Will the model of content change in 4.0?

[Seig345]

You like not to have any surprises with each patch? [...]

I dunno about you, but when I got to the end of the latest addition to MSQ, I was surprised. If they add completely new things for the sake of being new rather than work things in as part of the game's overall design, the game's going to end up eventually changing its demographic entirely. Instead of the game being cohesive from beginning to end game, it'll just be...

...sloppy!

*runs*

[Sylve]

I seriously doubt SE is going to change up the content cycle. I'd be pleased if they did - I quit around Patch 2.4 out of boredom, and only recently returned to catch up through the Heavensward storyline - but I'm not expecting it. I fully expect to quit again shortly after the release of 4.1 if it appears to be mimicking the same structure followed by 2.x and 3.x.

I also second the notion that the limited scope of the cycle is also a huge problem. Having such a rigid pattern is bad enough; when the rigid pattern involves relatively tiny amounts of content (oooh, two new dungeons; oooh, one new 24-person Raid), it makes things much worse.

Could be worse.
Could be WoWs patch cycle and pattern.

[Claymore65]

While I understand the frustration, I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting.

Right now, we have a very consistent update schedule with certain "standard" pieces of content (Raids/Dungeons), paired with a big piece of more "experimental" content. Some of these have been extremely successful (Palace of the Dead, Aquapolis, the Feast), while others have proven to be lackluster (Squadrons, Diadem V1.0).

When you want to switch the content schedule, are you suggesting we cut the "standard" content (8 man raids ,24 man raids, dungeons) in exchange for more experimental content? I'll admit, I'm skeptical of that. If the experimental content is excellent, then it won't be an issue. However, if it ends up being rather poor, then we have nothing to fall back on. Right now, we have a pretty good balance between experimental and "standard" content, and I'd be hesitant to change that without thinking through the consequences.

I think rather than looking at the content schedule, we should instead take a look at a the Progression system. If we make some tweaks there, it might help prevent some burnout. Perhaps we could make alternative methods of gaining Tomestones (PVP, raids, PotD, etc) a little more effective. That way players can focus on the content they enjoy most, and still be rewarded for it. Tomestones, in my opinion, are actually a decent method for progression. It allows literally any activity you do in game to be relevant to end-game progression, as long as it gives an adequate amount of tomes.

I also think "Expert Roulette" should include more than the most recent dungeons, but that's just me.

That said, I'm leery of changing the schedule too much. Right now, we have a consistent schedule that the Devs can manage, and we still get a variety of more "standard" and "experimental" content.

[Xyno]

While I understand the frustration, I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting.

Right now, we have a very consistent update schedule with certain "standard" pieces of content (Raids/Dungeons), paired with a big piece of more "experimental" content. Some of these have been extremely successful (Palace of the Dead, Aquapolis, the Feast), while others have proven to be lackluster (Squadrons, Diadem V1.0).

When you want to switch the content schedule, are you suggesting we cut the "standard" content (8 man raids ,24 man raids, dungeons) in exchange for more experimental content? I'll admit, I'm skeptical of that. If the experimental content is excellent, then it won't be an issue. However, if it ends up being rather poor, then we have nothing to fall back on. Right now, we have a pretty good balance between experimental and "standard" content, and I'd be hesitant to change that without thinking through the consequences.

In most part I agree with you. SE don't want to risk, that is why we don't get the new type of content. That is why we get the same type of content again and again- the content, which has recommended itself as "playable"

But still, is there any problems not to continue the endless cycle, but to end one cycle and, for example, to begin another- with another type of a content? For example, why not to make alliance dungeon, but not for 3 raid groups, but for 2? Of course such pattern will require better mechanics- and it is great. Or why not to make a type of dungeons for a new setup of groups? 6 players or 5 players or 10 players or even 12 players? All the SE needs are ideas and imagination

[Vexander]

Seems like that would just be the same content with different rules though. I mean, why even change it to begin with? The current model is effective and good and provides a stable core of gameplay. I don't think changing that is a good idea. Maybe tweaking it a little (I am so sick of 450 weekly tomestone cap), but beyond that, I don't think it should be overtly altered.

I'm not against different kinds of raids/dungeons being added, or game modes like PvE and PvP and Treasure Maps. I remember talk about jobs that were not meant for dungeons/raids stemming from a misinterpretation of a comment about Blue Mage, and I don't think that's an entirely bad idea either. Imagine an Illusionist Job where you could go around collecting illusions of mobs.

[worldofneil]

Realistically I can't see SE making any big changes to how things have worked over the past 3+ years. They won't want to risk alienating subscribers and they probably believe that the people who are fine with how the cycles work (myself included) outnumber those that aren't. They can't please everyone so they're probably going to try and keep the majority happy/stick with what has worked.

I also like having a rough idea of how things will go (new raid here, catchup patch there, etc.), but there's still more than enough new content that pops up randomly (Side quest storylines, new housing/apartments, diadem and upcoming new diadem, PVP modes, etc.)

Although we are essentially continually grinding for whatever the current tomes are, I don't mind that. I don't want to be able to accomplish everything on week 1.

[Exiled_Tonberry]

Perhaps you would prefer more infrequent updates, or even no updates at all?

Sigh. Really wish people stop using this strawman argument.

The game is becoming very stale in content flow. You can predict exactly what we're getting for the next 2 years if we wanted to, with the occasional Diadem or PoTD every year or so.

Not saying there should be new interesting things every single patch, but it could do with some freshening up.

[Aramina]

If it is new content why does it matter if you know when it is coming? Honest question. It wouldn't be any more new if you didn't know.

[Nicodemus_Mercy]

I prefer a predictable cycle over change for the sake of change. WoW does change for the sake of change every xpac and it sucks having to relearn your class over and over again, sometimes hating what your class became due to the changes. I am happy with the stability of knowing what to expect with familiar systems that, while they might expand, essentially stay familiar. I don't need things to be "shaken up" and everything I know thrown out the window every xpac. What I need is a familiar system that isn't turned on its head every 2 years, a good story to follow, and stuff to do that's rewarding and entertaining.

Change for the sake of change is stupid IMO.

[Brightshadow]

Imagine an Illusionist Job where you could go around collecting illusions of mobs.

Pokémon is over there ---->