Curse

DreamWind · Mar 03, 2010, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test Me

6 years ago they were building it hoping all PvE crowds will pick the game and once finished through the content they would move on to PvP. Don't you ever wonder why that didn't happen? Why GW never really became a hugely successful PvP game? Valid questions in my opinion.

This to me is a big misconception. A game does not have to be specifically marketed as a PvP game to be considered a PvP game. We have plenty of examples of FPS, RTS, etc that are not specifically marketed as PvP games (they just say there is PvP in it), but are widely considered PvP games. That is what GW was supposed to be...a PvP focused game with PvE content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test Me

PS: And yes those interviews wouldn't be enough, because we all know ANet had not much clue of the results of "what they were building" 6 years ago.

They knew exactly what they were building at the time, and the interviews were made during and after the Factions championship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bigz

I was using sarcasm to agree with you that GW was originally advertised as a competitive Person vs Person game, whether it be in PvE or PvP format.

Dont misaim the flames brah.

Oh sorry about that. I wasn't flaming you though.

4thVariety · Mar 04, 2010, 08:45 PM // 20:45

PvP is basically a game on its own, which is reflected by the fact of the online store selling a PvP edition separately. It is the same with Modern Warfare 2, or Bad Company 2. IW or Dice developed one engine and one set of assets to service two hugely different game experiences in one product. RTS games do the same.

Since both GW games, PvE and PvP, are stuffed with game modes, it is only natural that people might concentrate on one. The PvP gaming taste is just too different from what people expect from PvE and that is fine, you get two-in-one so to speak.

After a thousand hours in one mode, it is also not uncommon to play the other, or even quit the game for a while. But it would be wrong to say ArenaNet did not care about both their products.

byteme! · Mar 04, 2010, 11:03 PM // 23:03

PvP - bring the right build or stop playing because you can't win otherwise = very focused and 1 dimensional.

PvE - instanced world where you can bring "almost" anything and still succeed = very flexible, open to creativity and imagination.

Is it really that damn hard to know why PvE is a greater success then PvP?

Premium Unleaded · Mar 05, 2010, 12:26 AM // 00:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

PvP - bring the right build or stop playing because you can't win otherwise = very focused and 1 dimensional.

PvE - instanced world where you can bring "almost" anything and still succeed = very flexible, open to creativity and imagination.

Nothing in PvE changes; the challenge - the range of monsters and therefore the skills you will face on a given map - is static. How the heck can the fact that it's possible to beat the game with an empty skill bar at least in normal mode be equated to creative play? If anything, it's just exploiting same well-established flaws/loopholes in the system. It's like the 2 necros spamming orders heal party matyr from the other end of the map. PvE is just a completely stale meta as far as the mobs are concerned.

byteme! · Mar 05, 2010, 12:59 AM // 00:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Premium Unleaded

Nothing in PvE changes; the challenge - the range of monsters and therefore the skills you will face on a given map - is static. How the heck can the fact that it's possible to beat the game with an empty skill bar at least in normal mode be equated to creative play? If anything, it's just exploiting same well-established flaws/loopholes in the system. It's like the 2 necros spamming orders heal party matyr from the other end of the map. PvE is just a completely stale meta as far as the mobs are concerned.

Part of the reason why PvE has grown more popular. The room for error is minimal and the reward versus time spent is greater. Lets not forget the role playing aspect as well. Try role playing with your favourite profession in PvP and you'll get your ass handed to you on a platter.

BlackSephir · Mar 05, 2010, 01:01 AM // 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

PvP - bring the right build or stop playing because you can't win otherwise = very focused and 1 dimensional.

PvE - instanced world where you can bring "almost" anything and still succeed = very flexible, open to creativity and imagination.

Is it really that damn hard to know why PvE is a greater success then PvP?

Since you seem to think that pvp has the "right" builds I can see why would you think that pve is better.

The-Bigz · Mar 05, 2010, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

Part of the reason why PvE has grown more popular. The room for error is minimal and the reward versus time spent is greater. Lets not forget the role playing aspect as well. Try role playing with your favourite profession in PvP and you'll get your ass handed to you on a platter.

This thread sorta got necro'd but I think your post is based on taste, not fact.
Fact: Guild Wars AI is alot of different threads/coding thrown together to create dumbass AI that can be abused.

Fact: If you choose to not abuse AI, you get your ass handed to you.

Fact: One can conclude that abusing dumbass AI will yield rewards.

I guess my opinion is chalked up to taste as well, it may not be abusing if Arena Net made them stupid as hell for a reason. I just wish that they'd be completely retarded rather then cater to the abusers. LF Random Pug to fail mission. LF x/A20 to run mission AND get masters. Whats wrong with THIS picture?

If this is whats left of the community and the reason it plays, if in fact PvPers are only 1% of the community, then I guess that the other 99% doesn't care how they get their cake, just that they get it. Same logic as the botters/scammers. Wait, isn't that what you guys are blaming the downfall of every part of the game on?

Just because I'm looking at something from this angle and your looking at it from that angle doesn't mean we're not both looking at the same thing.

Edit: I answered my own post for me and finally know whatsup.

Would A-Net rather cater to people who are doing things 6 year old children do, and finding joy in doing them repetitively, or to a constantly diversifying group of people? If you have to post an answer to this question, go back to farming.

The 6 year old thing was in response to another post saying how a friend went to school and told his little brother/sister that is 6 years old how to run shadow form and when he came home he had more ecto's then when he left, to say the least. Not claiming people who farm are as smart as 6 year olds, though that wouldn't be far off from the 'hardcore' PvE'rs I've seen posting lately.

Bryant Again · Mar 05, 2010, 02:13 AM // 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

Is it really that damn hard to know why PvE is a greater success then PvP?

It's always been more popular. Casual players will always flock to what's more forgiving, and that's usually PvE.

(yes that was a typo, enjoy your +1's)

Doesn't mean you have to focus solely on them, though. There's tons and tons of profit to be made by having the higher-end cater more towards a competitive format (just look at Street Fighter, Starcraft, Unreal, etc...)

byteme! · Mar 05, 2010, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's always been more popular. Casual players will always flock to what's more forgiving, and that's usually PvP.

I'm confused. Is that a typo?

The-Bigz · Mar 05, 2010, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

I'm confused. Is that a typo?

What this guy said.

Shasgaliel · Mar 05, 2010, 09:18 AM // 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by The-Bigz

Your 123 vent drunk spike team faced people who were shittier then you.

What you say would have been true if the game was balanced. Then I would have agreed. However pvp is not balanced and I think never was. Therefore we might have been facing quite decent teams and still due to the fact that we had a degenerated team build which should have been balanced years ago we might have won. In this case for your claim to be true you would need to say that pvp is balanced which I think is not....

Quote:

Originally Posted by The-Bigz

Thats how so many people have HA rank right now, because they can't PvP for shit. You gave knowledge the description of what skill is and then proceeded to say the game takes no skill. Silently logout and re-think your logic.

I am confident about my logic (see above). What you touch here is the aims people have (at least I see it this way). To clarify differences between our opinions. If someone does pvp for titles only some minimum skill is required and I think this is the way pve people see pvp and several of players play. If we think about pvp titles then you can agree I hope that skill is not required. If we think about winning halls then it depends on luck and a bit of skill. If we think about winning halls and keeping them for a while or winning a few gvg tournaments in a row then we need real skill.

One pvp goal requires a skill and other not. Therefore any general opinion about pvp as requiring skill or not is biased due to the fact that pvp can be played with a different goal.

To make things more clear I will repeat a bit. I am saying that due to the fact that pvp is unbalanced skill is not necessary to win halls or pump the rank. You can beat much more skilled parties when you happen to have a right build. The more balanced the game the more important skills would be. At the current state people need to be extraordinary to make a difference (overcome differences coming from lack of balance).

Oh my it got quite complicated I have to say.