The majority of the community sucks (or does it?)

[retcute but deadly]

Read what Auron said on the first pace.

Buying GW is like bying a car whitout manual - but i love the game

..but still to many of us "old" players forget or dont give us time to learn new players basic things.

But GW is better place now for new players, then it was the first 1 or 2 years

regards
retcute but deadly
http://www.guildwars-RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO/

[CHannum]

Originally Posted by the_jos

The catch with Pokemon is that owning only one version of the game doesn't allow a player to achieve the ultimate goal: "Gotta catch them all".
That's because some creatures only exist in one version of the game.
Sure this boosts sales.
But I don't consider this multiplayer (rather smart marketing) and I doubt that the true multi-player part (fighting against others) made the difference for pokemon players and contributed a lot to the success.

Um, no. They are true multiplayer, have been since the beginning when you had to link two gameboys with a cable. Now you can battle around the world wirelessly with your DS.

There are websites devoted to the multiplayer battling strategies. There are pokemon players who know more about the game mechanics and "farming" strategies than all but most "133t" on guru.

Hell, the current Pokemon games even have a better marketplace than GW for whatever that's worth

[Burst Cancel]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Meh...now you are getting philosophical and off topic. I could argue that nobody does anything strictly for the challenge, but it wouldn't be relevant to this thread. What IS relevant is that Anet screwed up by reducing overall challenge, badly implementing new challenges, reducing reasons for people to pursue challenge, and increasing reasons to stay unchallenged. This in turn caused the community to suck more just by sheer conditioning of the game and the players who play it.

No, actually, my point is central to the entire discussion. The original premise is that challenge = good. My response was that companies don't care about good, they care about profitable. The response to that was that you can have challenging and profitable at the same time, because you can cater to sucky whiners and challenge-seekers at the same time. And that's where my last response came in.

The argument falls apart because "challenge" is a red herring. People who actually want challenge will create it for themselves, so technically any game that simply gives players a sufficient breadth and depth of options caters to all challenge-seekers. Thus, GW already caters to the challenge crowd - you're free to play without PvE skills and consumables if you so choose. But you won't, will you? Nothing in it for you, after all - except the challenge, of course. And yet, people regularly do it in single-player games: speed runs, starting-equipment runs, solo runs, etc. What makes GW different?

Anet's supposedly great crime was to allow people to do what they want - those who want an easy game can play an easy game, and those who want a hard game can play a hard game. Not surprisingly, nobody is happy.

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

What about the group of people who actually want the game to maintain integrity and depth?

For me, I put those for an easier game in the same crowd as those against but for the reasons of staying "elite". While it's a bit thoughtful that the latter wants the game to stay more difficult, it's for the wrong reasons.

What does "maintain integrity and depth" actually mean? GW PvE can be as hard as you want it to be. Think there's too much power creep? Use Proph-only skills. Think PvE skills and consumables = easy mode? Don't use them. The depth of the game mechanics is the same as it always has been - adding cheat codes to Starcraft didn't make it any less deep.

In regards to which one is bigger: not really gonna matter, since both are dwarfed compared to the "carefree" majority of the playerbase. But you shouldn't be catering to which one is bigger, anyways.

But to go back to my point in my previous posts that is pertaining more to the thread: How come a difficulty setting wouldn't work in GW? It's worked in numerous RPGs, most notably WoW. Why not us?

You should be catering to which one is bigger, because the bigger group has more money, and money is the only thing that ultimately matters. It's pretty obvious that if there was only one hardcore gamer in the world, there would be no market for hardcore games, no matter how "good" those games are.

As for your last question, I refer you to the above.

[Eragon Zarroc]

1) a large majority of players are bad. Those that are good have been around for a couple years and even then that is no guarentee of quality.

2)GW isn't a game that u come into and just be good at. it takes time and newer players havent had the time while older players are dieing out. it is why there is a large majority of in-experienced people.

3)it's not that good players are bad at teaching the game, they just don't feel like it because there is so much to be taught and going through it all over again with a new person is exhausting and not exactly desirable

[snaek]

Originally Posted by burst cancel

What does "maintain integrity and depth" actually mean? GW PvE can be as hard as you want it to be. Think there's too much power creep? Use Proph-only skills. Think PvE skills and consumables = easy mode? Don't use them. The depth of the game mechanics is the same as it always has been - adding cheat codes to Starcraft didn't make it any less deep.

ummmm...theres a difference between cheating and using skills/items obtained thru normal gameplay means

[Gigashadow]

Intentionally gimping yourself by not wearing armor, not using a full skill bar, etc., is not a way of "looking for more challenge" that players will find acceptable.

[kostolomac]

Originally Posted by Gigashadow

Intentionally gimping yourself by not wearing armor, not using a full skill bar, etc., is not a way of "looking for more challenge" that players will find acceptable.

Anet nerfing everything isn't the way either , it's practically mass gimping.

The only thing that can bring challenge in pve is new content , and not "level 50 monsters with monster skills" content , but "more normal level monsters with better builds" content , something like the charrs and stone summit in eotn.

[noneedforclevernames]

I have to say, I only know 2-3 players who are good from EVERYONE I have played with over Guild Wars.

Just going to guildwiki and having their bars doesn't make you good. You can actually construct bars that are better than them to fit not only your bar and the variables around you, but also your play style.

Since in order to be good you actually have to manage all three of your heroes and have them use there skills sufficiently, it's not really possible to be taught how to play effectively on less you can teach them either first hand or make a very picture heavy guide, which is currently unavailable.

Also, Guild Wars really isn't a game of skill, as much of grind and time spent playing. Since most of the rare items are achieved based on how long you play and how many times you complete the same set of obstacles (For example a dungeon or a vanquish) determines how much gold and/or titles a player will get. Similarly, these factors are the same with PVP.

Almost everybody in the PVP community will not take lesser ranked, or players who just purchased the game. Also, it doesn't take 16 hours of hands on practice a day on specific areas of builds in, for example, GVG in order to compete at the highest levels of play. It is really hard for a game without a professional scene to really have a lot of good players, because there is nobody to really research the game and how it functions using mathematical and deeper interpretations to really crack the game.

Also, Guild Wars is such a stationary game in the sense to where almost every team in competitive PVP use the same skill bars and don't really adapt their own styles of using these bars, with the exception of only a few Guilds. This deviation in play and change in the "Meda Game" are necessary for a game to keep good players, because otherwise they will move on.

Additionally, Guild Wars doesn't really stand out by itself. It can easily be interpreted as another MMO, rather than a game like World of Warcraft which is characterized more as "The MMO."

Furthermore, Starcraft has all of the characteristics described above which I have said Guild Wars lacks, and Starcraft has by far the most "Good" players out of ANY game in the world. I understand that Starcraft is an RTS and Guild Wars is an MMO, but these characteristics still apply since they are both video games.

That is why I believe Guild Wars doesn't have very many good players, and any constructive criticism is welcomed...
By the way, I can back up ANYTHING I just stated.

[Abedeus]

Originally Posted by kostolomac

Anet nerfing everything isn't the way either , it's practically mass gimping.

Uhm. No.

If everyone is equally weak, then you did not gimp yourself. Because everyone is at your level after the nerf.

Using 4 skills instead of 8 or no weapons IS gimping. Those are two different things, you know.

[snaek]

Originally Posted by noneedforclevernames

Also, Guild Wars really isn't a game of skill, as much of grind and time spent playing. Since most of the rare items are achieved based on how long you play and how many times you complete the same set of obstacles (For example a dungeon or a vanquish) determines how much gold and/or titles a player will get. Similarly, these factors are the same with PVP.

ur rite...farming plays a big part of a reduced skill level
and we all kno how much anet has catered to farmers (in both pve and pvp)
farming in pvp? wut? look at rank and zkeys

farming and mmo seem to have become synonymous wit one another


altho i wouldnt necessarily agree with starcraft having the most "good" players of any game in the world...

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

The argument falls apart because "challenge" is a red herring. People who actually want challenge will create it for themselves, so technically any game that simply gives players a sufficient breadth and depth of options caters to all challenge-seekers. Thus, GW already caters to the challenge crowd - you're free to play without PvE skills and consumables if you so choose. But you won't, will you? Nothing in it for you, after all - except the challenge, of course. And yet, people regularly do it in single-player games: speed runs, starting-equipment runs, solo runs, etc. What makes GW different?

Anet's supposedly great crime was to allow people to do what they want - those who want an easy game can play an easy game, and those who want a hard game can play a hard game. Not surprisingly, nobody is happy.

If everyone followed this logic, why do we even have difficulty settings? If all people would have to do is self-impose themselves we wouldn't need them.

Part of the reason is because a challenge should be something that tests *all* of your skills to the best of your abilities. Having to shelf some of your abilities and skill is not creating good challenge.

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

What does "maintain integrity and depth" actually mean? GW PvE can be as hard as you want it to be. Think there's too much power creep? Use Proph-only skills. Think PvE skills and consumables = easy mode? Don't use them. The depth of the game mechanics is the same as it always has been - adding cheat codes to Starcraft didn't make it any less deep.

You put PvE skills on the same level of cheat codes. That pretty much speaks for itself.

As Snaek has stated, the normal gameplay means have gotten easier, and that's not good. Also, you just said "don't like, don't use".

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

You should be catering to which one is bigger, because the bigger group has more money, and money is the only thing that ultimately matters...

Then why did Mythic make a game catering largely to those who like to ORvR? It just shows that there are indeed companies who do care more about the integrity of their game rather than big bux.

As for the answer to my question (which wasn't really answered), Zwei was able to provide that: ANet simply royally [email protected] up the implementation, because other games have shown that it can be done and done well. It's not a player problem, it's a game problem.

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

No, actually, my point is central to the entire discussion. The original premise is that challenge = good. My response was that companies don't care about good, they care about profitable. The response to that was that you can have challenging and profitable at the same time, because you can cater to sucky whiners and challenge-seekers at the same time. And that's where my last response came in.

We could go on forever about why people play games, but I am talking about how the game itself plays. Of course companies care about profitable, but if they think that way and put it into their game, the game will be garbage. Good comes first and profit comes second. Of course...that then leads into "what is good"...

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

The argument falls apart because "challenge" is a red herring. People who actually want challenge will create it for themselves, so technically any game that simply gives players a sufficient breadth and depth of options caters to all challenge-seekers. Thus, GW already caters to the challenge crowd - you're free to play without PvE skills and consumables if you so choose. But you won't, will you? Nothing in it for you, after all - except the challenge, of course. And yet, people regularly do it in single-player games: speed runs, starting-equipment runs, solo runs, etc. What makes GW different?

I think others have mostly answered this, but self imposed challenges are not what we are talking about here. If Mario started everybody off with infinite stars, the game would be garbage and not on the t10 list of all time. There has to be a GAME imposed challenge.

Now if Mario gave you the choice to start with infinite stars or not, we would have an argument. But we aren't talking about Mario, we are talking about Guild Wars where other people are in your game. The sheer existence of other people using Ursan means that my game is stupider because I don't think it should exist. Same with consumables or any other garbage. It extends to skill balances in PvP as well which is a whole other topic altogether (and one of the main reasons I don't really play anymore). "Don't like it don't use it" doesnt' work for me, because not using it makes my skill not matter compared to other less skilled players in a game that I bought because my skill was supposed to matter (as shown on the box). That is how GW is different from other games.

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Anet's supposedly great crime was to allow people to do what they want - those who want an easy game can play an easy game, and those who want a hard game can play a hard game. Not surprisingly, nobody is happy.

I personally don't care much that the game in itself is easy or hard or that people have choices (however poorly implemented). I think Anet's great crime was releasing a game with one intention, and then drastically changing their intentions over time.

[Gigashadow]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then why did Mythic make a game catering largely to those who like to ORvR? It just shows that there are indeed companies who do care more about the integrity of their game rather than big bux.

It is a huge assumption on your part that Mythic cares more about "the integrity of their game" than making big bucks. I'm pretty sure EA (which certainly does care about the big bucks) didn't spend all that cash to purchase Mythic in 2006 just so that it could be the proud owner of a 200K subscriber niche game that is doing well below expectations.

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

No, actually, my point is central to the entire discussion. The original premise is that challenge = good. My response was that companies don't care about good, they care about profitable. The response to that was that you can have challenging and profitable at the same time, because you can cater to sucky whiners and challenge-seekers at the same time. And that's where my last response came in.

The argument falls apart because "challenge" is a red herring. People who actually want challenge will create it for themselves, so technically any game that simply gives players a sufficient breadth and depth of options caters to all challenge-seekers. Thus, GW already caters to the challenge crowd - you're free to play without PvE skills and consumables if you so choose. But you won't, will you? Nothing in it for you, after all - except the challenge, of course. And yet, people regularly do it in single-player games: speed runs, starting-equipment runs, solo runs, etc. What makes GW different?

Anet's supposedly great crime was to allow people to do what they want - those who want an easy game can play an easy game, and those who want a hard game can play a hard game. Not surprisingly, nobody is happy.



What does "maintain integrity and depth" actually mean? GW PvE can be as hard as you want it to be. Think there's too much power creep? Use Proph-only skills. Think PvE skills and consumables = easy mode? Don't use them. The depth of the game mechanics is the same as it always has been - adding cheat codes to Starcraft didn't make it any less deep.



You should be catering to which one is bigger, because the bigger group has more money, and money is the only thing that ultimately matters. It's pretty obvious that if there was only one hardcore gamer in the world, there would be no market for hardcore games, no matter how "good" those games are.

As for your last question, I refer you to the above.

Exactly. People want challenge as long the other are forced to the same challenge.

But if they can choose between challenge or profit, they choose profit cause if they choose challenge they will have less goodies and all the other kids will have... muah muah.

People say PvE skills and consumable are cheats... but the only way for them not to use it is if no one can - All are saying "If I can cheat, I will cause others will too!".

[maraxusofk]

Originally Posted by the_jos

The catch with Pokemon is that owning only one version of the game doesn't allow a player to achieve the ultimate goal: "Gotta catch them all".
That's because some creatures only exist in one version of the game.
Sure this boosts sales.
But I don't consider this multiplayer (rather smart marketing) and I doubt that the true multi-player part (fighting against others) made the difference for pokemon players and contributed a lot to the success.

The Wii is marketed towards a huge crowd and it's only because of the bundled sales with the Wii that it could end with that amount of sales.
But just stating that it's incredibly easy is putting aside the people Nintendo wanted to sell their console to.
What's might be easy for you and me isn't easy for everyone.
When comparing the included games to full console releases of those games, sure they are easy. But then, the main target audience for the Wii isn't the dedicated console player.
And I think there is enough challenge for the once in a while player for a substancial amount of time. And that's not because it's easy

ok you have a point about the wii thing. however, i still think anyone with any sort of coordination, from sports to video games, can do wii sports with minimal effort.

anyway, i know that the majority of pokemon players who are 22+ play pokemon because of how strategic it is. single player and catching them all isn't even a factor as they can simply hack the file for the pokemon. it all comes down to how they use them. even younger children can simply trade with each other to simply collect them all, which they use to battle each other. try to find someone who plays pokemon who doesn't do it with other players.

Originally Posted by noneedforclevernames

Furthermore, Starcraft has all of the characteristics described above which I have said Guild Wars lacks, and Starcraft has by far the most "Good" players out of ANY game in the world. I understand that Starcraft is an RTS and Guild Wars is an MMO, but these characteristics still apply since they are both video games.

That is why I believe Guild Wars doesn't have very many good players, and any constructive criticism is welcomed...
By the way, I can back up ANYTHING I just stated.

You make a good point, but im going to have to say competitve fighting games require the most skill of any genre, simply because it requires both strategic thinking AND fast reflexes.

[Avarre]

Originally Posted by maraxusofk

You make a good point, but im going to have to say competitve fighting games require the most skill of any genre, simply because it requires both strategic thinking AND fast reflexes.

Derailing slightly, but so does SC, especially in mechanically intensive matches (TvZ) at the top-tier of play.

Both SC and the fighting genres, anyway, are much more developed competitively than Guild Wars. I think it had the potential to become a respectable e-sport, but the aforementioned lack of a professional scene pretty much crippled it.

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Avarre

Both SC and the fighting genres, anyway, are much more developed competitively than Guild Wars. I think it had the potential to become a respectable e-sport, but the aforementioned lack of a professional scene pretty much crippled it.

The lack of a professional scene was strongly influenced by the decisions of Anet. The potential was certainly there.

[Gigashadow]

People from each game genre define 'skill' differently, normally in such a way that it (conveniently) best represents the genre they play in. FPS players tend to say only manual dexterity can be called skill, while MMO players include other factors such as knowledge and adaptability.

On a somewhat related note, the famous Sirlin did an interview a year or so ago (that Izzy was also in!) and there was an interesting quote from Sirlin about 'skill'. I think at the time he was talking about aiming in FPS games. He said (paraphrased): "Suppose there were a More Skilled version of chess where, after each turn, each player had to juggle 3 balls for a while. If you can manage to do it, you get a small bonus, an extra pawn or something. Clearly this version of chess requires more skill than regular chess, and only unskilled noobs would want to play the old version." His point being, maybe it does require more skill, but it isn't a particularly interesting skill to test.

One other thing I want to add to discussion concerns PvP in That Game That Everyone Loves To Hate. Compare the PvP ability of the playerbase before arenas existed, with their ability at the end of season 1. I can tell you that there was a huge jump. Why? Well, when there was no competition, there was no incentive to get better, so everyone pretty much sucked, but didn't really know it, because there was no way to really tell. Once there was a ladder, people were punished for their mistakes with rating losses, and they got a lot better. People do respond to incentives to get better, at least in PvP.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Gigashadow

It is a huge assumption on your part that Mythic cares more about "the integrity of their game" than making big bucks. I'm pretty sure EA (which certainly does care about the big bucks) didn't spend all that cash to purchase Mythic in 2006 just so that it could be the proud owner of a 200K subscriber niche game that is doing well below expectations.

If they really wanted to make the big bucks it would not be so centrally PvP focused. Granted there is some rather accessible PvP within it, but the main course of the game is open realm combat.

[englitdaudelin]

Long tangent back to the swimming metaphor:

This occurred to me partly as people suggest that the game has *gotten* easier, and that with that, come people who might even wish the game *gets* even easier; this occurred to me partly as the discussion veered into teaching and public schools and GW as a parallel to those environments (can't FORCE people to learn, blah blah blah).

So, anyway, swimmers. Competitive ones. They often specialize in several events, but excel in one or two. (OK, there are exceptions, but bear with me for the purposes of convoluted metaphor). So, would we say that the best "swimmers" can actually compete in "different events," as it were? And their swim "coaches--" can't we argue that they must have, somewhere along the line, not only learned the butterfly, but several other strokes as well?

So, our guild wars swimmers: Would we say that the "better" parts, the "coaches," the "teachers," the parts of the community who are arrogant and rude, humble and helpful--have learned to play an array of styles? In an array of places?

And then, if I'm going to teach someone (and lord knows I teach, every day, to collections of kids who do NOT share my interests), shouldn't I know an array of things?

I'm not good at GW, I'll admit that--but I am good enough to know a bit about a lot of the game. And I'm still learning, years in. Experimenting with classes and builds, movements and teams. I would say I know more than the breaststroke.

So: is the problem (in the lack of desire to learn, to play hard, to play out of the comfort zone) partly a problem of... diversity of experience, for lack of a better term?

That is, the parts of the community we're critical of: why are they bad? And if we say "It's because they don't understand x," then...why don't they understand x?

Easy example: I've been having a ball playing a Visions of Regret mesmer in AB-- cast it and watch sins and warriors kill themselves rapidly.
Why do they kill themselves (Why do they suck? in casual parlance)?
Is it because they lose "situational awareness," and fail to keep track of basic information, like hexes? ("Hey, what are these boxes in the corner of my screen? And who's killing me?")
(I'd say this is the most painfully common "noobness..."... how many FoW runs, how many AB and GvG and RA and TA battles are lost because some dude happily slams away through hexes like Spiteful Spirit?)
Is it because the guy's math is off? ("I can kill this dude before VoR kills me.... oh.") This at least holds out the hope that he understands the hex.
Is it because this hex is something that that particular player has not seen before? ("Hey, VoR. What's that do?")

As a PvP scrub, I can speak only lightly to this, but I might guess that some of the sucky PLAY we don't like comes from people:
a) playing a couple of classes almost exclusively, to the detriment of experimentation, thus never gaining a sense of the skills and strengths of other classes
b) limiting hero builds to efficient, scorched-earth teams rather than area-specific ones, thus limiting the sense of what classes can do
c) paying little attention to serious things like hexes and conditions when playing classes other than healers (the "I got a healer, I don't need to pay attention OMG why didn't you heal me you f%^k!" effect), thus never developing a real sense of the effects of certain hexes, conditions, and other spells
d) not being particularly interested in learning and playing outside the comfort zone, thus never experimenting and getting goofy.

Now, on the other side, do we have to encourage people to play all the classes and get less sucky? Nah. But if someone joins my guild, I might want them to suck less. If someone's going to join my PuG for something even REMOTELY competetive / difficult, I might want them to suck less. And while experience is a great teacher, it is also, as several posters pointed out, sucktastic in the extreme to lose a battle, get raped by a boss in HM, get stuck with the wrong builds 1/2way through vanquishes, wait and wait and wait for an AB to start only to see half your team get its shit kicked in because they can't figure out a simple hex, and so on and so on.

I don't hold out hope, as Fril, you seem to, for the larger community, but I also don't think "the community" of players is doomed. I'm not sure an all-inclusive community ever existed, except in our utopian (Utopia? did someone mention...) fantasies of how this game "could have been." Guilds, PvP arenas, 4 campaign areas, instancing, shrill community forums, consumables and Ursan Rank farming groups, Perma-sins and Cryers, RA syncing and anti-scrub elitism have all conspired to create a collection of sub communities with only their setting in common. GW is less like the United States, and more like the former Soviet Republics.