Gems of War & Me


#1

Now before I ramble on this is my thoughts, feelings, and how things progressed for me as I played over the very first day in GoW. It will most likely not be shared in all areas to you, or even similar.

I first was hooked by this fun gem matching. And that you could do anything paid or free. It was the hook for me. Or I would have skipped it and moved to something else. When I first started it used coins to upgrade statues (which I actually miss). It also didn’t take you very long to get to #1 in PvP so it was a quick do your thing and go about your day. All you had to worry about was trophies and gold back then to add to a guild. And another thing I liked was a loss deducted trophies from you. I honestly thought that was a good thing.

Then the game changed a bit. You were no longer penalized for a loss and maybe many like that change. I personally never have. So we may just simply have to agree to disagree there. More trophies were needed to get to #1. Which I also didn’t find too bad, was easy enough of a change. So overall not a bad state of progression of the game.

Resources are a lot easier to come by now, instead of the long drudgery of trying to scrap as much together as you could in the older days. And talking about someone who didn’t pay but rather played a lot. I still do (though I also pay here and there as well now).

They added in seals and seals became also a requirement from guilds. Just another thing to do to take up time into the game. Still didn’t find it a bad idea. Loved the idea of seals. Even loved the idea of the initial Guild Wars. Even if it needed work. This later evolution I’m not as much of a fan of, but still do them.

While some may love it I still don’t, its fun and nice just think it really ruins the whole chances bit. And that being able to craft what you need based on resources you have collected. I know many will have a inclusion why its a good idea, and why they like it. Thing is even if I was mainly a free player its also what I enjoyed from the game. The thrill of that chance. To gain something by luck/RNG whatever you wish to name it. It was a great feeling. Crafting it is more like ‘meh I’ll get it when I collect enough resources’. That feeling has then now lost its appeal. Yes true I can still gain in this way, so can anyone. I just feel GoW was trying too hard to win people over. That is not a QQ over just being honest. And we should all be allowed to state things honestly without it becoming a QQ. So crafting is here and its here to stay. also still fine with it overall. It didn’t bother me that much, only made me think it was largely not needed, but a want. And for me a game should be based on needs over wants. Yes again I’ll say even though I keep saying it. My opinion will/may be very different from others.

I’ve even stuck with GoW even though its ‘new’ UI actually hurts my eyes to view it. Too dark in areas, and too bright in others. The old UI was a lot easier on my eyes. And that is me physically not just well I liked the old UI, I liked it as well. Just this new UI really does bother my eyes. Even though I still play it, and at times for long periods. I know I shouldn’t but really love playing GoW. Just really wish they would have considered the color scheme a lot better.

I really love the new idea of raids. Just not a fan that to be on the leaderboards you’d need to shell out a sea of gems. Which only top guilded players or pay to play players can get. I liked that the previous leaderboards anyone could get on them if they tried. Leaderboards are not always about how ‘skilled’ you are as some mentioned in other threads. It can also be how much time you can dedicate to being on it. This new raid mode is more on how many gems you can dedicate to being on it. Some cite in other threads well you pay x amount of gems for only 700. Its not worth it. They forget you are closing portals and gaining other resources as well. To a paid player this might be no issue at all, even if the reward is small. It does oust the lower guilded players from doing much, or the free, or mostly free players. GoW had previously set the thought that you could do anything regardless of player and money/time. This change is more of ‘how much are you willing to give us to stay competitive’. I’m completely for a game that does this. I’ve even been a member of games which were huge money sinkholes.

I guess the reason why its become a unpopular change with me is the fact I enjoyed that anyone could get anywhere. This also included guilds. Too many modes like this will simply kill off the guilds that rarely pay, or do not pay at all. Yes you can gain new members which are okay with paying as well. Thing is its better to know you need to pay when you start playing. Then down the line say well you know we need you to pay and do more. Its like buying a car for $15,000 then the dealership coming back to you 6 months later and saying well $15,000 was a test drive if you wanted to keep the car. If you want it give us $30,000. Instead of the dealership at the beginning saying the car is $30,000. These little snags or inclusions can hurt businesses regardless of whats being sold. Its always better to keep things as stated when they belong to a certain logic. And to slowly change and modify it over time. Instead of ‘bam, here’s a change, deal with it’. How many of you would be fine with a utility company just suddenly tossing a huge number at you? They don’t they plan for quarterly and yearly increases. Because gradual is far better of a policy then all at once. Raids and paying into them is a huge all at once, no gradual. And that’s a huge risk for any business. It can get a lot of people unhappy or even avoiding the product because of later fears of it occurring again and again. Or you can think of it in apples over a car. Say you have apples for 5 cents and 25 cents. Which apple will sell the most? Or think of it this way in asking for money. Will you have better success asking for $100 from 100 people? Or asking for $1 from 100 people? Most players may not see a point or wonder why I typed any of this. And even maybe disagree but we see this in everything we do. Why we see things for .95 and .99 of a dollar ie 9.95 or 9.99 over 10.00. Its a trick to make you think its cheaper even if by 1 or 5 pennies. Honestly they may have shot themselves in the foot introducing it so quickly and at a higher cost. Which very few can get or gain access to.

And I have stated in other threads well before even this one. I used to work in advertising yes with a shiny degree. And while others may see moves like this as fine. Its often a huge risk. And business isn’t all for risk its about doing things you know will produce. And doing things you know that may have a chance. While some say its not the developers who decided to do this over a publisher. I find that doubtful. I’ve worked with may huge figureheads. And they would not so willingly do something so bold. Not unless it was a last ditch effort to revitalize something, ie if the product was already failing etc. Then a huge risk wouldn’t matter if it failed. The gain on success on the other hand would be great. I do not see this hard swap to pay to win and a large sinkhole to do as well in the extreme it was released. Over if it was done gradually. To see how safe companies play the consumer market. Just look at movies and scripts. There is a large reason why many are just rehashes, amalgamations etc of other ideas. Its safer and they get paid for new content. Then if they risk all the time on new films that they do not know the intended outcome. A film company may take risks on a few films but the larger offering will just be the safer cashcows.

If you want to change something or introduce something gradual is the way. You need to smooth it over and bring it in.

(Did I try to set this up like a well planned book? No. Its just flow of my mind, typing as I think it and done. If anyone is bothered with just pure flow of thought I’m sorry. Especially if some bits seem/were redundant. Even with the ranting and redundancy, a full read just gets I’m talking about gradual inclusion over sudden and potentially extreme inclusion.)