Curse

Revelations · Jun 12, 2009, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

All true from the perspective of a current top player.

However, the developer wants to maximize game sales. Make it easier for players to transport their skills from what they're currently playing to your game, and you are more likely to attract them. Also, you're more likely to have them return from a hiatus if they do not have to relearn the control scheme all over again.

Not every potential top player shares your preferences. The implicit assumption in your argument is that any top player will expend the cost. That's true of any present top player. However, it ignores all the players that had the potential to be top players but were turned off by having to completely relearn the control scheme to do it.

So would not leaving both control systems a viable option make it easier to transport their skills from their previous game?

CTM is slightly superior, but by the time a player makes it to the level where they realize this they have already made up their mind up on whether to continue playing or not. Better to snare potential players by keeping both control systems and hooking them on gameplay, rather than turning a group off at the outset by not including their preferred control scheme.

Rocky Raccoon · Jun 12, 2009, 06:37 PM // 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

by having to completely relearn the control scheme to do it.

Do you really think point and click is hard to learn? What about all the people who have used it since day one, why should they have to adapt to what was uncomfortable for them in the first place. I say include both and let people choose their method.

JASON626 · Jun 12, 2009, 06:38 PM // 18:38

i use click to move. GW2 really just needs to have both options honestly

Martin Alvito · Jun 12, 2009, 06:54 PM // 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revelations

So would not leaving both control systems a viable option not make it easier to transport their skills from their previous game?

No, because only one control system is viable at present. I see what you're trying to argue...but it only creates the problem of having players that learn the game one way and then have to tear all of that down and learn it another way. If the designer were only trying to sell one installment of the game rather than an expansion-based model, I would definitely agree. Since the model requires the developer to sell players multiple games, I don't see it as sensible. I'd argue for a "PvP is WASD and PvE is both" model, but I think it's obvious how that story ends.

@ Chicken - I see what you did there. But I'm not arguing my own story here. I quit serious PvP early in 2006 when the HA meta went to hell. I played some top 100 GvG after that, but never got into it enough to take it seriously. Catching or protting spikes for 45 minutes straight just wasn't my idea of a good time.

Interpret that as "not having the drive" if you will. I see it as not caring for the format, which is different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Diablo II was just an example to show that this 'revolutionary new control method' of yours isn't new and isn't revolutionary.

This statement illustrates why I'm done arguing with you. I said: click-to-move is not a revolutionary new control scheme that is going to sell games. Which means: it is neither new nor revolutionary. In context, this clearly means: click-to-move is not going to sell games in its own right because it's not going to revolutionize gaming. Thus, it's shortsighted to force people to play it, because the majority of your potential audience will currently be playing a WASD game at release.

You are now attempting to argue that I stated the reverse: that click-to-move is new and revolutionary. It is pointless to continue this discussion. You have unambiguously revealed that you are not misunderstanding what I say because I am being unclear.

Ec]-[oMaN · Jun 12, 2009, 07:06 PM // 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

I said: click-to-move is not a revolutionary new control scheme that is going to sell games. Which means: it is neither new nor revolutionary. In context, this clearly means: click-to-move is not going to sell games in its own right because it's not going to revolutionize gaming.

Therefore wasd will sell games......

Only having one option will act as a deterrent, I guarantee you that much. Again going back to combat and the feel/response, if WASD doesn't provide the level of movement people desire, they won't purchase it, at least I won't. With combat playing such an important role within the game don't think people will dust off their shoulders and plug away at something inferior. If combat movement isn't going to be an important aspect or feature in GW2 it won't be my cup of tea anyways. Sure we are making assumptions of how the game might end up, but since we know nothing, we shouldn't dismiss that possibility.

i farm baddies · Jun 12, 2009, 07:17 PM // 19:17

i wish i could wasd without the lag

Gli · Jun 12, 2009, 07:28 PM // 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

This statement illustrates why I'm done arguing with you. I said: click-to-move is not a revolutionary new control scheme that is going to sell games. Which means: it is neither new nor revolutionary. In context, this clearly means: click-to-move is not going to sell games in its own right because it's not going to revolutionize gaming. Thus, it's shortsighted to force people to play it, because the majority of your potential audience will currently be playing a WASD game at release.

You are now attempting to argue that I stated the reverse: that click-to-move is new and revolutionary. It is pointless to continue this discussion. You have unambiguously revealed that you are not misunderstanding what I say because I am being unclear.

I'm done arguing with you too, because you consistently ignore the essence of my points, endlessly repeating one silly argument: WASD-people can't compete in game that has WASD and click-to-move.

By the way, what you said was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

Click-to-move isn't a revolutionary new control scheme that's going to sell games. So why make it harder for your potential customers to pick up your game by implementing unfamiliar controls?

Well, I did misunderstand that. By calling them 'unfamiliar controls' right after the first sentence I thought you meant that you thought they were new and revolutionary controls that aren't going to sell games. My mistake, sorry about that.

The argument is pointless anyway, because my opinion is the only one that matters to me: click-to-move or no sale. Have fun playing a gimped game. I'll find something a bit easier on the old fingers.

Mordakai · Jun 12, 2009, 08:20 PM // 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

Ah, I was waiting for this one to crop up. Again, this "choice" is not a choice if one movement scheme is demonstrably superior to the other. If you want to be skilled, you have to run the superior scheme.

Also, choices over preferences are not always good. This is a typical American misconception. Providing choice has hidden costs that people just don't notice.

Ex: a restaurant with 100 different items on the menu has to charge higher prices. There are distributional consequences: customers that like the most popular items end up subsidizing the other options, but customers that like the less popular items maximize their preferences.

It's in the restaurant's interest to offer choices because group choices are frequently settled by individuals with outlier preferences, but the average consumer doesn't do so well under this regime.

But still, you CHOOSE to go to the restaurant with more choices and pay more, vs. going to a cheaper restaurant with less choices.

Choice is still good, because I'd hate to be forced to eat at a restaurant with ONE dish, ie, WASD movement. (see what I did there?)

I'm beginning to think you enjoy arguing more than you believe in your own arguments. The only "reasonable" argument against click-to-move, is that it may somehow discourage new players from competing in high-end PvP.

But by the time you get to that end-game content, surely you will have mastered both click to move, and WASD, and most of the other skills in the game as well.

I really don't see how in this case having a choice for movement is a detriment. And weren't you arguing earlier about pleasing the masses?

The masses don't play high-end PvP. The masses are going to be camped out in PvE, where there could be limitless levels and gear bonuses, and where movement choices will be less of an issue.

(and just to be clear, that's where I will be as well, hopefully clicking on monsters and hitting my skill bar as quick as i can, then clicking on the ground so I can scroll the camera around and watch my female Sylvari run from the front

).

Martin Alvito · Jun 12, 2009, 09:00 PM // 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

Therefore wasd will sell games......

Did I offer that statement as a proof that WASD will sell games?

The proof was earlier in the thread. This should address Mordakai as well. I'll make the argument as explicitly as I can so you can pick at it. Here are the axioms in the proof that have been generally accepted in the thread:

1) Only PvP-ers will care about the controls, because it's a non-issue in PvE.
2) Click-to-move offers some small advantages in managing latency.
3) Small differences matter in high-level play.

And the controversial ones:

4) The majority of the potential PvP player base switches to/from WASD when joining/leaving GW.
5) It's costly to switch from WASD to click-to-move.

From 1) I derive that we can ignore the PvE set of players. The problem isn't pleasing the PvE masses, but rather broadening the game's appeal to competitive players.
From 2) and 3) I derive that anyone that wants to be competitive in PvP ends up having to abandon WASD.
From 4) and 5) I derive that click-to-move is a deterrent to entering GW, but more importantly it deters leaving and then coming back. Returning players are compelled to regrasp both the controls and the flow of play under the click-to-move regime.

Therefore, if GW is serious about this idea of players putting the game down and coming back, WASD is the choice. I agree with those of you arguing that at release the devs are better off including both controls. However, if the devs want to sell multiple installments to people that play, get bored and return, they should use WASD. The devs have been pretty clear that they believe this is how they maximize profit given the business model.

If you want to kill this theory with logic, there are three ways to do it. Disprove one of the assumptions, find a hole in the logic or develop a competing theory of how the controls will impact sales.

Gli's been trying to attack #4, but isn't presenting systematic data. All the serious PvPers that I know that have left went to an FPS or to WoW. Doesn't prove that all serious PvPers leave for FPS or WoW, but I'm willing to bet that others' experiences are similar.

The PvE-ers go to other MMOs as well, but by 1) they don't count. From what I understand WoW is default WASD with some sort of click option, and I don't know an FPS that isn't WASD. So WASD is the choice to attract and retain the FPS crowd. I don't know what's prevalent in the WoW crowd.

Several people have attempted to refute #5, but they're just wrong. That cost may be higher for some players than others, but all those posts show is that the cost is low for an N of 1. I argue that it is no coincidence that those players are posting in the thread!

The competing theory that the game won't sell if the controls are bad is a much stronger line of attack. The problem with it is that we don't know enough about the game to know if the controls will fail if WASD is used rather than click-to-move. We're assuming that what is true in GW will be true in GW2, and there's no data at this point.

The other big problem with this argument is that if WASD is implemented exclusively, people will NEVER observe what it could have been with click-to-move and will have to judge the game solely on the merits of WASD.

Attacking 1) is another alternative, but I just can't see PvE-ers insisting on click-to-move if the gameplay is compelling enough. Could be wrong, but I'm not aware of examples of great RPGs or MMOs that failed to sell simply because the controls were only acceptable or good, rather than excellent. If someone wants to provide a counterargument, I'm willing to listen.

Gli · Jun 12, 2009, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

1) Only PvP-ers will care about the controls, because it's a non-issue in PvE.
2) Click-to-move offers some small advantages in managing latency.
3) Small differences matter in high-level play.

And the controversial ones:

4) The majority of the potential PvP player base switches to/from WASD when joining/leaving GW.
5) It's costly to switch from WASD to click-to-move.

From 1) I derive that we can ignore the PvE set of players. The problem isn't pleasing the PvE masses, but rather broadening the game's appeal to competitive players.
From 2) and 3) I derive that anyone that wants to be competitive in PvP ends up having to abandon WASD.
From 4) and 5) I derive that click-to-move is a deterrent to entering GW, but more importantly it deters leaving and then coming back. Returning players are compelled to regrasp both the controls and the flow of play under the click-to-move regime.

Therefore, if GW is serious about this idea of players putting the game down and coming back, WASD is the choice. I agree with those of you arguing that at release the devs are better off including both controls. However, if the devs want to sell multiple installments to people that play, get bored and return, they should use WASD. The devs have been pretty clear that they believe this is how they maximize profit given the business model.

If you want to kill this theory with logic, there are three ways to do it. Disprove one of the assumptions, find a hole in the logic or develop a competing theory of how the controls will impact sales.

Gli's been trying to attack #4, but isn't presenting systematic data. All the serious PvPers that I know that have left went to an FPS or to WoW. Doesn't prove that all serious PvPers leave for FPS or WoW, but I'm willing to bet that others' experiences are similar.

The PvE-ers go to other MMOs as well, but by 1) they don't count. From what I understand WoW is default WASD with some sort of click option, and I don't know an FPS that isn't WASD. So WASD is the choice to attract and retain the FPS crowd. I don't know what's prevalent in the WoW crowd.

Several people have attempted to refute #5, but they're just wrong. That cost may be higher for some players than others, but all those posts show is that the cost is low for an N of 1. I argue that it is no coincidence that those players are posting in the thread!

The competing theory that the game won't sell if the controls are bad is a much stronger line of attack. The problem with it is that we don't know enough about the game to know if the controls will fail if WASD is used rather than click-to-move. We're assuming that what is true in GW will be true in GW2, and there's no data at this point.

The other big problem with this argument is that if WASD is implemented exclusively, people will NEVER observe what it could have been with click-to-move and will have to judge the game solely on the merits of WASD.

Attacking 1) is another alternative, but I just can't see PvE-ers insisting on click-to-move if the gameplay is compelling enough. Could be wrong, but I'm not aware of examples of great RPGs or MMOs that failed to sell simply because the controls were only acceptable or good, rather than excellent. If someone wants to provide a counterargument, I'm willing to listen.

You do realize that your evidence that 5) presents a prohibitive cost is just as anecdotal and unfounded in actual statistics as anyone's rebuttal of 1) by pointing at themselves, right? You can't draw any conclusions from people not posting. When N=1 there's more evidence than when N=0. I'll argue that if a game is awesome enough, a matter as simple as learning to click left of your avatar to move left, and right of your avatar to move right, is a very trivial price to pay. The mechanic shouldn't faze anyone but the spastic and the slow-witted.

In fact, I've never ever heard of anyone dismissing the game because other people use click-to-move while they're stuck in a rut using WASD. Your evidence is in fact looking more hypothetical than anecdotal.

ChocoboLIVE · Jun 12, 2009, 09:38 PM // 21:38

Haha, I hope there is no lag like this...

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3720/gw014.jpg

Happen 30 % times when using button such as W...

nkuvu · Jun 12, 2009, 10:32 PM // 22:32

Last week I fractured my elbow, so I've been playing with only my left hand. I normally used the mouse for movement -- click and hold left mouse button to run, use right mouse button to steer. Typically my left hand is used for target selection and skill activation.

With only one hand (and the hand that is not very proficient at mouse use), I've been using WASD. I've come to the conclusion that WASD is not my preferred method of movement. Turning is slower, and movement in general just feels clunkier -- especially when I'm used to clicking on an NPC's name and going there automatically.

It doesn't help that I can't change camera angles easily, so I frequently have to stop moving so that I can move the camera down or up a bit. But that's not something that I expect would be a problem for most people.

I can't think of any reason to remove click-to-move, except to possibly annoy the playerbase. I have a strong preference to use the mouse to move, and others have a strong preference to use the keyboard. What's wrong with giving the players a choice? I can't imagine that this is particularly hard to code, especially since they've coded it up before.

Nay of the Ether · Jun 12, 2009, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

Too many games feature click to move, I just can't picture it being any good without it.

One of the things that really annoyed me in the dungeon seige games (though I love them) was the click to move was really the only way to get around. I found ways around it by modifying the controls and some of the .ini and .dat files but its awkward at best any other way. The interface simply isn't designed for it. In this game I think its outdated gaming and is no longer needed. On occasion I have found it useful to get around one of those improperly placed invisible walls but that's about it. In GW2 there will be a whole other dimension to move in, thereby eliminating the need for click to move interface to overcome obstacles (hopefully)

Justafyme · Jun 13, 2009, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Uh-oh.

No click to move in GW2? Dang, I only use the mouse LOL...I can't for the life of me get used to the WASD or w/e you guys say it is haha..

GW was the first computer game I played...and the only one I continue to play because I can use my mouse. My husband has been trying to reform/educate me for years...but, to no avail.

Yes, I'm a noob I know that. You may all now laugh at my utter noob-a-tude!

BLOODGOAT · Jun 13, 2009, 12:48 AM // 00:48

The only way to move:
R and right-click to maneuver your camera. Click to move is ridiculous.
Except in D2.

Fitz Rinley · Jun 13, 2009, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antares Ascending

.

Just wondering what folks think of the mouse 'click to move' is something people like and prefer to..? wasd?

The control system is going to be significantly changed (in particular mouse movement in the form "click to move" will be removed from the game

Taken form this link http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

Well that is one way to eliminate a lot of PvE players.

GW2 keeps moving more and more toward something I will not buy and I will Never recommend anyone else buy.

Maybe they can get their PvP only game yet.

Chicken Ftw · Jun 13, 2009, 12:59 AM // 00:59

Whuuuuuh? How're you figuring WASD only equates to PvP only game, when click to move is generally superior to WASD for PvP and won't be included? Meanwhile, PvE players generally tend to care less, as long as there's an autorun skill and an easy way to change camera angles.

Avarre · Jun 13, 2009, 03:16 AM // 03:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley

Well that is one way to eliminate a lot of PvE players.

GW2 keeps moving more and more toward something I will not buy and I will Never recommend anyone else buy.

Maybe they can get their PvP only game yet.

What are you even talking about? Click to move for less rubberbanding and more precise control for kiting/chiizustuff is massively useful in PvP. It hits both communities.

HawkofStorms · Jun 13, 2009, 03:33 AM // 03:33

First of all, they announced no click to move like 8 months ago. (of all the few details we had about GW2, this was like the first gameplay feature we were told about).
So, I find it funny people keep whining for "OMG where is GW2 news" when they aren't even up to date on the very limited info we already have, judging by the shocked reactions in this thread.
/endsiderant

Look, to say a game "needs" click to move to be successful is utter garbage. Many games do not have click to move (WAR) or don't have it on as a default setting (WoW). Just because you are used to the current system doesn't mean you can't get used to a new one. Some of the complaints about the removal of click to move (faster ability to kite and change dirrection, ability to "dance" while melee attacking in PvP, etc) might not even be valid points depending on the way the combat system works in GW2.

I know playing your favorite game for a while you can get quite used to a specific control pattern. I noticed when I started playing GTA3 on my PC I would start hitting the ctrl and alt keys while walking instinctively to find NPCs like I was playing GW. After about a week of playing, I stopped doing that. When I went back to GW I started holding down the spacebar like I was sprinting in GTA3.

The point is, you'll get used to the controls after you play it. GW2 WILL BE DIFFERENT from GW1. It has to be. I'm sure the controls won't be exactly the same. I'm sure the interface and style will be different. Don't look into it too much. This is really not that big of a deal. People on guru were complaining about how the positioning of the alt/ctrl keys causes their hands to contort in an odd way while playing GW. Clearly, GW's control system isn't perfect. I don't want to hand tie A.net from improving it by demanding GW2 have similar control features to GW1. They may after all be able to come up with something BETTER then the existing system.

Burst Cancel · Jun 13, 2009, 05:09 AM // 05:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

1) Only PvP-ers will care about the controls, because it's a non-issue in PvE.
2) Click-to-move offers some small advantages in managing latency.
3) Small differences matter in high-level play.
4) The majority of the potential PvP player base switches to/from WASD when joining/leaving GW.
5) It's costly to switch from WASD to click-to-move.

I'll bite.

#4 is a purely factual inquiry, and therefore cannot be discussed with any credibility without hard data. That said, you appear to be ignoring games like Diablo 2, which are purely click-to-move games.

#5 I do not find to be a compelling argument. First, there are costs involved in changing control schemes between any two games; and in point of fact, the fast and accurate mousing skills developed in FPS games actually makes click-to-move more attractive as a movement scheme in 3rd-person games for some players I've spoken to. Second, the costs for high-level play in particular can be quite high even within the same game. When you consider how many competitive players have remapped their entire control schemes and changed their UIs for (arguably minor) advantages, and when you couple that with the fact that high-level execution relies on muscle memory (thus making any change in control scheme disorienting), the added cost of learning click-to-move becomes trivial.

Furthermore, the addition of execution costs is not inherently undesirable. More often than not, games incur these costs in order to provide players with better options. Consider weapon swapping - there is a not insignificant cost involved in learning how to do this quickly and consistently under pressure. Yet I would not argue that weapon swapping be removed, simply because it requires execution practice to learn. Similarly, click-to-move is a superior option to WASD, and has associated learning costs; it does not follow that click-to-move should therefore be removed.