Curse

HuntMaster Avatar · Jul 09, 2009, 05:12 PM // 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Which is essentially providing a means to skip that part of level advancement... or, more precisely, hand down achievements of an established character to a new one (because how is a new player going to get those tomes?). Seems one of the few examples of reducing the focus on level advancement in GW to me.

It doesn't reduce advancement in the least because those skills are still required to succeed in the game. You said a character who had been playing longer has more options, which is no longer the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Which is the very definition of skill>time spent. In your paradigm, we could have two people who've spent equal amounts of time in the game, but one has spread their time around and has 4 level 20 characters, the other has concentrated it on one and has, say, a level 40 character (assuming exponential time to gain levels). The two players may be equally skilled, but I don't see the guy with four level 20s being able to beat the other guy's level 40.

Yet my example is still just as valid. Regardless of a level based game, time spent in the game is important, only in a level based game, that time spent is shown by a level mechanic and in guildwars, that time spent is shown with total aquired skill points/skills. Same basic concept, different application.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

It only takes eight skills to make a build. This doesn't take long to get, either in PvE or, to refer back to your earlier money>skill crack, in PvP. Having the experience is an example of player skill, which I heartily approve of.

It used to take a long time compared to these days, to get the 8 skills you wanted because you would have to progress in the game to buy/cap them. Now you can just buy skill tomes and it doesn't take any talent to get those skills at all. So someone in theory could have every skill in the game and still have learned nothing of the game itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

If this works at all, it only works once. If, for whatever reason, you want to bring a new character into the high-end areas... do you really gain that much in the way of skill and experience going through that levelling treadmill again? You might need a little bit of training to adjust to the new class, but not a get-a-WoW-character-to-level-80-and-collect-gear-on-top-of-that amount. Guild Wars' low level cap is easily enough to provide that refamiliarisation.

Yes, you do. The more you play, the better you get. So if you build 2 level 80 characters, you will naturally gain more experience at the game than just making a single level 80 character. but with guildwars, you can get to the high end areas before you are ready.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Ah, but how much of WoW is a level 80 area? Without having played it, I'm going to make an educated guess and say "Part of Northrend".

The point was that playing a high level in a low level area is no fun. Well playing a level 20, fully skilled and geared is no fun in low level areas for some. Same thing regardless of level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

By contrast, how much of Guild Wars is a level 20 area? Definitely all of EOTN, Nightfall once you get out of Kourna, Factions once you get out of the city, and the Southern Shiverpeaks and Ring of Fire in Prophecies. Realistically speaking, the Kourna, Kaineng, and the Crystal Desert respectively will all push you to 20 in short order and are really beginning level 20 areas as well, which can still be dangerous even to a character that's defeated the Domain of Anguish. That's, at a guess, 75% of the entire game that's fun to play in for a max-level GW character, as opposed to the cutting edge of the latest expansion in WoW? And that's without even considering Hard Mode. Yes, there are areas in Guild Wars that would be ridiculously easy for a level 20 character to be in... in NM... but your attempted analogy fails in the face of the fact that in a conventional MMO, this would be something on the order of 90% of the game.

All of eotn is not a level 20 area, which is why you can play there as a level 10, which is why they allow level 10's to go to eotn. My example doesn't fail in the least, playing the beginner areas as a fully skilled level 20 is as fun as playing a level 20 area as a level 80. Its not much fun at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

While I really don't care for bigger and better weapons.

It sounds like you like using the level and gear system as a crutch. My response to having trouble with an area? It's not to get better gear and grind a few more levels and try again. It's to rethink my tactics and just plain get better and try again - something I find much more satisfying when I eventually succeed. Maybe this makes me different from the majority ot gamers, but, well, the majority of gamers have WoW.

Gear based games are a benefit in those games and far from a crutch. In gw if I have trouble with an area, it has very little to do with my gear (although gear still plays an important role in gw) and more to do with trial and error through skill combinations.

Getting better through trial and error is also found in level based games. It doesn't matter what level or gear you have in d2lod hell a5. If you don't know what you're doing, you will die on the way to the throne of baal. I myself don't really think about getting better, I just do. Getting better and being good at a game is not something I care about. I play games to enjoy the content, not the level of skill I gain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Besides, even that reaches a point where you're max level and can't advance any further. It just takes longer... and I've heard plenty of people playing a grinder that the game only really starts once you get there. Why not skip all that grinding and play the real game as soon as you get outside the tutorial areas? Which is, incidentally, exactly what Guild Wars does in Factions and Nightfall.

Well those people seem to enjoy the end game content the most then. I enjoy the entire game, from the beginning to the end. But going off that notion, the same could be said about guildwars. The game only really begins when you reach fow and uw, or the deep or the warrens or slavers or the domain of anguish. The game only really begins AFTER you aquire all the skills you want or need. But thats not how I feel, its based on personal opinion and I enjoy the whole of the game, not just the high end content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Clearly, you had no idea what I was talking about.

The TF2 system is this - each class has a set number of weapons - usually a melee weapon, a bread-and-butter weapon such as a pistol or shotgun, and the class's signature weapon. For instance, the Pyro by default has three weapons - an axe, a shotgun, and a flamethrower.

TF2 is not a game I'v played, so I was using a general FPS example and my point still stands. In common FPS games, weapons make you stronger. If you have two people who are equally as good, the one with the better weapons will win more often than not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Each of these can be replaced by a weapon that fulfills a similar role, but does so in a different manner. The regular axe can be replaced by one that does less damage normally, but more to targets on fire. The shotgun can be replaced by a flare gun, which will set the target on fire. The regular flamethrower has a secondary fire function that can be used to deflect rockets, but can be replaced by a different flamethrower that lacks this feature, but which does more damage against targets that turn their back.

Same concept as many fps games. Knife, weapon 1 slot, weapon 2 slot. Sounds like a fun game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

However, you can still only bring three weapons onto the field as a Pyro regardless of your achievements. Essentially, it's like having a skillbar of three.

Same concept as many fps games like call of duty 4. You have your hand to hand and two weapon slots. Depending on tactics and play style, those weapon slots get filled with the best choices. For me its the sniper rife and assault rifle. So I have all types of combat covered. I also have claymores to take care of possible sneak attacks. Which gives me a huge advantage for sniping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Meh. Same gameplay, bigger numbers. *yawn*

I accept that you like that style of gameplay, but as you've probably guessed by now, I'm not such a fan of it. Different people like different things. Surprise!

Actually the game play changes based on the skills you earn and the monsters in each difficulty. You have never actually experienced diablo at its full potiential if you have only played normal. Hell is when you get to see what the game is made of. Immunities, unique monsters with special conditions like ghostly (physical damage reduction) or Possessed (faster movement speed and double damage). It changes the tactics completely.

I know different people like different things. Thats one of the normal lines I say on this forum constantly, only worded differently. I like many different game types, which is why I'v been playing guildwars for 40 months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

At the bottom line, I'll throw you the same question I threw to someone just like you not too long ago:

There are... maybe not actually dozens, but certainly plenty of MMOs and MMO-like games out there to cater to a long levelling treadmill. There's Diablo 2, WoW, LOTRO, WarhammerOnline, CoH/V, and more besides than I care to list. Why do you want to convert one of the few games that even makes an attempt to cater for a different set of preferences when you have so many options of games that already cater to your own?

When did I ever say guildwars should be a level based game? I was just pointing out the appeal level based games have and why they have been the standard for over 20 years in the rpg genre. I knew what kind of game guildwars was before I ever got it and have never said "I wish it had more levels or was more level based".

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

There is a big difference between unprecedented and impossible. Just a half-dozen or so years more than a century ago, no-one had flown in a heavier-than-air vehicle either.

I never said a non progression based game was impossible, but without a nearly flawless approach it will fail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Besides, just because you don't like a game doesn't mean I'll agree with you.

I never expected you to. I know people like different things and thats why I said and I quote.

Quote:

"I'll take your words for it. I wouldn't be suprised if I never touched another zelda game. I'm more of a final fantasy fan myself. More characters and IMO a better game."

Notice the "In My Opinion" in bold.

Seems like you have a problem with people having a different opinion than yours, honestly. I do not have a problem with a difference of opinion. Its what keeps the world interesting.

Burst Cancel · Jul 09, 2009, 05:24 PM // 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo Smile

Because "artificially extending gameplay" gets people to stick around and pay more monthly fees... Oh wait.
Its very simple, some people some people LIKE titles and achievements in games.

Yeah, I've already addressed those people and the games that cater to them:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

games designed for those that either lack brains or refuse to use them

As for why "PvPers" care about what's going on in PvE - a lot of us PvE too, and we'd like for PvE to not be completely stupid. Unfortunately for us, we're surrounded by mouthbreathers sitting around going, "Who cares? This is FUN! URRHURR"

In all seriousness, I think it's unfortunate that competitive games are quickly becoming the only ones worth consideration, because everything else is simply too idiotic. I find articles like the widely-cited "Fixing MMOs is Hard" (http://brokentoys.org/2009/02/03/fixing-mmos-is-hard/) hugely depressing. Particularly:

Quote:

Game design, in many ways, is convincing players that they won a struggle against imposing odds. It does not mean actually creating imposing odds.

... so the job of a game designer is to lie to people to make them feel better. That's what it takes to make a "good" (read: commercially successful) game. And it's pretty ****ing sad.

Mordakai · Jul 09, 2009, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

... so the job of a game designer is to lie to people to make them feel better. That's what it takes to make a "good" (read: commercially successful) game. And it's pretty ****ing sad.

Not sure what you expect. You can't make a game that is challenging to everyone.

And unfortunately, what passes as "challenging" seems more tedious to me: "It takes 10 minutes to kill the boss. Challenge!"

Do you have any solutions to make games better for everyone?

EDIT:

I found this quote from your link very funny:

"Players dislike challenge. They SAY they like challenge. They lie."

Yep, both designers and players lie....

Ghost Omel · Jul 09, 2009, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Not sure what you expect. You can't make a game that is challenging to everyone.

And unfortunately, what passes as "challenging" seems more tedious to me: "It takes 10 minutes to kill the boss. Challenge!"

Do you have any solutions to make games better for everyone?

EDIT:

I found this quote from your link very funny:

"Players dislike challenge. They SAY they like challenge. They lie."

Yep, both designers and players lie....

the only difference between Player and Designer is that a Designer is truelly trying to make a great game. a player thinks of his own neeeds.

Mordakai · Jul 09, 2009, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Yep, too often that is the case.

Or, we often don't know what we want. I'll use a personal example: I've wanted a Druid class that could shapeshift in Guild Wars since Factions (yes, I know, WoW ripoff, whatever).

So, finally in EoTN we get Ursan Blessing. I'm so excited.... and then I realize having a 4 skill bar with extra hit points and armor is NOT as fun as I thought.

Lesson learned: I don't know what I really want, how is the designer supposed to know?

I did appreciate Burst Cancel's link, however.

It led me to this:

http://fidgit.com/archives/2009/01/f...are-broken.php

Ghost Omel · Jul 09, 2009, 06:48 PM // 18:48

Hes missin about 20 others but it indeed was a very nice read.. Well there is no way out of static world unless its....well nothig really maybe if it was one player game and even then only if it is devided in lvls =)

Gigashadow · Jul 09, 2009, 07:07 PM // 19:07

I don't see how you can ever make GW1/GW2 PvE about skill, when you can just gimmick build around whatever you are fighting. At least in other games, players are somewhat restricted to just class stacking to beat a difficult encounter. GW lets you go even further by bringing the exact skill set that will trivialize the encounter.

I don't think PvE in GW1/GW2 will ever require much in the way of skill, only PvP will. And that's probably fine, the majority of PvErs in any MMO haven't shown themselves to be interested in anything truly challenging anyway, just challenging enough to be fun and get phatlewts.

Burst Cancel · Jul 09, 2009, 07:23 PM // 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Do you have any solutions to make games better for everyone?

You missed my point. I don't think there's any merit in making games better for "everyone"; catering to idiots guarantees that you get games closer to Whack-a-mole or Tic-Tac-Toe instead of Chess. My entire problem with game design is that you pretty much can't ignore morons if you want your game to sell.

Challenge is what makes games interesting. Devil May Cry is a boring game until you start trying to get the Special Bonuses on DMD mode. Most conventional shumps are boring also; bullet hell games like MHS are where things actually get interesting. And I've always had a hard time respecting RPGs as real games, because they have been terrible for everything but story; most RPGs aren't just easy - they're completely devoid of difficulty. While I have no doubt that the majority of gamers (and MMO players in particular) avoid challenge, there are a fair number who like challenge enough to actively seek it.

Tedium and challenge aren't necessarily related either - something that takes a long time doesn't have to be difficult, and something that's difficult doesn't have to take a long time. In point of fact, having a time limit is generally more challenging (as in the aforementioned DMC special bonuses).

Edit: I more-or-less agree with the fidgit article until #3. It's funny that they mention going back to Diablo, because high-level Diablo play is all about numbers and optimization - figuring out cast, recovery, and attack speed breakpoints, optimal skill/attribute point distribution, optimal equipment combinations based on aforementioned breakpoints, etc. You could never actually be any good at Diablo without taking into account all of the math. But that's the beauty of a great game: breaking down and figuring out the system.

Mordakai · Jul 09, 2009, 09:46 PM // 21:46

The problem with making something "challenging" is it can cross the line into "frustrating."

And then somebody figures out how to beat said challenge, posts it on the internet, and it's not a challenge anymore.

I really don't think there is a solution in MMORPGs, because of the nature of the game.

(Unless you have random spawns, so there is no way to predict or plan how to defeat the challenge - but then someone can just rezone until they get an optimal spawn).

Xsiriss · Jul 09, 2009, 11:39 PM // 23:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Short

Far too many MMORPGs rely on level and equipment and not enough on skill. This is why I like GW, sure many of you will complain about the select builds that don't take skill and allow you to spam or you ust press 123456 *cough*sin*cough* but overall this game does require skill, you guys are just taking the oppurtunity to complain. Think about Mesmers, now that VoR has been nerfed we have seen a decrease in the amount of them because people can't just fire and forget hexes, they couldn't interrupt and now they can't be arsed to work out how. Many classes require skill and it pisses me off when some people just pick out a few builds and say that because these 5 builds don't require skill, none of GW does.

Starting with your comment on sins, they're just the same as other classes except due to their nature and convenience thats how their bars turn out, so you dont go 1->8->3 to get off a chain. Seriously,just think.
And the reasons why most builds just require learning and 'spamming' at the right time is because of the nature of Guild Wars' play style along with the fact that there are only a limited number of decent builds that are a cut above the rest.

Michael805 · Jul 10, 2009, 01:22 AM // 01:22

To those in support of a WoW-like leveling system: With this type of system, you're doing the same basic thing at every level. In Guild Wars it just saves you time by not having to do 80 levels of it. In only 20 levels you get to go do the "harder" versions of the things you've already done.
Also, I don't see what's so fun about going to a level 20 area at level 80. "Oh boy I just one shot everything, I'm super strong!" Seems like you'd have to have a God complex in order to enjoy that for more than 5 minutes.

To those bitching about skill tomes: In order to use a tome you have to have the skill(s) already unlocked in one way or another. If done through PvE, that means you already have at least one level 20, so I don't see what the big deal is. If you've done it through PvP, you probably at least know what you're doing with the skills you get through tomes. If you do it through a PvP pack unlock, so what? Keeps the servers up. Just because they can get the skills, doesn't mean they know how to use them. That is what makes Guild Wars a cool guy.

And finally, to those bitching about the "ease" of PvE (as in leveling, getting gear, etc.): I find it rather annoying that I have to put as much time into it as is required now. In Prophesies you could just get ran to the best armor in the game, which left only weapon sets (which, I must say, were quite a bit harder to get back then). Now in order to get decent looking armor you have to completely finish (more often than not) at least one of the games, then title grind to get any decent head piece. Then after that you have to get weapon sets, which still takes a good bit of time. It almost makes gearing a PvE for PvP not worth it in comparison to the 2 minutes it takes to make a PvP char.

Burst Cancel · Jul 10, 2009, 03:43 AM // 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

The problem with making something "challenging" is it can cross the line into "frustrating."

And then somebody figures out how to beat said challenge, posts it on the internet, and it's not a challenge anymore.

I'd argue that pretty much anything that is difficult is going to be frustrating at some point; this is true for competitive games too. I don't see how that's an issue, though.

Challenge isn't nullified by posting guides on the internet. There are excellent guides for Devil May Cry, for instance, but DMD SBs are still beyond many people. There is still a large gap between knowing what to do and actually being able to do it.

Racthoh · Jul 10, 2009, 06:26 AM // 06:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

And I've always had a hard time respecting RPGs as real games, because they have been terrible for everything but story; most RPGs aren't just easy - they're completely devoid of difficulty.

From what I've noticed concerning RPGs it's that the challenge is always self imposed. Low level clears, denying the use of certain items and spells, restriction is the key.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

I really don't think there is a solution in MMORPGs, because of the nature of the game.

Guild Wars actually tried, at least a lot more than other games, and well, until Factions came out actually. It's more than just tank take aggro, DPS make it die, healers keep group up combat, or at least it could've been had more care been taken into developing better AI and skill sets on the enemies. In other games you absolutely must have the awesome gear and then it's just a matter of learning the very basic attack pattern of the enemy.

The first failing of Guild Wars came when Faction bosses dealt double damage, creating what I would dub as lazy difficulty. More challenging? Sure, but in the same sense that Super Mario is more difficult if you only start with one life instead of three. All lazy difficulty does is reduce the margin of error which creates unnecessary frustration as the slightest mistake will cost your dearly. WoW is a huge culprit of this also. Tank dies? Probably a wipe. Healer dies? Soon the tank will die. DPS dies? You won't beat the timer.

Then came Nightfall which followed the same formula as Factions until the Realm of Torment's environmental effects. Restrictive difficulty; just because your class fulfills role X you will be penalized. Now I am well aware of what the "E" in "PvE" stands for but it shouldn't be taken literally.

Environmental effects were the sole reason I avoided the Domain of Anguish until their removal from normal mode two years back. Sure I cursed Ursan but I couldn't blame people for using it when it no matter what combination of classes you took for a full clear someone at some point would become weaker than the others, solely because the game said so.

Finally we have Eye of the North and the plethora of PvE skills and consumables. Consumables are basically the equivalent of the hardest boss in any game who drops the best equipment. They serve no purpose, why do you need something stronger when you've already beaten the hardest challenge? Ultimately what the two do is serve as an antidote to the problems introduced in Factions and Nightfall. Hard Mode carries the same issues that Factions introduced, the bigger numbers = challenge philosophy. The sole area where Eye of the North showed promise was Slaver's Exile. However it didn't matter that the mobs had thought out skill bars and group composition when you had the BFG9000. Sure you could in theory create areas where PvE skills and consumables become necessary but then you enter Checkpoint difficulty, AKA, what WoW raids are. The game erects a massive barrier to the next set of challenges solely because you haven't spent the time doing the grind.

Now if you want to make a game where skill is necessary then follow the Guild Wars path and divert off before you make a stop over at Factions land. Don't make the enemies so difficult that the slightest screw up means you die, reserve that sort of challenge for some kind of optional content that the truly hardcore can lose themselves with. Don't make certain classes suddenly weaker for no apparent reason. Don't give super skills to the player or the enemy and try hard to make an even playing field. Of course the biggest issue of all, the AI, makes all of this impossible. If challenging AI was simple to create then the aforementioned problems wouldn't exist and MMOs wouldn't fall into the realm of predictability and memorization.

And one more thing; no one vs. one combat. It is beyond boring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Unless you have random spawns, so there is no way to predict or plan how to defeat the challenge

Diablo is the only game series I've played with a random element to it, but what it adds is... debatable. While you don't know exactly what you'll face there is little variation between what the enemies do. Stack enough health, max your resistances and you're basically set for anything. You'll encounter the oddball unique enemy immune to everything you can use but that falls into the restrictive level of difficulty anyhow. I'm sure there is someway to add the random element successfully; maybe Diablo III can get it just right.

Improvavel · Jul 10, 2009, 07:22 AM // 07:22

What kind of skill are we talking about for a game like GW?

In FPS is all about of reflexes, good awareness, map knowledge and a decent connection.

In RTS is about controlling resources, controlling the map, creating the most efficient cost army, being able to macro your buildings and micro your units (macro and micro vary from game to game).

What about an RPG?

It is about maxing the most efficient skills, attributes and gear.

Then we have GW.

What kind of skill do we want?

Having good team builds?

Well, they will spread out.

Using a build?

Well builds tend to be user friendly - if something is too complex probably isn't worth the risk of falling to execute or it is too powerful you will have to use it, so the risk of failing in meaningless.

Knowing what to do?

Is dshoting a WoH skill or luck? Especially considering latency.

Dshoting Meteor Shower on the other hand isn't luck.

What kind of strategy do people want on PvE, where HM is basically time compression, making interaction with enemy non rewarding?

We want reflex time as the base for a player skill? His analysis of the situation?

How is someone going to analyse and have reflexes to catch WoH with DShot?

GW problem, imo, is compression.

Time compression (see HM, interrupting, what a joke when enemies cast faster and their spells recharge faster), damage compression, healing compression, etc.

It is all so fast that tactical analysis doesn't matter - it is all mechanic. If you are more mechanized you win.

What kind of feints could someone do, when that warrior over there could spike you every 3 seconds?

And what is the point of trying to pressure mobs in PvE when they can't be resource pressured (other than health) and they can kill you so easily? Who cares if you removed an enchantment from some mob or interrupt is attack/spell? The mob will just cast it again in 2 secs or will attack you again for 200+ more damage or will cast the same spell or one similar in .75 secs later with no concerns for energy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racthoh

Now if you want to make a game where skill is necessary then follow the Guild Wars path and divert off before you make a stop over at Factions land. Don't make the enemies so difficult that the slightest screw up means you die, reserve that sort of challenge for some kind of optional content that the truly hardcore can lose themselves with. Don't make certain classes suddenly weaker for no apparent reason. Don't give super skills to the player or the enemy and try hard to make an even playing field. Of course the biggest issue of all, the AI, makes all of this impossible. If challenging AI was simple to create then the aforementioned problems wouldn't exist and MMOs wouldn't fall into the realm of predictability and memorization.

What exactly optional means?

Some people will argue with you by saying DoA is an optional content and so it is all fine. And really, do you need tormented weapons, they will say.

What is the point of having a game where the hardest Areas just deny all you have learned before, when they should be the peak where all that knowledge should be executed, all the careful aggro, all the energy management, all the disruption, etc, and instead insist that you need to use a strategy that is dubbed as a gimmick by the population, because it is just abusing AI failings?

Avarre · Jul 10, 2009, 07:30 AM // 07:30

Mechanical ability and tactical ability are two areas of skill in GW (and most other games).

Tactics don't mean shit if you're too mechanically feeble to pull them off in an effective manner. Mechanics are great if all you're going to do is 8v8.

PvE is pretty much 99% mechanics. However, the lack of adaptation drops it to just being mechanical memorization and repetition, if anything.

Abedeus · Jul 10, 2009, 07:42 AM // 07:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

And I've always had a hard time respecting RPGs as real games, because they have been terrible for everything but story; most RPGs aren't just easy - they're completely devoid of difficulty.

Maaaybe because it's about the STORY? And, I don't know, ROLEPLAYING the characters?

You want challenge, you go multiplayer. I stand by my argument that Neverwinter Nights is the best online non-MMO RPG out there. Hell, it's still alive after 7 years... And PvP'ing with people like me, who have seen every buff, every nerf, know every secret and trick out there, is pretty challenging.

Quote:

While I have no doubt that the majority of gamers (and MMO players in particular) avoid challenge, there are a fair number who like challenge enough to actively seek it.

I like challenging games, but it's hard to find one on PC... I have to go look for them on DS (Ninja Gaiden, to be precise) and cross-platform games like Prototype. Or online, competetive gaming.

Fril Estelin · Jul 10, 2009, 08:21 AM // 08:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

PvE is pretty much 99% mechanics.

True if you consider the OP features (consumables, invici-skills). Not true if you take a more "reasonable" approach to playing the game. HM is an opportunity (not the best) to up your game and forces you to think tactically (not always) if you drop the OP features. This is probably why many PvP group will easily defeat PvE challenges, throught the tactical advantage of team coordination and field synchronisation, two aspects that can still be achieved by anyone (even H/H, although I find this a bit too specific, you have to play with 32 skills, it looks like WoW with its buttons all over the place).

Forcing yourself to not use OP is a good strategy to continuing the learning curve that was broken by Anet's lack of player tutoring, without having to fail miserably and countless times when getting into PvP and learning to be "tough".

I also find it very unfair for people who look for a technical challenge in a game to dismiss the simple pleasure of enjoying a game for its visual depiction of a fictitious world or its lore/storyline. For the GW community to be more at ease, you have to admit from the get go (I mean, as of today, i.e. there was a point voicing your concerns about how Factions, NF and EotN broke the game a while ago, but not now, when it's history) that there are multiple aspects that correspond to various players with differing expectations.

Augmenting each others' game experience is a much better approach than simply pointing fingers and saying "Anet broke the game" or "PvErs don't want to be skilled"/"PvPers are elitists". As I said a while ago in this thread, I'd love to hear what Anet 3 cofounders or the designers that made the important decisions thought the community would be based on the aims they set themselves. IMHO a lot of assumptions going on in the community, and on Guru in particular, are not grounded on what Anet said, but rather what players interpreted of the game changes.

Notorious Bob · Jul 10, 2009, 11:53 AM // 11:53

What's more worrying, especially for GW2 is that the Anet Devs seem to believe there own rubbish.

If I want to play a FPS or 3PS then I'll buy one. If Anet want to continue with the ideas that Time > Skill and Grind = Reward then they should drop the MMO or even MMORPG from their claims and concentrate on PvP alone.

How little they think about things is evident by what they haven't done in GW. e.g. we get lame arsed titles for AFK'ing but nothing for say PuG'ing.

And just consider the disasters of loot scaling, Factions, PvE skills and Hard Mode each and every one a complete and utter epic fail!

While they might be talented graphics artists - no doubt GW looks pretty - as games designers they really dont have much of a clue.

Like I said, what's worrying is they believe their own hype!

EPO Bot · Jul 10, 2009, 12:33 PM // 12:33

A pug title...

Now how is that supposed to work?

Lopezus · Jul 10, 2009, 12:56 PM // 12:56

I see a serious problem with logical thinking going on. Messing about causes and effects, emphasising certain factors while completly ignoring others, completly illogical inference etc...Unless we have some serious tests that proves something i find most opinions in this thread completly missing the point. For example : Is WoW a succesful game because of level and gear grinding ? Will it achive the same succes without grind or grind being highly reduced ? Can really one factor like abscence of grind make a game succesul or not ? Are there factors at creating succesful game almost impossible for taking into consideration while designing the game like: being at the right place at the right time etc.. I really find rather a lot of questions, then easy answers , most of which are made post factum : game is succesful beacuse ... or game fail beacuse..., thing is that type of reasoning is not valid ,really.

And if by calling succesful game we look beyond sold copies or money made, but rather game that is being played for years for large number of people there is no doubt that playing this game must be rewarding for this people, and very nature of game like GW make it impossible that this "reward" will be the same for all people. Now, keeping a game rewarding for all is hardly possible so is knowing what action bring specific result. ie. introducing heroes: was a quick way into decline of GW ?, or maybe without it game would be dying even faster ? IMO both of these statments aren't justified enough to presnet them with certanity.