Curse

shoyon456 · Jul 13, 2009, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Its simple, when Anet *cough* failnet moves onto GW3,
Subcontract management of GW2 out and provide some oversight of it. Don't overuse the carrot-and-stick methods of rewards (titles, minipets, etc...) to occupy players in PvE for long periods. Don't encourage /rank, but good luck with that one, kicks. Keep the game balanced for god's sake. I started to say have 2 or 3 teams working on skill balances, but for some reason I think anet would find a way to screw up the game even more that way.

On a side note, I'm all for /rank. Obviously you don't want a pug/noob in the group because you want to win. But when I decided I wanted to get into PvP again (hadn't done that since factions release) and I couldn't get into a group, something's wrong. A game's PvP should at least encourage new players in. Right now the high-end PvP in guildwars is the same ppl trying to max the title or whatever, the same stagnant builds and play. Of course, since its the same ppl playing, everyone is ranked decently high at least and to get rank I have to find a group first - Catch 22 much?

And FYI, I've always enjoyed the PvP structure of guildwars, even when I was not playing it. But if they want to make PvP like WoW in GW2, where its all unstructured, mostly chaos, and there's no team element, then please call it something other than GW2. World of Guildwars would sound more appropriate.

capblye · Jul 13, 2009, 12:58 AM // 00:58

Possibly, rather than bridge the gap, blow the bridge up.
Make it two seperate games entirely.
You want to PVP ... have to buy the PVP game.
You want to PVE? Buy the PVE game.
Items and skills cannot crossover from one to the other.
Toons in PVE cannot PVP and vice versa.
Focus tyhe PVP Enviroment to what the players want ... balance and consistency.
Focus the PVE Enviroment on what those players want, more story based content and geared toward casual players.

Nary the twain shall meet.

Mordakai · Jul 13, 2009, 01:48 AM // 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by capblye

Possibly, rather than bridge the gap, blow the bridge up.
Make it two seperate games entirely.
You want to PVP ... have to buy the PVP game.
You want to PVE? Buy the PVE game.
Items and skills cannot crossover from one to the other.
Toons in PVE cannot PVP and vice versa.
Focus tyhe PVP Enviroment to what the players want ... balance and consistency.
Focus the PVE Enviroment on what those players want, more story based content and geared toward casual players.

Nary the twain shall meet.

I don't think you have to be that extreme.

Just "nerf" the PvE character to fit into whatever limits PvP has.

And despite common opinion, there are some players that play both.

slowerpoke · Jul 13, 2009, 01:58 AM // 01:58

one game, two playstyles.
some people will only play one, some both

the 'problem' wont be resolved in gw1
anet have the chance to do something about it with gw2

Nerel · Jul 13, 2009, 03:11 AM // 03:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

World PvP, form a group, amount of players in a group unknown at this time, go insta gib someone thats targeted out of hundreds, rinse repeat. It really aint fun, the fact even current or soon to be released MMo coming this Fall have done away with World open PvP settings and gone the instanced route says enough. I hope as another year passes GW2 will still implement structured PvP.

Actually, if you poke around the limited information ArenaNet has released about PvP in GW2, you'll notice that even while touting the new World vs World style, Jeff Strain (at least I think it was Jeff) has stated that the structured PvP that players have become accustomed too in GW1 will still be there.

So, the structured arenas (RA/TA/HA and GvG) of GW1 will probably still be around in some form, as well as this new World vs World. It will be interesting to see how they plan to implement WvW, one can't help but think of WAR's RvR (which lots of WAR players do seem to love).

MsMassacre · Jul 13, 2009, 03:33 AM // 03:33

Oy, not this again.

People who like pvp bought GW1 to play pvp. People who like pve bought GW1 for pve. It was pure naivety to think large numbers of people would "transition" from pve to pvp. Personally, I think Hell is Other Players and avoid them whenever possible aside from alliance-mates and friends. Pvp will never be the "endgame" of a pve game for me, and nothing anet can do will ever change that.

Besides, how is grinding out rank any better than grinding out titles?

zwei2stein · Jul 13, 2009, 05:50 AM // 05:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerel

Zwei2stein, I get the fun point, and some players just don't find GW PvP to be fun, and that's cool, they don't have to play if they don't want to... but what would make GW's PvP rewarding FOR YOU? A friendly, less abusive environment? Or are you looking for more substantial rewards? Faster title progress? Better loot/income from PvP?

Better (title/loot/icome) rewards? Not really... thats not point of PvP for me.
Besides, it would turn PvP to just another farm. I don't really enjoy farming in PvE myself to begin with (I do, on the other hand, like creating farming builds.).

It would, however, be big motivator if there were monetary rewards of some kind (say, 5$ "coupon" for ingame store for placing well in ATs), something to shoot for in c-league.

But this will not solve issue of having to invest a lot of time and actually being good enough to participate and to be reasonably successful. Basically, rewards do not solve issues inherent to GW being team based game that takes some skill to enjoy. Rewards only make one endure it. Friendlier environment is the same: I am ok-ish with e-ego guys in pvp, they just belong there. But even if they all turn to fuzzy care bears, one would still have to invest lots of time and be actually good.

---

I'll tell you what I enjoyed in PvP in WoW (oh my, he mentioned it!), especially in Wintergrasp (and as a druid to be even more specific).

As player, I can still help out others without having to watch battlefield: "30 minute buff" is always appreciated, and so is "10 minute buff", and my mere presence on battlefield provides interesting benefits to my team thanks to form auras. Neither is powerful enough to really make true difference, but good enough to be appreciated.

Basically, without having to do anything taking skill one can contribute well enough to feel nice and fuzzy.

One can easily enter battle without group, but getting invite is not that hard because one more player is on more vehicle driver/one more enemy distraction. You can enter battle even after it started as reinforcements.

And leaving is not that much of issue either, because undermanned side gets buff as compensation.

Rewards are meh for me, but if i feelt like pvping and someone was starting wintergrasp raid, I could join to have some fun without much obligations.

And it was always nice to walk out with some achievement "trophy".

Lopezus · Jul 13, 2009, 09:27 AM // 09:27

Maybe introducing some story-driven pvp elements: quest,misssion etc that mix both elements of pve and pvp, sure it will get old fast but it can serve as a introduction to structured world of pvp.

Sun Fired Blank · Jul 13, 2009, 10:55 AM // 10:55

Quote:

The complaint should be that there isn't that low level, social PvP through which people can demonstrate ability.... You really want something akin to AB or world PvP where people gain some measure of experience from which they can make the jump.

.... if you're going to include actually hard content you need to create systems and areas where people can demonstrate competence and make the social connections to get onto better teams if they are able.

A lack of transitory content is a very serious problem. I've a great deal of sympathy for anyone trying to break into a format, as there's no easing your way in. The introductory quests from the Guide and Master Rioka, unlocking the various formats, etc. aren't useful in the least because you inherit nothing useful for the higher formats. There is no method to familiarize yourself with the various maps in each formats. For Guild versus Guild, you can only visit feature-disabled Guild Halls through a Canthan Ambassador. You have the option of unrated matches, but only if you can find a counterpart. You can host a guild skirmishes, but you can only play on your Guild Hall. Observe mode only gives you vicarious experience, and only for the parts of the map that are used. For HA, you're screwed; observe mode is very limited, your only introduction of each map is before you play one, and there's no exploration mode. The Zaishen Challenges don't even cover half the map rotation for Arenas. The split skills don't help either. Every update makes the list more problematic.

Unfortunately, the chance for such content is probably gone; the game is likely beyond the point of having it, and the few relics that we have are inadequate.

JR · Jul 13, 2009, 12:24 PM // 12:24

I'm not really sure I understand the point of this thread, as we already know the approach Anet is taking to linking PvE and PvP in Guild Wars 2.

On the timeless subject of PvE/PvP: A PvP community is always going to be smaller than a PvE community, that's just the nature of gamers. I wonder how much smaller would the difference be, had PvP not been botched from the beginning? Especially considering Guild Wars was marketed as a competitive PvP game.

PvE has certainly had the most content developed for it since prophecies, but PvP has seen the biggest mechanical improvements. J menu, ATs, UAX, obs mode... we all know the examples. What if these had been in from release? What if we hadn't had four years of players giving up on an under-developed side of the game?

Compared to a PvE player, your average PvP player is more likely to be an active member of the community. Considering that, I think we would have seen a large swing in the kind of feedback being generated. Perhaps if this led to soften impression of PvP players being a whiney 'vocal minority' issues would have been taken more seriously and dealt with in a more timely manner.

Speculation aside, you are looking at one of the biggest problems in the PvE/PvP divide. The disparity in attention paid to the two parts of the game has always led to massive amounts of friction in their respective communities. The friction led to the divide, lack of cooperation, and the unpleasant stereotypes.

To give a simple examples of how this works:

- PvE (rightfully) gets more actual content developed, giving PvE players a sense of entitlement and superiority. They are under the impression that they are the majority and as such development time should be aimed toward their needs. This is why they object so much when you trample over them with skill balances for PvP. It seems illogical and rude.

- PvP players feel neglected because their issues are rarely dealt with properly. The arguement that they are in the minority and therefore their issues aren't as important doesn't stick, because they know they are in the minority because their issues aren't seen as important.

That clash of opinions obviously leads to clashes on the forum, and the general opinion that PvE and PvP players can't mix. Suddenly PvE players are terrible at the game without exception and should never be grouped with, and PvP players are just elitist jerks who do nothing but whine and moan.

These thoroughly ingrained views put PvE players off trying to get into PvP, and it put PvP players off giving them a chance and helping them.

So there it is. Neglect of PvP issues is one of the larger causes of the PvE/PvP divide, and a major stumbling block for Jeff Strains original goal of PvP as an endgame.

Lessons for the future?

A) Stop treating PvP players like an angry vocal minority and they will stop acting like one. Your PvP community sucking is a symptom not a cause of your PvP content sucking.

B) Think big picture. You can't expect to neglect one entire side of the game and expect it not to have a nasty knock-on effect everywhere else. It's not only the PvP community that has suffered because of the state of PvP, if you can't see that then you just don't have the vision to be making any kind of judgements.

Cluebag · Jul 13, 2009, 06:07 PM // 18:07

While I understand what you are getting at, parts of that argument are fairly subjective. I could just as easily say that

- PvP (rightfully) has a better knowledge of the game mechanics, thereby giving PvP players a sense of entitlement and superiority since they know what's better for the game. They are under the impression that they drive the meta, and as such, development time should be aimed towards their needs. This is why they object so much when Anet caters to the silly PvEers constantly. It seems illogical and rude.

While both what you and I said aren't entirely untrue, you can see how not taking an objective view of the matters can skew the discussion. Unfortunately, since this vehicle for communications limits us to "forum speak" (ie. sound byte sized bits of discussion or tl;dr), a lot of otherwise well intentioned discussions go straight down the shitter. Especially when touchy subjects are being discussed and ppl have their hackles up and are deliberately/accidentally misinterpreting posts. Another contributor to the divide likely... limited ability to have objective conversations with civil discourse. (I can hear people now, "civil discourse? on the boards? bwahahahahaha"

Shame tho, really...)

I am somewhat skeptical of this comment

Quote:

Compared to a PvE player, your average PvP player is more likely to be an active member of the community

With respect to a larger percentage of the smaller community being more active, then I probably agree.

I would suggest that community activity-ness (heh) is relative. While I certainly would imagine PvPers to be active participants in a community discussion, I couldn't necessarily say that they are more or less active than say the farming community or the off-topic community (just using the guru forums for example). And the importance of each community will also be relative as well, based on personal preferences (/glances briefly in Anet's CR's direction

). Of course, I'll acknowledge that the balance forums, qq forums, the guild hall and others also serve as extensions for community discussion, regardless of official Anet recognition of those outlets. Likewise, with the various PvE community forums scattered to the winds, I'm sure all sorts of activity is happening as well, or was... at one time... this game is winding down, after all.

All that aside, I do agree that the neglect of the PvP community has been unhealthy to say the least and I only hope that there is a credible and attentive rep for this group when GW2 rolls out. It certainly contributed towards the divide inasmuch as a perceptions of favoritism have been ingrained into the community psyche.

Ensign · Jul 13, 2009, 07:27 PM // 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Number One

Honestly it would make the transition easier but it wouldn't solve the problem as to why people are not making the transition in the first place.

A large percentage of your player base is never going to make the transition; some percentage due to lack of ability, and a much larger percentage due to lack of desire. That's exactly what you expect and there's no problem with it. You really have two goals. One is to make sure that your game is very appealing to the casual player to keep a healthy player base. This is where most of your players are going to fall, and it is important that they can just pick up and play the game out of the box. You want zero gate keeping.

The other part is that you need to make sure that the transition from casual PvP to more organized PvP is as smooth as possible. You only expect a fraction of your players to make the transition, but it is important that the players who do want more than casual PvP can get that. You need this at every stage. Ultimately your population is a pyramid - a small population of your most competitive and dedicated players at the top, and a very large pool of casual players at the bottom. Without the large base, you can't have a healthy population at the tip. They all go up and down together.

The tip of the pyramid is important for the legitimacy that it gives to the game. When you have very dedicated players playing for money and trying to break the game in order to win, but the environment remains healthy and competitive, that's a leading indicator that the game is well developed and supported. That trickles all the way down to the bottom, where players are much harder to gauge but feelings are much more susceptible to broken builds and plays.

The same goes for PvE in this regard; when your most dedicated players attack your most challenging content with a reasonable variety of builds, strategies, and tactics, then that's a leading indicator that your PvE is very healthy. The main reason people are so able to dismiss Guild Wars PvE as a joke is these leading indicators; the most serious players use a few broken builds to walk all over the hardest content in the game. You can't even pretend that content is remotely balanced when that's the case.

Ebony Shadowheart · Jul 13, 2009, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by YunSooJin

bottom line: this has nothing to do with the age of the game. No one wants to play with nameless scrubs and lose. Not all pvp'ers have r9 friends that help them play in the game. -.-

And it is precisely this attitude that turns most people away from pvp.

I'm mainly a PvE'er, I admit it openly; however I do dabble in PvP. I enjoy FA, JQ, AB, and RA. I've seen a lot of assholes, and discrimination, in every type I've played. Some of it I can deal with, I just turn off local chat, but when it comes from your own teammates....yeah it puts you off. Yes, occasionally some of it may be deserved, but a lot of it is just arrogant b*llsh*t.

I've tried team arena's but lack the grinding away of my life to have a high glad rank to get into a group. I've gotten into a few though on and off, so there are nice people out there that don't give a crap about your title. On the other hand I've gone 10 rounds in TA with a team I started in RA with and it was wonderful, but it's not very often I find great people like that.

I've also tried HA on a couple of different occasions, but the rude, uncouth people chased me away. I don't think I have ever found a nice player in HA, and as much as I would like to learn, I don't enjoy playing with assholes.

I have also tried GvG a handful of times - prior alliance, friends, etc. Again, not the best experience. I have a friend in a better GvG based guild now, and he's invited me to come gvg with them, but again due to previous experiences I'm more then a little timid in accepting such offers.

I don't mind losing, I'm in it to have fun and enjoy myself, which it sort of whole point of the game -whether you play competitively or not. It's the same with sports - its not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. If you gave it your best, enjoyed yourself in the process, and still lost in a sense you didn't lose because 1) you had fun and 2) its a learning experience. You'll do better next time.

However, I've found most pvp'ers have lost this type of outlook. All they care about is the win, at any cost. Then when they lose they ridicule one or two people for being 'noob' or for sucking, etc. This takes the fun out of it for everyone else.

YunSooJin · Jul 13, 2009, 10:32 PM // 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebony Shadowheart

And it is precisely this attitude that turns most people away from pvp.

I'm mainly a PvE'er, I admit it openly; however I do dabble in PvP. I enjoy FA, JQ, AB, and RA. I've seen a lot of assholes, and discrimination, in every type I've played. Some of it I can deal with, I just turn off local chat, but when it comes from your own teammates....yeah it puts you off. Yes, occasionally some of it may be deserved, but a lot of it is just arrogant b*llsh*t.

I've tried team arena's but lack the grinding away of my life to have a high glad rank to get into a group. I've gotten into a few though on and off, so there are nice people out there that don't give a crap about your title. On the other hand I've gone 10 rounds in TA with a team I started in RA with and it was wonderful, but it's not very often I find great people like that.

I've also tried HA on a couple of different occasions, but the rude, uncouth people chased me away. I don't think I have ever found a nice player in HA, and as much as I would like to learn, I don't enjoy playing with assholes.

I have also tried GvG a handful of times - prior alliance, friends, etc. Again, not the best experience. I have a friend in a better GvG based guild now, and he's invited me to come gvg with them, but again due to previous experiences I'm more then a little timid in accepting such offers.

I don't mind losing, I'm in it to have fun and enjoy myself, which it sort of whole point of the game -whether you play competitively or not. It's the same with sports - its not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. If you gave it your best, enjoyed yourself in the process, and still lost in a sense you didn't lose because 1) you had fun and 2) its a learning experience. You'll do better next time.

However, I've found most pvp'ers have lost this type of outlook. All they care about is the win, at any cost. Then when they lose they ridicule one or two people for being 'noob' or for sucking, etc. This takes the fun out of it for everyone else.

I guess you enjoy playing with crappy PvE'ers that get the group wiped every monster pull.. right?

Burst Cancel · Jul 14, 2009, 03:25 AM // 03:25

I don't really see why Playing To Win is so hard for some people to understand. They constantly recycle phrases like "elitist asshole" as if they actually meant anything. People don't PvP to lose, they don't PvP to be nice people, and they don't PvP to coddle the sensitive feelings of others.

"How you play the game" is not a rephrasing of "winning doesn't matter". The entire point of paying attention to how you play is to discover deficiencies that can be improved upon. The concept is most applicable when playing a noticeably stronger opponent - while the chances of winning are slim-to-none, it's an excellent opportunity to learn your weaknesses and observe how better players beat you. Yet, being destroyed by top players does different things to different people. For some, playing against top players is a priceless learning opportunity; in contrast, others get frustrated and discouraged, and generally shy away from playing stronger opponents. This difference in attitude is the very heart of "how you play the game".

So yes, if you play poorly, you will be called out on it. What's important is your response - you can either get offended and quit, or you can work harder to improve.

In short, if "having fun" is all you want to do, then competitive gaming - and really, anything competitive, simply isn't for you.

Kashrlyyk · Jul 14, 2009, 08:10 AM // 08:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

I don't really see why Playing To Win is so hard for some people to understand. They constantly recycle phrases like "elitist asshole" as if they actually meant anything. People don't PvP to lose, they don't PvP to be nice people, and they don't PvP to coddle the sensitive feelings of others.

"How you play the game" is not a rephrasing of "winning doesn't matter". The entire point of paying attention to how you play is to discover deficiencies that can be improved upon. The concept is most applicable when playing a noticeably stronger opponent - while the chances of winning are slim-to-none, it's an excellent opportunity to learn your weaknesses and observe how better players beat you. Yet, being destroyed by top players does different things to different people. For some, playing against top players is a priceless learning opportunity; in contrast, others get frustrated and discouraged, and generally shy away from playing stronger opponents. This difference in attitude is the very heart of "how you play the game".

So yes, if you play poorly, you will be called out on it. What's important is your response - you can either get offended and quit, or you can work harder to improve.

In short, if "having fun" is all you want to do, then competitive gaming - and really, anything competitive, simply isn't for you.

"Playing to win" is not the problem, it's the "playing to win and if you make a mistake we are going to piss all over you, insult you and generally put you down" that is. The overly emotional attachment to winning; not the calm, rational analysis of what went wrong.

"In short, if "having fun" is all you want to do, then competitive gaming - and really, anything competitive, simply isn't for you." That is bullshit. What about people playing a game which has a winner at the end, but still it is about having fun?? Your definition of "competitive" is way to narrow.

Bryant Again · Jul 14, 2009, 08:38 AM // 08:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

"Playing to win" is not the problem, it's the "playing to win and if you make a mistake we are going to piss all over you, insult you and generally put you down" that is. The overly emotional attachment to
winning; not the calm, rational analysis of what went wrong.

This exists in PvP *and* PvE. The difference with the latter is that you don't have to play with or even see other people, hence avoiding any nastiness.

In regards to how often one experiences the "spite", that will vary between players. Some see it once every day, some see it once every month. But this sort of attitude displayed by some players has been in existence since games went online.

*lemming* · Jul 14, 2009, 09:23 AM // 09:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

"Playing to win" is not the problem, it's the "playing to win and if you make a mistake we are going to piss all over you, insult you and generally put you down" that is. The overly emotional attachment to winning; not the calm, rational analysis of what went wrong.

The people who piss all over after losses aren't exclusive to PvP. It's just that losing happens a lot less often in PvE.

People do tend to get angry at losses, but in serious PvP, a lackadaisical attitude is going to be what people get angry about at people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

What about people playing a game which has a winner at the end, but still it is about having fun?? Your definition of "competitive" is way to narrow.

Do you know of any competitions where winning and losing are not clearly delineated?

RhanoctJocosa · Jul 14, 2009, 09:27 AM // 09:27

my personal opinion is that there should be no pve

arcanemacabre · Jul 14, 2009, 09:45 AM // 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by RhanoctJocosa

my personal opinion is that there should be no pve

I agree. Then GW could have been as successful as Fury!

Yesh.