Feedback talk:User/Morgaine/Improve user choice for WiK and WoC

Conflation and nomenclature

Hey, as we discussed, this suggestion is addressing (at least) three distinct issues:

1. An officially acknowledged bug that causes the WoC storyline to dominate the party's experience at the expense of newbie storylines.
2. An ease-of-use user interface hiccup, in which it's hard to tell one's progress in WoC because quests can appear all over one's quest log and (worse, imo), if you drop a quest, you have no one of knowing where you are in the storyline without visiting each potential quest giver.
3. A commonly ranted-about feature that you cannot opt-out of Beyond (you must complete the storyline in order to return to the classic spawns in overlapping areas).

• Either ANet will fix the bug (1) or they won't be able to — obviously, you can suggest that they do so sooner rather than later, but it's already planned.
• The quest log mechanic (2) has nothing to do with user choice — if you want to include it in this suggestion, I recommend that you change the title or sign on to an existing suggestion.
• Obviously, I agree that players ought to be able to opt-out of Beyond (3).

I think you can improve the impact of your suggestion(s) by separating the solutions to these issues, since there's only marginal overlap. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• TEF, I'm puzzled by this, it seems to me that you have it back to front. :-) I have purposely stuck to a single issue, the enabling/disabling of the storyline, and even the implementation is controlled by this single condition to keep the code paths clean and keep alternative states disjoint. It couldn't be simpler.
• The multiple issues which you address are really quite orthogonal to switching the storyline on and off, and do not help make a focused suggestion. ArenaNet's policies and bugfix timeline is not something that we control. And I haven't suggested any new quest log mechanic, since the WoC primary quest would operate exactly like all normal quests do at the quest long interface. The existing suggestion that you referred to is fine and great, but is quite outside of the scope of the subject matter here, and conflating it with the present suggestion would completely lose its focus.
• I've kept this as simple as possible on purpose, and it benefits greatly from that simplicity, not only to keep it simple for users but also to make it clean from an implementer perspective. Morgaine 20:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your problem statement includes, "This prevents WoC characters from ...helping other players complete quests". This has never been true in WiK and is only true in WoC due to a bug that is (finally) scheduled to be fixed. Opting out would only address this if you could opt in/out at will, so they aren't directly related. I agree with you that this is "orthogonal," which is why I am recommending that you raise it separately.

I might have misread the next paragraph (before the rewrite) and thought you were also advocating a change in how the log displays progress, which was where I was coming from on the second point.

Finally, you can request that ANet be able to turn the storyline on/off, but I'm convinced it's not that simple to abandon a primary quest (it cannot be done anywhere in this game and I don't recall any other game that allowed it either). Generally, primary quests involve multiple states, not just the obvious flag of "are you in Chapter II, fourth quest" or "Chapter IV, second quest." Then again, this is your suggestion, not mine (I generally think it's better for us to let ANet decide what's too hard or not). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about that, the Beyond storylines aren't actually primary quests in the implementation sense, they're just modifiers to existing campaigns. It's easy to see that from the way the WiK foes disappear as soon as you abandon a WiK bounty. They would appear in the Quest window under "Primary Quest" only so that (i) Anet would not need to create another menu category, and (ii) because users are well versed in how quests work and so this would be the "solution of least surprise" --- it would work exactly as they'd expect without being told anything. The fact that real primary quests can't be switched off isn't a problem, since we don't need nor wish to switch them off. Morgaine 22:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't agree with your analysis, but that's besides the point: this is really your suggestion and so it doesn't matter at all if (as I believe), not all aspects can get implemented (or might cost too much) — ANet has to evaluate that for any suggestion. The only reason I posted was I thought that you could market the user choice aspect of the suggestion better by separating out the pieces that, to me, do not appear to be about choice (but about bugs, UI, or implementation). Now that you've had a chance to think about my critique, you can decide whether you want to alter your presentation or not. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree that players ought to be able to opt-out

I agree that players ought to be able to opt-out of each storyline in Beyond. (Adding this in a distinct thread, so it's not lost in the meta-critique above.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you meant opt-out of Beyond storylines, but in case you didn't, I'd like to affirm that my suggestion is for control of each Beyond storyline independently. Morgaine 21:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct.

Personally, I think it's okay for you to lose progress (if you want out, then you're have to be out), rather than to be able to toggle them on/off at will. Players should have choices, but I also support including consequences. People shouldn't ever feel stuck. (emphasized text above was added later.)– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that it's okay to lose progress on your storyline just because you want to help a guildie for an hour. In fact, I must say that the mere suggestion is totally beyond the pale, and belongs in a game intended to provide pain, suffering and hardship, like SoE's games, and not in GW at all. Morgaine 22:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Morgaine, you can already help a guildie for as long as you want in WiK: as soon as you join a player toon that hasn't gotten as far as you, their storyline trumps yours. Entirely. You don't need to opt-out because you are already out.

This isn't true for WoC because ANet introduced a bug and didn't realize it until the last week or so.

Finally, if someone decides that WiK, WoC isn't their cup of tea, of course I agree that they should be able to get out of it...but that means that, if they later decide to get back in, they have to start from the beginning. I don't see that as a hardship: anyone who gets through enough of the storyline isn't going to choose to opt out; the restriction will only apply to people who didn't know they weren't ready for Beyond until they clicked on one wrong accept button. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough on the "you can already help a guildie in WiK", but that's not the only reason why you might want to disable WiK/WoC storyline spawns. Another is because you might want to do quests that you haven't completed yet in an affected zone, using H/H only --- the idea that the "off switch" should be the presence of a non-Beyond character in the team is really bad and highly inflexible. Or you might want to do Cartography or vanquish a zone, and there is no good reason at all why this should be harder for you than for others who don't have WoC running. Or indeed you might just want to run around in classic Cantha for good times' sake, because the place was damn cute --- it should be your choice. Cutting off choices and deliberately making people's life harder is a very bad thing to do, particularly in GW which prides itself on being a fun game.

And words fail me on the "if they later decide to get back in, they have to start from the beginning". You haven't justified it at all. Even worse, you wrote "I don't see that as a hardship." --- well, what can I say, if you think that repeating stuff you've already done isn't a hardship then it's difficult to hold a reasonable discussion. By that logic, grinding isn't a hardship, having to re-run through zones instead of TP isn't a hardship, and you'll just love EverQuest's corpse runs instead of automatic rezzing at the shrine .... :P Morgaine 23:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Philosophical intent

(Reset indent) Ah, I see the problem: we both thought we were discussing nuances of nearly identical suggestions, but, it turns out, we are proposing two very different ideas. You want to offer a new feature that allows full control over content, whereas I want to offer a limited mulligan (the ability to do-over). In gorier detail:

(Complete) Freedom of Choice (Morgaine)

• Allow players to toggle off/on advanced content by abandoning/retaking the fundamental storyline quest.
• Compares to: abandoning a secondary quest; toggling hardmode (can be done at-will in Outpost).
• Progress is maintained.
• Primary motivating factor(s): fun requires the ability to choose, esp. in RPGs where you are (supposedly) choosing your destiny. In that vein, any sort of stopper is bad...and current implementation of Beyond is a big stopper for following story arcs in classic GW.

(Limited) Opt-out (TEF)

• Allow players the ability to completely ignore advanced content by abandoning a fundamental storyline quest.
• Compares to: abandoning a primary quest, leaving pre-Searing, abandoning any umbrella quest (e.g. Anything You Can Do), or uninstalling
• Progress is not maintained.
• Primary motivating factor(s): fun requires the ability to choose, but stories impose important limitations (often that help inspire creative solutions). In that vein, the target audience for opting out are those that (a) aren't enjoying new content (it's too tedious or too hard) or (b) aren't prepared for it (their toon has other tasks). Losing progress is not a hardship because (a) the target audience is unlikely to have made much progress, (b) completing the storyline already offers toggle off/on options, and (c) the option is meant to be a trade-off, not a fundamental feature.

I apologize for misunderstanding your concept: I was paying too much attention to the similarity of words chosen by both of us and not enough to the principles for which you (consistently) advocate. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TEF, that is a reasonable and clear summary. :-)

It's worth noting though that your and my suggestions accomplish almost the same thing. The big difference is that mine is much simpler and cleaner to implement (I've chosen that intentionally to improve its chances of being accepted), and mine results in more of a fun experience for players in GW. This too was intentional, as I consider fun to be GW's most important attribute, the one with which I advocate widely on behalf of the game. There is no shortage of other games which introduce unnecessary hardships, and GW would gain nothing from it, but lose a lot. Morgaine 14:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They are equally clean and simple approaches: you offer a complete (and simple) toggle off; I offer a complete (and simple) opt-out. The only complication is that mine involves using an NPC, which is an existing mechanic. It deliberately includes an extra step to prevent the player from accidentally leaving the storyline (and the resulting consequences thereof). That step is just as simple as having to visit Crewmember Shandra again if you left Shards of Orr after failing to kill Fendi Nin and then dropped Lost Souls.

Regardless, I think having both suggestions makes it easy for ANet to (a) see the issue and (b) choose the concept that best corresponds with their philosophy (and available coding/testing resources). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They are not both equally clean and simple to implement. Yours contains corner cases because it requires multiple condition points, those concerned with the multiple enabling NPCs and those controlling past and present history. For example, your (still unjustified) suggestion that a character should lose all progress in the storyline means that people will abandon it on purpose in order to farm the rewards repeatedly, which is bound to happen because the rewards are so high. And if you ensure that the rewards are given only once, then that requires both past and present storyline state information to be held, so it's inherently less clean and simple than mine and requires more work to implement to prevent abuse.

None of this can happen with my suggestion with its single-point control and storyline state preservation. And it goes without saying that my version is hugely more fun and versatile for players since the switching has no cost and can be done whenever they would like access to classic areas. In contrast, your "start from the beginning" verges on quite dreadful, an intentional disincentive against people doing what they would prefer to be doing in classic Cantha. And you still haven't justified why the unnecessary hardship of repetition should be imposed on people. Terrible hardships demand strong justification, because they are dangerous to the success of the game. "Play GW, it's a right pain to play!" is not the kind of encouragement that helps marketting. Morgaine 12:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You've labeled my views as disrespectful and dangerous. You've explicitly stated that "it goes without saying" that your ideas are better. You've attributed a philosophical viewpoint to me that is inaccurate (I don't believe in stoppers or that lore should trump playability). You've assumed that either of us really know how the game is programmed (the only source for saying an idea is/is not easy to implement).

That leaves us with nothing further to discuss on this topic. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone missed their cup of coffee this morning. Or their dose of reality. -Auron 17:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(Replying to TEF, not Auron:)

I have neither used nor implied the word "disrespectful", TEF. Quite the opposite, I find your many contributions both respectful of others, and always polite and diplomatic. I would be grateful if you acknowledged that in your own mind, even if you choose not to respond here.

With regard to "dangerous", I have justified my use of that word: adding unjustified hardships is dangerous to the success of the game, because "fun" is one of the most important properties of GW. That has been stated countless times by GW designers and producers over the years ever since Jeff Strain was at the helm, and is undoubtedly a major reason for its popularity. I would not wish that to change just because someone thinks that hardships should be added without giving strong justification for it. I *have* to fight hard in favor of fun vs hardship. Anything else would run counter to my love for GW and to the direction so frequently expressed by Anet.

And finally, I don't have access to GW source code, but after decades of working in the software industry (and before that, university lecturing in Software Engineering), I know how such systems are designed and programmed, both at the server level, in the client code, and the networking in between. While you are completely right that I do not know how GW is programmed, I can make much more than just an educated guess. I can make a professional analysis based on working with similar systems, including 3D virtual worlds that have quite a lot in common with GW. The likelihood of a correspondance with what Anet has actually programmed is pretty good, because effective software design strategies are quite universally used.

PS. Not wishing to respond in this thread does not let you off the hook for trying to introduce hardships in your own suggestion. I will be looking for strong justifications from you for this dangerous addition there. Morgaine 18:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(To Auron:)

There's no harm in strong disagreement on either side, as long as it's a reasoned discussion. :-) However, suggestions do need to be well justified, especially when they impact players so harshly. These discussions are very important as feedback to those who create suggestions. Even though TEF doesn't like it being pointed out that his "repeat whole storyline" is an unnecessary hardship and that he has not justified such harshness, hopefully he will moderate his suggestion with the help of this feedback. Morgaine 18:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out...

It appears that ANet adopted something close to your suggestion: the Herald of Purity appears to allow you to toggle off/on WoC for specific toons. Congratulations. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Woot, thanks ArenaNet! That's great to hear TEF, I'll go and check out the Herald of Purity. :-)

The way WoC had messed up traditional Cantha was so disappointing to me that I'd not been back there since our Feedback discussion on either of my two mains where I have WoC active, and I missed the update notes too. Time to go back. :-)

Incidentally, even with this great update, I'll not be taking WoC on my many non-main characters, for one very specific reason: the WoC storyline requires completing Seek out Brother Tosai, and that makes the place just too annoying. Really, what is gained by having to fight the same Am Fah spawns again and again while travelling through Kaineng zones for quests? Nothing at all, it just adds annoyance, so all my young characters have always started that quest on arrival at Kaineng and left it incomplete, forever.

My mains are not so lucky. In wanting to experience everything, they've had to sacrifice this very player-friendly feature. Sadly, the Herald of Purity's powers won't extend to undoing that step. :-( Morgaine 22:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The WoC storyline does not require completing SoBT. I have taken the Q, but not completed it on several toons, including one that has completed WoC/HM. So that I might correct any mistaken impressions, where did you read that it was directly connected to anything in WoC?

BTW: the Herald doesn't offer Memories of Purity until after completion of the first seven (AKA the cleansing) quests. However, once you are eligible, you can safely take the quest and continue the storyline without toggling it off/on — WoC spawns will only appear if you have an active quest in the zone (and there are only a few such Qs — most require speaking with an NPC to transport you in to a special instance). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good question! Unfortunately I can't remember what required completing Seek out Brother Tosai, but it was definitely something non-optional for something. If it wasn't for WoC then I'm puzzled. I very much didn't want to complete it, but found myself forced to do so. Morgaine 20:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)