Curse

DreamWind · May 31, 2009, 12:45 AM // 00:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

How is it known where the majority player mostly resides?
How is it known what the majority player does?
What they play? *How* they play? Do they *still* play, and if not why not? Etc.?

A lot of questions that are near impossible to answer, but why do you think people buy games?

We know the answers to these by statistics, what Anet has told us, and just common sense. We know the majority player plays PvE. Hell we can even say the majority player plays "casual" PvE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Are most really gonna pick it up and say "holy crap I want everything I hope it's easy!" or "oh gees that looks pretty, I wonder how it is playing a Warrior?"?

Exagerrated example. I guarantee you they won't be saying "wow I hope this game is very challenging to a point where if I suck I won't be able to access all the content". As for your warrior comment, you'd be surprised how many people buy games because they "look cool".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Granted things get more messy as you go further more into the depth...but that's not what games are for. The casual player - the majority player - just wants hit things without too much difficulty. This has become clear to me through years of gaming and reading the WoW forums (haw).

So we basically agree, you are just being difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slowerpoke

Would GW still be around today if it was purely pvp from the beginning?

Of course it would still be around. That isn't the question to ask though. The question to ask is "would GW still be popular today if it was a PvP focused game with PvE in it" and I think the answer is a resounding yes. Remember...a large part of the reason PvP is dying and PvE is thriving is because Anet chose it to be that way.

Bryant Again · May 31, 2009, 01:22 AM // 01:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So we basically agree...

Somewhat, but not really. Either way we should both stfu.

glacialphoenix · May 31, 2009, 02:00 AM // 02:00

Quote:

A split between PvP and PvE is inevitable as there are conflicting expectations.

Pretty much this, really - people are going to take different attitudes towards different types of play.

Seriously, sometimes I think being a PvEr is damned if you do, damned if you don't - ask for PvE skills to be nerfed and it's because you're elitist and don't want other people to get the loot that you did; don't say anything and you're the whiny PvEr who ruins the game for PvPers. What?

And frankly, at this stage of the game, I'll be surprised if there's a change that makes everyone happy.

UnChosen · May 31, 2009, 02:30 AM // 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

It would die a slow horrible death if that was the case.

Agreed

The draw of Guild Wars had always been free to play co-op RPG.

haggus71 · May 31, 2009, 02:36 AM // 02:36

I guess we just better hope they stick to the plan they said over a year ago. PvP and PvE separate, with a world vs world area where both can play. PvE'ers can gogo carebear, PvP'ers can go live out Darwinism, and everyone can be happy.

Of course, if I get the gist of the conversation, about a year into the game, some pussies will crying, "wah! I wants to pway PvP too's! Gimme wins buttonz!", and it will all circle the toilet again.

Goddess Of Defense · May 31, 2009, 09:14 AM // 09:14

The game is designed for PVE and PVP now, just because PVP was introduced first does not mean it gets first priority over PVE. You may think some people are whining, but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan because it let every class get into a pug and win, when Ursan was nerfed Elite areas were reduced to 2-3 classes: Assassin, Monk, and Necromancer. Some of the nerfs have no business being nerfed in PVE when only the PVP people cry over it. For instance Peace and Harmony was "too overpowered" why? Because it actually replaced RC? So now PVE suffers duration to recharge time because it was "over powered." IMHO PVPers cry more than PVE players.

faraaz · May 31, 2009, 10:15 AM // 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goddess Of Defense

but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan

I don't mean to be a jerk but...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAAAAA...

And people werent complaining about PnH because it replaced RC, they were complaining because it completely raped hexway which was used (abused?) by a lot of ppl in HA.

glacialphoenix · May 31, 2009, 10:47 AM // 10:47

Quote:

The game is designed for PVE and PVP now, just because PVP was introduced first does not mean it gets first priority over PVE. You may think some people are whining, but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan because it let every class get into a pug and win

...wrong.

It was taking a turn towards selecting classes that either had high energy advantages (elementalist, necro), or 80 armour (warrior, paragon). There were people wanting only r10 Norn warriors after a while - yes, I saw them advertising. So even the Ursan winbutton favoured a few classes over others.

Longasc · May 31, 2009, 11:11 AM // 11:11

First PvE vs PvP and now Ursan vs Everyone... keke. The Thread has been totally derailed.

Default Name · May 31, 2009, 01:07 PM // 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Then make it so people can steamroll in PvE. Does anybody have a problem with this anymore? I see a bunch of people going on endlessly about "yea well the majority wants this so thats the way it should be blah blah blah". Fine...then I should be able to steamroll PvE because that is sadly what the majority wants. The majority of people who bought Guild Wars bought it because they thought it was something it wasn't. The real challenge has always been PvP anyways...Anet would be better served spending their time balancing PvP properly because PvE players in general are easy to please.

It's called perceived difficult. Look it up, you may learn a few things about game development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Replace the word "best" with the word "worst" and I absolutely agree with you.

Time and effort to deploy with as little impact as possible to contradicting segments of the game makes this a win.

But then and again, to someone who doesn't see the big picture, QQing is way better I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Which is why the best PvP games in the history of the world have free updates, are balanced, and aren't subscription based. Yep that sums it all up perfectly.

Ahh but not all the games are called GWs and developed by A-Net with exactly the same business model. I guess that's something too hard for some to grasp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haggus71

I guess we just better hope they stick to the plan they said over a year ago. PvP and PvE separate, with a world vs world area where both can play. PvE'ers can gogo carebear, PvP'ers can go live out Darwinism, and everyone can be happy.

Of course, if I get the gist of the conversation, about a year into the game, some pussies will crying, "wah! I wants to pway PvP too's! Gimme wins buttonz!", and it will all circle the toilet again.

Eh, people not cut out to PVP have been thrown a life-line by the PVP community themselves with FOTMs and wiki builds. Granted wiki bars aren't the best ones for a given role. But it doesn't downright suck either. At least there is a place to start now unlike 4 years ago when you just grab 8 and hope for the best.

Hilarious and epic battles in three way gank fest maps, anyone?

enter_the_zone · May 31, 2009, 03:30 PM // 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Simple: Release "serious" PvP part of game year (or more) in advance before releasing PvE part.

Reason: PvEr issue with nerfs is that:
a) They get attached to unbalanced crap that makes game easy and protect it as 'ballance'
b) They get attached to unbalanced crap that gets em virtual pixel goods and protect is as 'fun'
c) They get attached to unbalanced crap they did not know is unbalanced crap and protect it as 'being punished for being original'

Which is all eliminated if they never get to use that builds before and when their first hands-on encounter with skillset happens after all major rebalances happen.

Normal Betas/Alphas usually fail at detecting broken stuff which gets discovered quite fast in environment where people play to win and not to test. (Failure being discovering 100 exploits and not noticing number 101).

---

Would separating PvP/PvE chronologically work better than separation at skill level?

No, separating PVE/PVP versions of skills makes a lot more sense. Not the half-hearted way it's done currently, complete separation.

Or release GW2 in 2011 (my guestimate) to pvp only and watch ANet go "serious" bankrupt...

Burst Cancel · May 31, 2009, 06:39 PM // 18:39

There's no need to split PvP/PvE. Very few (if any) PvP-oriented games actually have a completely split-off PvE mode with different mechanics. Units in RTS games, weapons in FPS games, characters in fighting games, etc. are all identical between PvP and story/campaign modes. PvE and PvP operate under the same systems, except one has computer opponents and the other has human opponents.

I actually think that, more than anything else, the group requirement is the main problem with GW. The fact that HA/GvG/TA require organized teams presents a bar to entry that most people are either unable or unwilling to surmount. Other games with large, healthy PvP communities got that way because the only requirement for successful PvP is individual skill - you don't have to find 7 other skilled people to play with all the time. PvP in those other games isn't any less Darwinian ("elitist", in the carebear vocabulary), and the players aren't any better behaved, but normal people don't seem to have any problem getting into PvP anyway.

Gigashadow · Jun 01, 2009, 02:04 AM // 02:04

It'll be interesting to see what happens with grouping in GW2. For example, is GvG still 8 people? 6? Can you even have interesting tactical GvG with only 6 people? How about the equivalent of HA? Is team arena 4v4, 5v5, 3v3, 2v2?

The closest thing for comparison is WoW's (nerd rage faucet opened!) 2v2 arenas are compared with 5v5, the latter is pretty much a dead bracket now. The smaller the group the larger the population. I used to do 5's, which were actually kind of fun, but it was a real pain to get everyone together.

Bryant Again · Jun 01, 2009, 02:32 AM // 02:32

The GvG format will definitely need to be large. As easily shown in various class based games, the smaller the format the less variety you can allow. Just look at 2's in WoW.

All in all, I'm just hoping a lot for more skill>build casual play in GW2, but that's just me.

DreamWind · Jun 01, 2009, 02:44 AM // 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goddess Of Defense

The game is designed for PVE and PVP now, just because PVP was introduced first does not mean it gets first priority over PVE. You may think some people are whining, but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan

Actually it was designed for PvP...just nitpicking though. LoL at your Ursan comment as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

It's called perceived difficult. Look it up, you may learn a few things about game development.

So you want perceived difficulty and not actual difficulty. I'm glad you fit perfectly into my generalization of the majority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

Time and effort to deploy with as little impact as possible to contradicting segments of the game makes this a win.

But then and again, to someone who doesn't see the big picture, QQing is way better I guess.

Because I'm a purist who wants the game to be balanced on its founding mechanics and I want it to be as simple as possible. I don't want 2 seperate games where skills have to be relearned etc. The game is already overcomplicated. Not to mention, in the big picture 95% of the PvP updates had little to no effect on PvE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

Ahh but not all the games are called GWs and developed by A-Net with exactly the same business model. I guess that's something too hard for some to grasp.

So let me get this straight...Anet with their "no monthly fees" business model is something new to competitive games? I guess thats why almost every good PvP game in history follows the same model. You are simply an Anet apologist. You shrug off their balancing mistakes with awful excuses while not seeing the light in front of your eyes...the light being that Anet is clearly not very good at balancing. Good at a lot of other things, but not balancing.

UnChosen · Jun 01, 2009, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

There's no need to split PvP/PvE. Very few (if any) PvP-oriented games actually have a completely split-off PvE mode with different mechanics. Units in RTS games, weapons in FPS games, characters in fighting games, etc. are all identical between PvP and story/campaign modes. PvE and PvP operate under the same systems, except one has computer opponents and the other has human opponents,

Zeratul vs. Dark Templar in Starcraft.
Warcraft campaign mode heroes vs. multiplayer heroes.
Giant Bowser in story mode vs. Normal bowser in smash bros. melee.

Of course games like FPS never really have a "PvE mode", and when they do its usually rather tacked on and ridiculously short and easy. Even then the single and multiplayer mode are still separated, just by maps and weapon placements. Other games allow grind and potions to make up for any changes in skills, aka conventional RPGS...destroying monsters in 2 hits at lvl 50 nerfed to destroying monsters in 2 hits at lvl 60 is not a big deal.

Racthoh · Jun 01, 2009, 05:12 AM // 05:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Normal Betas/Alphas usually fail at detecting broken stuff which gets discovered quite fast in environment where people play to win and not to test. (Failure being discovering 100 exploits and not noticing number 101).

I'd argue it's more because of the sample size. It'll be much easier to find a problem if more people have access to what you're working with. How often are patches applied only for an immediate hot fix to be released because some bug was discovered by some random player?

PvE has, or at least was, always been about problem solving. You will be faced with a pre-determined situation and you have to find someway to deal with it. That's all really. Regardless of how skills are balanced there will always be some combination that will allow you to complete the task at hand. The playerbase simply refuses to believe it though and would rather believe the combination of 8 skills that they had were the only way to succeed, hence the uproars when one or two things get changed and suddenly it's 'impossible' for them to play. Although in most cases the fact their farming build becomes unusable is the main reason for the commotion.

I would assume the mentality from other MMOs that you can use any skill at anytime carried over to Guild Wars, which in turn created the issue with skill balancing causing problems with PvE.

Consumables were ultimately the worst thing to happen to PvE, not skill balances. Suddenly everything became how fast you could clear the zone not whether your group could even clear it. I was under the impression Hard Mode was supposed to add a level of difficulty to the game, not ramp up the loot if players were willing to spend slightly more time in zones. Imbalance contributes to the mess but consumables only fuel them to another level.

Default Name · Jun 01, 2009, 03:59 PM // 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So you want perceived difficulty and not actual difficulty. I'm glad you fit perfectly into my generalization of the majority.

It is irrelevant really this argument. The right difficulty sells the game to a larger group. That's a fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Because I'm a purist who wants the game to be balanced on its founding mechanics and I want it to be as simple as possible. I don't want 2 seperate games where skills have to be relearned etc. The game is already overcomplicated. Not to mention, in the big picture 95% of the PvP updates had little to no effect on PvE.

Then, obviously you weren't around long enough to witness the PVE epic QQs of the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So let me get this straight...Anet with their "no monthly fees" business model is something new to competitive games? I guess thats why almost every good PvP game in history follows the same model. You are simply an Anet apologist. You shrug off their balancing mistakes with awful excuses while not seeing the light in front of your eyes...the light being that Anet is clearly not very good at balancing. Good at a lot of other things, but not balancing.

A-net apologist? You mean fanboi?

Hardly.

I am into business, I sell software and was in the gaming industry a couple of years back. Minimal effort to please 2 crowds residing on two sides of a coin is a win to me.

Why these opposing crowds exist? In GWs the person behind gets trained more as the game progress not the toon. The emphasis on organization and team synergy with the rest of the players also means you will be punished for the lack of unlike an RTS.

In most RTS your fate is in your own control. This is especially true the more skillful you get. You don't need to depend on the X other players for bringing the right cards and playing them at the right time.

Bryant Again · Jun 01, 2009, 06:47 PM // 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

Why these opposing crowds exist? In GWs the person behind gets trained more as the game progress not the toon. The emphasis on organization and team synergy with the rest of the players also means you will be punished for the lack of unlike an RTS.

In most RTS your fate is in your own control. This is especially true the more skillful you get. You don't need to depend on the X other players for bringing the right cards and playing them at the right time.

I think this is really why I have such a problem in team games : \ When I get my skill up, I realize most people are content with keeping it low.

Not a problem for them, of course, but it can bring a bit of discouragement when you personally give it your best, bring your best, but still the team as a whole cripples.

That's why I'm really hoping for the "optional partying" in GW2. It'll suck losing the 8 person requirement we've seen in GW1, but the pros *far* outweigh the cons in my opinion.

UndeadRoadkill · Jun 01, 2009, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goddess Of Defense

but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan because it let every class get into a pug and win

How is being able to 1,2,3 whack the hell out of elite areas at light speed with little skill balanced? "Balanced" doesn't mean that all professions are equally super-powerful vs monsters.

Please stop giving PvE-ers a bad name, just look at the way the elitist PVPers are dragging it through the muck in this thread.