Curse

cthulhu reborn · Feb 24, 2010, 06:10 PM // 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

You're misunderstanding the concept of brand loyalty.

You were loyal to PvP because there was nothing like it. The game had intrinsic value to you that you couldn't find elsewhere because it was different.

Brand loyalty means that people stick with something because they are loyal to the brand/company that produced the product, not because the company produced a superior product. If GW PvP starts to suck, you switch games. You already play a lot of games, so you just go find something else to play.

The PvE crowd has more investment in the game and their characters. They stick with the game due to items like community, sunk costs, and developing their characters. All of these factors converge to produce a degree of brand loyalty, where the players will tolerate the game being subpar for a while. It's a bigger decision for a PvE player to decide to abandon their past efforts and make a switch to something else for the long haul.

PvP-ers tend to know more about games and the value of their gaming dollar by virtue of being players that naturally tend to play a lot of games. They also tend to be less interested in cosmetic items like costumes that don't directly affect gameplay. I'll give you that the unlock packs were popular. But there's a limited set of things that you can market to a PvP player via micro-transactions without killing the game's integrity. The set of things you can market to PvE players is more or less infinite.

The reason that ANet strayed from the original plan to have PvP be the endgame is that it just didn't work. Most of the players that stuck with the PvE side of things will never make it in PvP. They're just different gamers than the PvP crowd. They want different things from a game, and they're not willing to put up with the stress, e-drama and rage that you have to tolerate in order to play with the 16-25 set in a competitive environment.

In short, ANet made a marketing mistake in the original design. They built a game that was designed to appeal to hardcore gamers and address some of Diablo 2's flaws. But they underestimated the size of the casual gaming market, as well as the importance of the casual gaming market to the survival of the F2P model. It's very difficult to keep hardcore gamers happy, and it takes a lot of resources that their revenues just couldn't cover. Once they realized that the real profit source was going to derive from microtransactions going forward, they changed the design of the game.

I agree. I am more of a PvE'er, though I have dabbled in PvP as well and this sounds right to me. As a PvE'er you invest a lot in the character. Armours, titles and all that stuff. I am not that good of a PvP player but I can guide any person through any missions without looking at a website or being in the mission myself. I just know them. After years I probably should...hehe. But I do have that feeling of investment and my 40+ elite armour sets on my account

Del · Feb 24, 2010, 06:13 PM // 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity Fire Angel

in order to succeed, ANet :"NEED" to offer tournaments for GvG in GW2. This is what will bring people to the game and re-focus the PvP aspect of the game.

1: they followed the money trail and are going to spend their time catering to pvers. why would they waste more money on another game that's going to lose profit momentum when they've already realized pve are the players that would bring in more profit.

2: on the off chance they do it again , it'll die off again, likely more quickly.

The-Bigz · Feb 24, 2010, 06:13 PM // 18:13

I took a business major for my associates and never completed it, big surprise, because I didn't really agree with it. Now that I think about it, it was basically saying the same thing as you were. Sorta relates to the world in general.

PvE'rs make all the rules and play care bears, PvPers get pissed off and start a war resulting in a major change, PvE'rs take back over into being care bear and simple, PvPers get pissed off and well you get the point.

But hey, Guild Wars really fails at PvE, why can't they concentrate on what most people bought this game for. 'Where Skill depends on your ability, not hours played.' Biggest lie they probably told.

'Chess Pieces with different automated and easily predicted moves Wars' not Guild Wars.

Neo Atomisk · Feb 24, 2010, 06:16 PM // 18:16

GW stopping being pvp when people realized that powercreep had made HM/endgame stuff easier than PvP.

why would anyone want to lose at a higher level, when they can always win at a lower level?

edit: I want to see some big 100 man Guild Wars, not some gimmicky 8 on 8 pvpve

Essence Snow · Feb 24, 2010, 06:17 PM // 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

PvP-ers tend to know more about games and the value of their gaming dollar by virtue of being players that naturally tend to play a lot of games.
Most of the players that stuck with the PvE side of things will never make it in PvP. They're just different gamers than the PvP crowd. They want different things from a game, and they're not willing to put up with the stress, e-drama and rage that you have to tolerate in order to play with the 16-25 set in a competitive environment.

I can't say I can agree with this. Although I avoid PvP like the plague in GW, I find it rather enjoyable in other games...i.e..CoDMW2. I find PvP there to be more satisfying vs Vent...3...2...1....Spiked/PvX wiki builds. I feel that the creation of games that provide said lvl of PvP has also taken it's toll on the GW PvP population.

Yes there are different types of gamers...assuming one type is inferior to another is an issue upon itself.

E-drama and rage.....lol....
Warning explicit....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW0G38MWw9Q

Martin Alvito · Feb 24, 2010, 06:20 PM // 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by The-Bigz

'Where Skill depends on your ability, not hours played.' Biggest lie they probably told.

Honestly, this was true at release. Things got screwed up with this balance around the time of Factions. The statement was never entirely true with regards to HA, since good players that play a lot are always going to move through the rank progression faster than good players that don't play a lot.

But GvG at release was really about two forms of skill: your skill in playing the game and your skill at networking. Good, social players found their way into good teams irrespective of time investment. Now, the lack of limits on time investment meant that players that put a lot of time in tended to learn more and be better. But there's only so much that you can do to control for players' ability to throw a lot of time at a game.

snaek · Feb 24, 2010, 06:22 PM // 18:22

welcome to 2008.

@martin:
it can really go both ways. pvp players can be some of the most loyal customers, due to the fact that pvp is competitive; in order to be competitive one needs to dedicate hours of playing the game.

as far as im concerned, the pve mindset is: beat it once, move on to the next game. anet managed to break this mindset however and keep customers playing their game by introducing a (horrible) thing called 'grind'.

The-Bigz · Feb 24, 2010, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

I can't say I can agree with this. Although I avoid PvP like the plague in GW, I find it rather enjoyable in other games...i.e..CoDMW2. I find PvP there to be more satisfying vs Vent...3...2...1....Spiked/PvX wiki builds. I feel that the creation of games that provide said lvl of PvP has also taken it's toll on the GW PvP population.

Yes there are different types of gamers...assuming one type is inferior to another is an issue upon itself.

E-drama and rage.....lol....
Warning explicit....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW0G38MWw9Q

You have made my day. These things are true.

Gill Halendt · Feb 24, 2010, 06:23 PM // 18:23

How's Pv(X)P any "more demanding"?

PvE probably never was, but it's been years since PvP was actually a challenge...

Killed u man · Feb 24, 2010, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Yeah, I'm sorry Martin, I didn't know brand loyality =/= loyalty. (Quality loyalty)

But then yes, you are completely correct. It was a marketing flaw, if you could call it, by originating from a hardcore PvP game, though it worked.

And that's my initial complaint. It worked, and they let it slip away. Somehow, they should HAVE known that a hardcore PvP game will always have a smaller playerbase than a brainless buttonbasher (Aka PvE game), because the vast majority of gamers doesn't want a challenge, but rather an easy game which they can stomp "tussen the soep en de pattatten". (Dutch expression translating to: in between the soup and the potatoes, meaning: whenever you have some spare time)

In a way, I, aswell as most other PvP'ers, feel mistreated because they launched, AND promoted it as a PvP game, and still do. (Competitive PvP, lulz)

But even you can't deny the fact that completely dismissing the PvP scene (as they did) wasn't the best choice either, because the PvP community isn't that small. (Way smaller than the PvE, but still a force to reckon with)

And no matter how you put it:

A good PvP game will attract more gamers than a good PvE game. (For MMO's anyways) WHY would an already existing MMO'er in another game stop playing that game, to come farm monsters here? Exactly, they wouldn't.

PvP is what attracts people, because so few MMO's can pull it off right. And with that advantage getting stripped of GW2, how is it going to attract new customers? (It simply isn't, the competition is too great)

Arkantos · Feb 24, 2010, 06:33 PM // 18:33

To answer the question, yes. Guild Wars was originally a game where PvE was meant to prepare you for PvP, which was the end game. Every campaign after that focused more and more on PvE because ANet realized they'd sell more copies with a game that has more PvE than PvP.

Karate Jesus · Feb 24, 2010, 06:33 PM // 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

1. WoW is an inferior game. I played it once. It sucked.

2. If these games are superior and so many of us are still here in GW, then yes, that makes us brand loyal. The PvE player base still vastly outnumbers the PvP player base, though you might think otherwise because PvE is spread out over a lot more towns/outposts and PvP is concentrated on a few.

1. WoW's PvE is far more dynamic than GW. Actually, most primarily PvE MMO's have a more dynamic and in-depth PvE.

2. As far as I'm aware, PvP vs. PvE arguments are ridiculous at this point. Everyone knows that Anet is targeting PvE now, and PvP players have left for other games. There's a reason the PvP population is much less now......actually, the population of GW in general is down, but that's probably because people figured out that free MMO's offer more updates than GW's at this point and have more in-depth PvE.

Just saying.

Del · Feb 24, 2010, 06:35 PM // 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Indeed. Too bad too many players stopped thinking ages ago.

why think when anet makes things like bb sway, ra sway, and mathway so all you have to do is buttonmash like a true shitter? the way anet balances, there's almost no incentive for people to play with honor in HA(which probably diminished the population a bit more).

Martin Alvito · Feb 24, 2010, 06:37 PM // 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killed u man

And that's my initial complaint. It worked, and they let it slip away.

I wholeheartedly agree that redirecting the focus was a bad thing. But that's just one man's opinion as a gamer. From a business standpoint, it's hard to fault them.

You could make the argument that only by providing a unique product that had phenomenal word-of-mouth advertising from hardcore gamers could they have attracted the PvE crowd to Guild Wars in the first place. Without that, WoW might easily have crushed them with advertising dollars. Or the F2P model might have been so attractive (especially to parents) that GW would have made it without the high quality PvP. Hard to say.

My sense is that they're trying to recover the PvP elements by using the Test Krewe as a way to get good feedback on changes but limit the resources they throw at the problem. I think that there are a lot of very fundamental flaws with the current skills and the win conditions of every format that will impede accomplishing that goal. But I wish them well in the attempt.

Mouse at Large · Feb 24, 2010, 06:38 PM // 18:38

Just take a look at the number of ppl on the PvE forums as opposed to the PvP ones. The answer is there.

Gill Halendt · Feb 24, 2010, 06:44 PM // 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Del

why think when anet makes things like bb sway, ra sway, and mathway so all you have to do is buttonmash like a true shitter? the way anet balances, there's almost no incentive for people to play with honor in HA(which probably diminished the population a bit more).

Exactly. That's why I stopped PvPing myself. Boring, repetitive and often irritating, so I went for PvE and gave up. PvE is equally boring, repetitive and irritating, but it's much more welcoming for my best friends and my wife. Not to mention I can now blame Tahlkora when I die, and she never flames back.

snaek · Feb 24, 2010, 06:47 PM // 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkantos

ANet realized they'd sell more copies with a game that has more PvE than PvP.

makes me wonder... what does anet care about more? money or game integrity?

gw does not have a monthly fee. server costs are definitely putting a number on them. was the pve-shift a decision made because they realized they could not sustain server costs, or because they simply wanted more money? or perhaps they really thought they could've overtaken wow's throne (good luck with that).

Martin Alvito · Feb 24, 2010, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

makes me wonder... what does anet care about more? money or game integrity?

They're a subsidiary of a publicly traded company, and they don't have operational control of that company so they're accountable to shareholders.

So: $$$

As for the loyalty of PvPers - I don't deny that. The problem is that it's expensive to keep the PvP crowd happy.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

Yes there are different types of gamers...assuming one type is inferior to another is an issue upon itself.

There's no assumption that one type is superior to the other. They're just different. I've played enough other PvP games to know that you're going to get ripped on voice comm (and not constructively) if you screw up in any of them. Some people just can't take that.

That doesn't make them bad people or bad players. Just different. Some perfectly capable people washed out of my offices back when I was in sales because they weren't suited to the job. That didn't make them inferior people. Just bad at sales.

Premium Unleaded · Feb 24, 2010, 06:57 PM // 18:57

ANet should have made the effort and tried to get some sort of further tie-ins with AMD/ATI to part host-sponsor tournaments and other PvP events. IIRC there was quite a bit of involvement from ATI with the GWWC, which was never really capitalised upon afterwards. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn about ANet (or even NCsoft) shamelessly plugging products if it meant more reason for them to look at PvP wholeheartedly.

I'd say this sums up the general situation.

Levothar Kingdom · Feb 24, 2010, 07:42 PM // 19:42

Anet is just pushing pve to grab new players attention think about this more new GW1 players that enjoy pve = more potental players in Gw2 which means they make more money

they are squeezing every last drop out of the game before Gw2 comes out