead? Which do you think would be more efficient?
What I’ve been seeing a lot of is that you guys don’t necessarily dislike pets. What you dislike is how they act and how they are controlled. It seems to me that these are feelings that have been built up over time, and have culminated into “pets have to go” because you guys haven’t seen the improvements that should be made to pets to make them desirable. I certainly don’t blame you for getting to this point, but I do want to know the core of the problem before we start talking about rebalancing an entire class.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/46

Hi Folks,
The team is now up to date with the thread and we will be asking anymore questions we have in the next few days. Meanwhile if you have anymore comments or suggestions I would suggest putting them forward as I think we will close this CDI on Monday.
One final note is as I have said before that there is room for both Lore and challenging content it is all in the content and therefore any argument in this area is pointless. Specifically Star Aces points are particularly well made.
I will be putting a summary up of our discussion before we close the thread.
Thanks all for the insight, proposals and discussion. I think this particular CDI has been pretty useful.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3740268

I am so tempted to be hyper critical on this post but I won’t, as it isn’t this single comment that has been frustrating but instead a culmination of posts in the CDI.
Suffice to say this post emphasizes why this CDI has been pretty good and not great. In my opinion there have been to many posts that have either not been well thought out or the poster has not taken the time to get educated in the discussion before putting pen to paper, and more specifically too insular in terms of goal resolution instead of thinking about the broader audience.
I will leave it at that.
I am still interested in continued discussion around your boss/encounter mechanic ideas, Rewards and ways in which the fractals could be evolved moving forward to provide new types of challenge.
Cheers,
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3740354

Firstly, I’d like to apologize for being out of this thread for so long, I’ve been reading your posts and think there are a lot of good points in here and just a lot of thoughtfulness in general. I do feel like the thread has kind of wound down, so I’d like to ask one more question and see if that brings up any more ideas.
Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?
I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ost3737942

A few of you guys have mentioned better incorporating guilds into the ladders. I’m curious what your thoughts are on how to achieve this? Would you let any member of your guild affect guild standing? If so how would you track ladder standing for the guild? Would you create one or more guild teams? If you could create teams within your guild what sort of functionality would you want or need to manage those teams? How many members would need to be present to represent? Would you allow alternates?
Do you envision any sort of guild wide reward for fielding a winning team or should only the team be rewarded? For example, if your guild has a PvP team and they come out on top of the ladder maybe they get some special reward for being the top team but the whole guild gets something for having the number one team. What could a reward like that be?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … ost3738671

Excellent feedback on guild participation. I especially like the “map star” icon that Vamp Rock suggested and I really think that Phaeton hit it on the head when he talked about getting players outside of PvP involved through guild wide rewards.
The idea of an end of season tournament has popped up a couple of times. I wanted to get you guys to touch on that a bit. What would the structure for this be? How many teams? Is this where the top end rewards for the season come from or should these have a completely different rewards structure. For example, it could be that the top of ladder simply qualifies you for the end of season tournament and the true champions of the season are the tournament winners. Or, the ladder just ensures that we have the very best teams for a tournament that is apart from the season.
I’m also curious about how much time do you think you will need between the end of the season and the tournament start. For example, Let’s say the season goes for 8 weeks. Would you need a week from the end of the season to get ready for the tournament? Two weeks? A couple of days?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … ost3741230

Ah ha, you brought me to my next question xantosnightwish, when should balance patches come in relation to the season? If we had our perfect world, how often would balance patches happen and how would that affect the duration of a season? Some people have suggested fairly lengthy seasons which is at odds with more frequent balance patches. If a balance patch comes out should there be a waiting period before the season begins? If so, how long?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … ost3741852

All fair points. It seems a lot of people feel the same way. I have made sure, and will continue to, point out that the community wants a class that is like Ranger (archer) without pets, or even with more reliable pets.
I get the biggest issue seems to revolve around pets. I’ve also seen a couple others (utilities not being viable unless spec’d into them, burst vs sustain, traps, spirit clutter, etc.).
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/54

Ok guys, just wanted to clarify a few things.
Permastow is not impossible. I never meant to give that impression, so I apologize if I did. However, as far as priorities go for the Ranger, it is not high on the list. Why? Because it would require an entire re-balance of Ranger, but if we re-balanced, then the players that do play with the pet would be OP. See the dilemma there?
The reason why I latched onto the aspect idea was because it was an option that seemed we could maybe work around. Rather than having to rebalance the whole class, we’d just have to balance the aspects to be similar to what the pet does damage-wise. That seemed a little more viable.
Do keep in mind though, I am not a designer. I am a community coordinator. It is my job to help promote constructive discussion and make sure the devs know about how the community is feeling.
I will say this, though. I have seen some ideas blossom in the game that came directly from the community. We do listen to your feedback. Sometimes we modify and tweak the numbers a bit, but we definitely listen.
You guys really inspire us with your constructive feedback, which is why I’m always trying to emphasize the importance of it.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/57

Also, I don’t want this thread to be entirely about pets. We’ve seen a ton of great feedback about them, and I would like to hear more about utilities that need help (and aren’t viable unless spec’d into) as I haven’t seen as much on that front!
Thanks all
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … on/page/57

Hey all,
I just wanted to clarify since we saw some confusion about this, both in this thread and on Reddit. The summary I posted was a summary of feedback I took from you guys in this thread and sent to the devs. It is not a reflection of changes that are or will be made (necessarily).
That doesn’t mean we aren’t doing anything about the feedback in the summary, it just shouldn’t be considered “Balance update notes”.
Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … n/page/62]

Thanks for the feedback Spoj. Personally I am not a huge fan of puzzles but I tend to be a bit of an impatient gamer who just likes to smash things. What does everyone else think?
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3750963

Personally I don’t mind the combat based puzzles, it is the environmental puzzles that I find frustrating sometimes. This said they do add variety and I know lots of player’s like them and therefore perhaps it is just a case of a careful balance.
I think the idea of different ‘types’ of fractals is really interesting. This said anything that is to divergent from the core will lead to polarizing opinion in the community I think.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3752502

I was thinking about option A while i was writing my response. I don’t think that we plan to change Fractal accessibility functionality at the moment but your option would certainly be something to think about if we did.
I like option B and i think this is the direction we need to move closer to in regard to variety through a mix of environmental puzzle and strategic combat where appropriate. A paradigm we will definitely be thinking about moving forward.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3752617

Personally I feel the environmental puzzle aspects of Underwater are a little to much. The fractal itself adds variety in regard to the mix overall but I think it is better to get the balance right with any given fractal than have fractals themselves swing to far in any given direction.
I would prefer the Jellyfish to be more challenging also.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3752922

ZeftheWicked.3076 a écrit :

I can bet this has been touched upon 100 times but just in case:
    Make fractal achievements (like 100 fractals done) etc reward fractal skin boxes where you pick your skin. RNG is bad, especially with fractals. There should be sure rewards for those who aren’t blessed by RNG star.

I agree this would be a great goal for us to have.
Chris
Source :https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Fractal-Evolution/page/24#post3750977

Zok.4930 a écrit :

It would be cool if Fractal rewards, like the relics, could be combined with tokens from other dungeons in order to get cooler prettier gear. Then people could farm combos of old dungeons and lower fractal levels (assuming they have no AR) in order to get special skins. It could improve the reward, get people into old dungeons, and provide a new (updated) path to acquire skins.
    For example, instead of just 180 tokens from CoF for gloves, you instead need 180 CoF tokens, 180 SE tokens, 500 Fractal Relics and 20 Ectos. Now people are doing multiple dungeons and fractals to get gear, and doing multiple steps to get a piece of armor that is more unique and challenging to acquire. I think that would boost FoTM for casual players and get them interested in it as well because gear is attainable for casual players through relics.

Yeah a global ‘Dungeon’ reward system is an interesting idea. I will pass this on to the rewards team for their thoughts.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3751009

This is a similar idea to the previous posts about the Global ‘Dungeon’ Rewards with a slight twist on the system. I passed the feedback onto the Reward team and they like the idea. Like you say perhaps skins you don’t need could be converted to Tokens, this is a good idea.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3752530

Interesting idea about the vendor. I would add to it with the idea of perhaps their being vendors every 10 levels where appropriate that sell items and skins but the higher level the vendor the cheaper the items become and new items are added to higher level vendors etc.
‘Keep a human perspective! Don’t just look at the statistics’
I think this is a very well made point and we should always keep that front and center when thinking about rewards.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3752547

Mad Queen Malafide.7512 a écrit :

Is the reward team also looking into Fractals-armor? I would love to save up for a Fractals specific armor, like we used to do in FoW and UW back in GW1.

I shall pass this on to the reward team. Note the reward team doesn’t always have the chance to read this thread, many other teams do though hence me passing on suggestions etc.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3757693

Hi,
So we discussed this idea. The fact of the matter (and I should have been easily able to answer this) is that armor is in high demand across the game and thus for the time being it would be unlikely that we would see a fractal only set.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3758213

Zyphent.2967 a écrit :

Thats fair, just something else to put forth.
What about doing it like the Achievement armor, tying it to specific tiers.
For example, beating fractal 50+ lets you buy the helm, 60+ lets you buy the Gloves, etc.
This would both allow the team to take their time making it (release 1 piece with 10 Fractal levels in a single patch), as I doubt they have time to make and model a full armor set at once, while also providing more incentive to climb higher in Fractals.

Hi Zyphent,
I will discuss the idea with the rewards team, specifically in regard to a slow burn creation of an armor set.
Thanks,
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3758230

Faux.1937 a écrit :

To bad Anet you put into the game the +1 agony Res items.
    I would have loved to see all Items that give agony taken away and just have AR as a reward for your account for more fractals you do and fractal achievements you’ve done. Or making it like the Magic Find, where you have levels and must do Fractals to up the AR%.
    ALOT less clunky and much easier to deal with, manage and to understand.
    Is there anyway you would go to a Magic Find type of system for AR instead of what we have now?

Hi Faux,
I have asked Izzy to discuss this with you.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3757739

madmuffin.3968 a écrit :

Chris Whiteside a écrit :

I would worry that those Rangers that don’t do Fractals would feel left out. However i think this is a really interesting global reward idea so I will pass it on to the rewards team.
Thanks Wolfey,
Chris

I’m not sure if it’s 100% accurate but right now the wiki says Juvenile Wolves can only be found in the Eternal Battleground (which seems kind of odd, but assuming this is actually the case) that means there is already a precedent for location exclusive pets, else the same argument could be made that “Rangers that don’t do WvW would feel let out.”

If that is the case then we will remedy it. I will check. Thanks for the pointer.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3757889

Lilith Ajit.6173 a écrit :

Chris Whiteside a écrit :

Are you referring to Ascended weapon boxes in fractals?
Chris

He/She’s referring to a box of fractal weapons that lets you choose the weapon.

Ok thanks. I I wanted to ensure we were talking about the same thing.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost3758477

There have been far too many proposals here for me to directly comment on each of them, so I’m going to try and take a broader stab at things.

Firstly, something that I’ve seen in more than one proposal and something that we just can’t do in our game, is the idea of consolidating maps or making larger maps. It is a problem on multiple fronts, but the most obvious issue is that we simply can’t fit more players onto a map than we already have, so even if we were to make a larger map, we couldn’t have a corresponding increase in the number of players on that map. Proposals that rely on that idea are simply untenable.

The discussion point, proposal, whatever you want to call it, that I think is the most useful in terms of designing WvW maps and gameplay is the talk about how to build objectives that feel like they make tactical sense. I think that it is something that could definitely be improved in a new map or with a major rework to the current maps. Having logical and tactical objectives, like a tower guarding a canyon, is something that I think would greatly improve WvW in terms of moment to moment gameplay and longer term tactical gameplay.

That somewhat feeds into a larger issue that is outside the bounds of this particular topic which is defending objectives. It is absolutely the case that we have a hard time correctly tracking defense and rewarding players for it. It is something that we’d like to address on a system level and something that we hope to have a solution for across the board before we do any piecemeal changes. It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

Both of the above things are ways to substantially change the necessity of tactics in the game and to make WvW more about well-organized groups. That’s something we still aim for when we make changes to the game.

One final note about the CDI generally, I’ve said it before and will say it again, the purpose of these threads is to discuss design not to create a work order. What we discuss here is not a promise but an avenue for us to discuss our views on aspects of the game with you all. That means we challenge each others assumptions and hopefully come to a better understanding of what will make GW2 better. Some times that manifests in things we talk about being made and sometimes it manifests in us having a better vision for other things we are working on. I hope that correctly sets expectations about things here. Thanks for contributing as it makes us better designers and hopefully means GW2 will be better off in the long run.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ost3748611

While I appreciate the discussion around the dolyak issue, it wasn’t my intention to refocus the discussion there so much as provide an example of a point.

To pivot from that discussion, however, would WvW be better or worse off if we removed dolyaks entirely and went with the setup we use in EotM or something similar?

I think there are good reasons to keep dolyaks, but I wonder if we might be able to solve many of the problems we’ve discussed here by eliminating that sense of the supply chain of battle? It might just have the effect of making supply far less limiting.

Would it instead work to go with a combination of the two and have a guaranteed minimum amount of supply from holding a camp and have dolyaks carrying the extra? I’m curious what you all think.

As for the discussion around how to more closely involve guilds it’s definitely something we think about and I think there are intriguing ideas in here.

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ost3758657

Hey all,

I’m going to close down the thread, but I wanted to chime in with some general thoughts and just say how great the discussion of a lot of points has been.

1) I think there has been a general consensus that the Edge of the Mists is an interesting part of WvW, but that it is missing a number of the things that people most like from WvW.
2) Perhaps the largest of those things is the fact that the lack of world identity is a negative for a lot of folks.
3) We talked a bit about the idea of chokepoints and how they can be a useful tool if they are well integrated into the design and layout of the map and how they can easily be overused. People like some aspects of the bridges in EotM, but feel like they are too numerous and cause other problems. The concept of a tower guarding a canyon was more favorably received than the bridges.
4) There is a wide variety of opinion about waypoints. There seems to be a consensus that the amount of running in EotM isn’t great but that there might be some middle ground to be found.
5) There was a very wide ranging discussion about match times. I think we came to the consensus that there isn’t a consensus, see what I did there?, about if shorter matches would be good. I think there is some room to experiment, but it does seem like people feel there is value to the length that WvW currently runs.
6) Matipzieu KyA, ManaCraft, Kraag Deadsoul, Heezdedjim, and Yoh were some of the most prolific posters who also, in my opinion, put a great deal of thought into their responses and had a real solid back and forth. Thanks to all of you as well as everyone else who participated.
7) We bandied about some thoughts for changes to Stonemist and I think there are some interesting ideas, but several people raised the very real concern that we not make Stonemist impossible for smaller groups to capture.

Generally I think there was a lot of good discussion here. I think we talked a great deal about some very core issues that some of the proposals had as well as some things we could do to improve WvW overall.

I look forward to future CDIs and to hearing more of your thoughts about another topic. Thanks again for all of your thoughts and input. We really believe it helps us to make a better game for you all to enjoy. Please feel free to continue discussion of individual ideas in new threads.

Devon Carver

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ost3761390

This is some pretty incredible feedback thank you for taking the time to post. There were a couple of items that struck me and I was interested in exploring a little more.

sorrow.2364 a écrit :

Also, I prefer to avoid guild-based rewards, because it will happen what happened in GW1: people selling slots in gold-caped guilds.

Do you think this is alleviated by temporary rewards? Like a travelling trophy. What if everyone in your guild got something like a finisher that lasted until the end of the next season? Another thought is if the season reward was strongly themed, for example the “map star” that was suggested could be the very specific Season 1 star and we have a different one for Season 2. Basically, what if the big forward facing, public, reward was something that you had to earn from season to season to continue to show off that your guild is the best.

Credo.7231 a écrit :

…In order to let player have a sense of progression I would implement certan badge sistem into each league,as players hidden MMR improves he is awarded with badges (let`s say there are 5 or ten of those).When he gets max badges he is promoted to the higher league.As an option I would also suggest to have 3 red badges that player gets by leaving games or by droping his hidden MMR dramaticly.When he gets 3 of those he gets moved to the lower league … Leaving two games in short period of time would grant a player that red badge…

This was an interesting thought that I wanted to riff on a little bit. I like the idea of having badges that you earn as you play to progress to the next tier and that you can lose to go back down. Tying it to hidden MMR is a little tricky because of how algorithms like Glicko2 work but incorporating it into the points used for progressing on the ladder would be much more straightforward. It would basically mean you could earn badges based on your performance especially against stronger opponents. It would almost be like tying it to hidden MMR but more manageable for players to understand and for the game to present. That was an interesting thought Credo. Wanted to see if anyone else wanted to riff on it a bit more?

Again, thanks a ton guys for an excellent discussion. Sorry for the span of a few days since my last post but things got a little crazy this week. Its been fun kicking around ideas with you all. Please feel free to discuss anything related to this topic or to riff on some of the great ideas in this discussion.

To let you all know, I’m probably going to close out this thread in a couple of days. I think we got some really great stuff here so it’s been a fantastic CDI.

Thanks again guys!
John

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p … ost3765312