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

[Burst Cancel]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

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.

Sorry, but you're never testing all of your skills to the best of your abilities. If giving yourself more options lets you test more skills "to the best of your abilities", then PvE skills would increase challenge, not decrease it. How do you think you'd play if your attacks did only half of their normal damage? Or if you only had half of your normal armor? Putting limitations on yourself forces you to use your remaining resources more efficiently. That's the entire reason that things like PvE skills supposedly "destroy challenge": they provide you with additional resources, allowing you to ignore or underplay others.

You're grasping at straws; now not only are you trying to differentiate between challenge and no challenge, but different types of challenge (i.e., user-created vs. developer-created). I've been down that line of reasoning before, and unless you can argue that developer-created challenge is somehow more valid or meaningful than user-created challenge, it's a logical dead end. The problem is that games are ultimately just a set of arbitrary rules - it doesn't make any difference where those rules originated. If I decide to play some GW without PvE skills, it is identical to Anet having disabled PvE skills for the duration of my play.

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".

I put PvE skills on the same level as cheat codes because they serve an identical function: allowing a user to make the game easier for themselves. Being a "normal" means of play doesn't matter except in the player's head. The fact is that cheat codes are available, and it's up to the player whether to use them or not - just like every other tool the game gives you. If there was another version of Starcraft where you needed a code to access Siege Tanks, would it be functionally any different from the original Starcraft?

Originally Posted by DreamWind

"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).

Yeah, I know. I've already covered your group in my previous posts - the group of people who don't actually care about challenge, but rather rewards and recognition for being skilled. Remember what else I said in those posts? Something along the lines of, "that's why you can't cater to everyone", and "money-driven decision-making"?

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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

I think its more because it is a team game (and a large one at that). Most of the successful e-sport games are 1vs1.

[Skyy High]

Does WoW have punishment skills and the like that hurt you if you do X action? If not, well, maybe people slam through Empathy, SS, et al because they're just not expecting that they have to change how they mash their skills depending on what opponent they're facing.

[Gigashadow]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

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.

I think that spending the amount of money they did, they would have preferred to make a PvE (or PvE/PvP) MMO if they thought it would have a good chance against WoW, but realized that would be completely futile. Instead, they had no choice but to fight for the scraps and carve out a PvP niche -- which to be fair seemed like a potentially decent market, given that something like half of WoW's servers are PvP servers, and battlegrounds there were popular. That's also an area they already have prior expertise in. So my opinion of it is their making a PvP MMO was more out of necessity, than any sort of integrity to game design.

That does make me wonder who Guild Wars 2 is going to be targeted at. I strongly suspect they really do intend to steal a lot of customers from WoW (although you will never hear them say this), most likely by making the game even more solo- or player+buddy friendly than WoW is, and without any large raids whatsoever. It would need to be spectacular enough to rip people apart, and have a bunch of novel features so that it isn't "yet another MMO".

Originally Posted by Skyy High

Does WoW have punishment skills and the like that hurt you if you do X action? If not, well, maybe people slam through Empathy, SS, et al because they're just not expecting that they have to change how they mash their skills depending on what opponent they're facing.

Not especially, the game is pretty lacking on that front, although there's a couple of things; if you dispel Unstable Affliction you take a lot of damage and are silenced.

One of the more interesting spells is Shadow Word: Death, which damages you for an equal amount done to the target if it doesn't land a killing blow on the target. The interesting use of that spell in PvP is to preemptively break crowd control on yourself, as the damage bounceback takes 0.5s to happen. So if someone is casting Sheep on you, you SW: D them right at the end of their cast bar, and then the reflected damage pops you out half a second later. So there's a mini game between priests and mages of mages trying to cast-cancel their Sheep to juke the SW: D.

On the juking front, so many classes have interrupts in that game. In Guild Wars you pay the cost of a spell when you press the button. In WoW you pay it when it actually goes off, so you can cast and then cancel it to try to juke out the counterspell (mage counterspell is nasty, and does what Power Block does if he catches you in the middle of a spell).

WoW is seriously missing the entire concept of effective pre-prot skills, which is one of the things that makes Guild Wars healing so interesting. Energy is also a much better mechanic than a large mana pool.

[Gigashadow]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

You're grasping at straws; now not only are you trying to differentiate between challenge and no challenge, but different types of challenge (i.e., user-created vs. developer-created). I've been down that line of reasoning before, and unless you can argue that developer-created challenge is somehow more valid or meaningful than user-created challenge, it's a logical dead end. The problem is that games are ultimately just a set of arbitrary rules - it doesn't make any difference where those rules originated. If I decide to play some GW without PvE skills, it is identical to Anet having disabled PvE skills for the duration of my play.

It is different in two ways. The first is that players perceive player-made and developer-made difficulty differently. If the game company tells a player, "Ok, go ahead and use any skill/class combination you can come up with, clever guy, and try to beat our game", then he'll feel pretty damn happy with himself when he succeeds, because he'll feel the game was balanced around going all-out. If you instead tell him "Well there's a special Cheat Mode version of the game you can use to do the same thing", the sense of euphoria will be far less, and he will feel slightly robbed. Rightly or wrongly, players do not view player-created limitations as a legitimate difficulty increase, and this directly affects their satisfaction with the game.

The second way is how it affects other players, as this is a multi-player game. Much as they deny it, people do check each other out, and don't like to see others getting the same rewards with less effort, even if it doesn't affect them directly. This feeling provides an incentive against making things more difficult for themselves without getting any benefit from it. It doesn't mean they are opposed to more challenge in principle -- as long as everyone else also has to step up to the same challenge.

Both of these are things that exist entirely in the player's head, but since it affects his enjoyment of the game, that makes them no less real.

[snaek]

Originally Posted by burst cancel

The fact is that cheat codes are available, and it's up to the player whether to use them or not - just like every other tool the game gives you.

cheat codes would obviously be banned in any kind of competitive or tournament play...
think of someone using steroids in professional sports

although that example is more subtle...
a better sports example would be imagine covering up ur team's net with a plastic wall

Originally Posted by gigashadow

People from each game genre define 'skill' differently, normally in such a way that it (conveniently) best represents the genre they play in.

slightly agree...i think its the nature of the word's definition
not people trying to askew the definition to apply it to their genre more suitably
i think it works much like the definition of "smarts"
u can be smart in math, but ur not smart in history
u can be skilled in swimming, but ur not skilled in running

my defintion of "skill" is the act of doing
how well u can perform in the game, physically
u can be knowledgeable in a game, but not have that physicality to perform well
or u can be the best strategist, but not be able to put those plans into action


the chess quote is very good
because the game does not appear to have any sort of appearance of physical challenge
so then it doesnt take skill?
yes it does...through the use of the clock
i dun follow tourney chess at all, but i believe that most (if not all) will be timed games
the skill comes from being able to use ur knowledge and strategy very quickly and changing and adapting on the fly
making it more akin to a real-time-strategy game, rather than a turn-based one

let me tell u
if starcraft was a tbs-strategy game...most of the skill would be non-existent as well
but because its a rts game, it involves lots of skill
and this skill level is measured (partially and somewhat inaccurately) by actions-per-minute
generally the higher u r apm, the higher ur skill level
(it doesnt measure any other factors like ur strategy/tactics or knowledge, etc...so jus because someone has a higher apm, doesnt mean they're a better player)


now whether or not street fighter requires more skill level than rts games...
i would be inclined to say yes
aside from the the very strict timing on certain moves (1-frame windows of opportunity @ 60fps)
there also comes into play ur reaction times (or reflexes)


fps games also require a lot of skill
its hard to judge overall tho because fps has a wide span of different types of games
some r more driven by skill, some more driven by tactics


edit: and while skill level may be a -huge- factor in determing how good a player is (especially when it comes to competitive games/sports)
it is not the -only- factor

edit #2: i also think its important to note that it doesnt take great skill to teach/coach a game/sport (tho it does help)
but it does take great knowledge and a deep understanding of the game/sport

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by englitdaudelin

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?")

This comment struck me because the last part (bolded) is very close to the document I've just started to design (let's call it "30 things you should know about Guild Wars"): at the most basic level, I'm not even sure if people know about this kind of stuff (hex, pips, compass, spell animation and sound, etc.), i.e. they haven't understood the depth of the User Interface (UI), which itself reflects the complexity of the game mechanics. I hope to be able to finish this not too late (not easy), it'd be something that'd start with a big picture of a GW screenshot and describe each and every aspect of the UI, as an excuse to describe the basics of the game mechanics. Not an in-depth look at the game (which is required if you want to know more than the basics), something rather short with quite a few links to other articles, but just enough to, maybe, make the n00b a little less n00b, give the newbie the right tool to start learning, and the casual player new information s/he may have missed.

GW lacks documentation. As holymasamune says, there are indeed plenty of stuff floating around, but it requires reading quite a lot, see for example wiki guides. But there's nothing that goes from the initial point (see the guide in the box!) to the point where people begin to think in terms of game mechanics (instead of "it's fun to spam this or slash that", or "this cookie cutter build works great!" without understanding why).

Tbh I'm not sure the "n00bs", "newbies" and "casuals" will read such a guide, given that they may not read stuff and may simply be playing the game. This is the part of the discussion about "motivation" of players, and the fact that the game is supposed to be "fun" (which is backed up by one piece of information: Guru is only a tiny part of the GW community, which in average makes a little or a lot of effort to try to understand the game, rather than simply play it). But yet I'd like to try that and maybe, just maybe, if it's good and people spread the word it can improve slightly the player skills at the grassroot level. (my belief is that such a basic guide can only be effective via word of mouth and as a starting point for learning, not an ultimate goal to become a "skilled player", which requires a lot of experience as pointed out here)

What do you think? Could "basic" players be interested in a such a "visual guide to swimming"? Could such a "30 things to know about Guild Wars" guide work and effectively improve player skill?

[Gigashadow]

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

What do you think? Could "basic" players be interested in a such a "visual guide to swimming"? Could such a "30 things to know about Guild Wars" guide work and effectively improve player skill?

I feel that if a player lacks the motivation to research, find the answers, and better themselves on their own, they aren't going to suddenly board the become-good train from reading a one time how-to guide.

Generally I feel that if I encounter a player and he's a bad player, the odds are that he's always been bad and always will be bad. This is because "good players", even if they are brand new to a game, self-improve rapidly and don't stay bad for very long, so the odds of encountering them in their "currently bad" state are slim.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by Gigashadow

This is because "good players", even if they are brand new to a game, self-improve rapidly and don't stay bad for very long, so the odds of encountering them in their "currently bad" state are slim.

You would then probably label me as a bad player because it took me a long while to become "not bad" (not to say "good"), and I've seen a few people expressing the same viewpoint on Guru. And I doubt that "rapid improvement" is part of the definition of "good player".

(I've seen this while teaching, the students that started at the lowest level in September and slowly worked their way through the Maths teachings are now probably "better" than the average ones which believe that the knowledge they had in September from their A-levels is enough and haven't made much progress; teaching is NOT about the destination but about the journey)

By the way, this discussion is not supposed to be about good and bad as I said in the OP (I think). It's rather about how to collectively address the problem rather than point fingers (if they're good they're good, if not they're bad and they'll stay that way). But my feeling is that if I advertise such a guide on Guru, no one will appreciate it and even less people will share it, thus leading to it being totally uneffective. But not because it's a bad guide, but because 1) people don't really care about "teaching" (again, notice the double quotes); 2) even if they do care, they prefer that others self-improve; 3) they feel it's a waste of time and not "fun".

[[DE]]

95% of Guild Wars players are bad at Guild Wars.

The 5% that aren't bad are composed of the utmost top PvP'rs and Koreans.

Also, 4% out of the 5% that are good have quit the game.

[Savio]

It's difficult to write a guide to GW in general. You'll either cover so much that the reader will be overwhelmed, and/or you'd miss vital info and create a bad player instead. It's hard enough to write a guide on a single profession that covers everything thoroughly yet could be read by a new player easily; a guide on GW in general would be chaotic.

Even if you wrote a guide, it wouldn't be more effective than current methods of learning. What group of players would be better suited to learning from a manual than from just playing the game?

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Sorry, but you're never testing all of your skills to the best of your abilities. If giving yourself more options lets you test more skills "to the best of your abilities", then PvE skills would increase challenge, not decrease it. How do you think you'd play if your attacks did only half of their normal damage? Or if you only had half of your normal armor? Putting limitations on yourself forces you to use your remaining resources more efficiently. That's the entire reason that things like PvE skills supposedly "destroy challenge": they provide you with additional resources, allowing you to ignore or underplay others.

See why so many are pissed? No longer is actually coming up with proper builds and other important skills effective, they are now a self-enforced limitation. It's no longer "I went against the game", it's "I went against myself". It also becomes annoying to improve yourself while you're gimped because you're always knowing what to do to not be having such a more difficult time: not gimp yourself.

Even if you're successful while gimped, is that newly earned player skill going to matter? What's the point of mastering the double-barreled shotgun in Doom if id Software added a patch that provided an unlimited ammo BFG at the start of every level? For fun, sure, but it can also be fun figuring out how to really use a different weapon for one the situation calls for it and it's largely disappointing when there's no use for it (like what we have now, being complained about on both PvE *and* PvP sides).

I want to take a brief moment to look at what Epic did: When people were saying that Gears of War was too hard, what did they do? They didn't lower the difficulty of Insanity in the sequel, they provided a new and easier level than Normal: Casual.

What ANet did was what could be considered the "wrong" way: instead of providing easier points of access or ways to further progress your skill, they provided tools that could be used anywhere in the game and flat out made *all* of it easier. This made it so that those who didn't want to become better didn't have to, and those who are newer to the game will spend less time in the game.

No, you can't cater to everyone. You're never going to cater to everyone. Epic knew this. They also knew that if they did appeal to those who wanted an easier time in Insanity (easier to gain achievement bragging rights, equivilent to e-peen) they would be making those who wanted to sustain the game pissed off.

Then it comes down to, as you said, "dah moniez" - in which case, Epic did the right thing. In providing an easier difficulty level they were able to make it easier for those both new to the game and who were having an already hard time. If they did the "other thing", however, it would lessen the skill threshold, piss off a portion of the community who were largely experienced/knowledgeable about the game, and can generally raise some eyebrows in the developer's direction.

Originally Posted by Gigashadow

I think that spending the amount of money they did, they would have preferred to make a PvE (or PvE/PvP) MMO if they thought it would have a good chance against WoW, but realized that would be completely futile. Instead, they had no choice but to fight for the scraps and carve out a PvP niche -- which to be fair seemed like a potentially decent market, given that something like half of WoW's servers are PvP servers, and battlegrounds there were popular. That's also an area they already have prior expertise in. So my opinion of it is their making a PvP MMO was more out of necessity, than any sort of integrity to game design.

Given that logic, though, why did LOTR:O go ahead and make a centrally PvE-focused game - and still see success?

Largely, the thing that's backing numerous MMO's these days is the IP, and that's one thing that WoW, LOTR:O and WAR all share in common: a very large, old, and supported history. Because of that WAR really could've gone in any direction they chose.

PvP servers =/= PvP, btw, unless you consider continually preventing people from summoning PvP. Instantaneous duels can be interesting at times, though.

[snaek]

i agree wit savio that reading a guide isnt the most effective way to get better at a game
but it does help on a basic level

i can say wit about 99% certainty that most ppl get the best improvement at multiplayer games through player interaction and communication

but gw's community at this point is far too spread apart and disconnected from one another for this to occur at a large scale

pve, ever since heroes, theres usually no incentive to actually play with another person
and because there r 3 continents...even if u wanted to play wit another person, its hard to get nuff ppl to do so since the population is too far spread apart

pvp, theres a lot of division of players moreso than other games
theres many elitists in gw of all skill levels
(yes there r bad players wit elitist attitudes)
i blame this on the "pvp farming" aspect of gw
no one wants to communicate...they dun have time to help...they must focus on farming


personally i really dun think very much can be done at this point .___.

[zwei2stein]

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

What do you think? Could "basic" players be interested in a such a "visual guide to swimming"? Could such a "30 things to know about Guild Wars" guide work and effectively improve player skill?

It is indeed good idea. I myself wanted to write something like that after I read book from head-first series.

They are very funny, very well written and full of facts. Pleasure to read even if you are already well versed in subject just because its writing style.

However, it is very costly in terms of time and it would have to involve several smart people with good writing skills who "know how to play" to ensure good quality. Not something you do in afternoon.

[Daesu]

Originally Posted by snaek

i agree wit savio that reading a guide isnt the most effective way to get better at a game
but it does help on a basic level

I doubt most players bother to read a guide from beginning to the end.

What I find disturbing is even the in-game knowledge of this guru community seems to be degenerating as good players quit and disappear. Certain game facts that were well known 2 years ago are almost unheard of right now and people are making the same mistakes all over again but this time without the guidance of those wiser players that have already quit.

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Yeah, I know. I've already covered your group in my previous posts - the group of people who don't actually care about challenge, but rather rewards and recognition for being skilled. Remember what else I said in those posts? Something along the lines of, "that's why you can't cater to everyone", and "money-driven decision-making"?

Why people specifically play games is much less important here than why the game attracts players. I'm not convinced you can't cater to everyone, because we have seen it done. It is still the best way to make money. More on that later.

Originally Posted by Improvavel

I think its more because it is a team game (and a large one at that). Most of the successful e-sport games are 1vs1.

CS? But yes it is true that most successful games are 1v1....although GW has HB but I wouldn't even put that into the equation whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

In the meantime you have to constantly scout what the other player is doing so you can adapt, even destroy some of your own units yourself. Before you can do this, you have to know everything about the game, maps, units, strats, calculating chances etc. Retreat and repair units to save production costs. Know when to counter, where to counter etc etc. I'll be honest, the stress and training involved almost killed me.

No offense really, but GW PvP doesn't even come close imo.

It doesn't come close?? I'd argue that at a time it was more intense! I'm not saying it was specifically better, but the tactical decisions and team based play at the height of Guild Wars were unmatched. What other 8v8 esport require the sheer amount of teamwork, tactical, and individual decisions? I don't consider it so great anymore though, mostly due to the balance of the game. What happened to Guild Wars is the equivalent of Blizzard balancing SC regularly to make each of the races broken for certain periods of time. SC wouldn't be the game it is today if that happened.

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

By the way, this discussion is not supposed to be about good and bad as I said in the OP (I think). It's rather about how to collectively address the problem rather than point fingers (if they're good they're good, if not they're bad and they'll stay that way).

The problem here is that the only answer is pointing fingers. The other poster said it perfectly...if somebody wants to be good in Guild Wars they can get good. Maybe not the best, but definately in the "good" category. It is all a matter of want...I don't buy that the game is too complicated or that people can be taught to want. While your guide is a cool idea, I don't think it would solve either of those problems.

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Even if you're successful while gimped, is that newly earned player skill going to matter? What's the point of mastering the double-barreled shotgun in Doom if id Software added a patch that provided an unlimited ammo BFG at the start of every level? For fun, sure, but it can also be fun figuring out how to really use a different weapon for one the situation calls for it and it's largely disappointing when there's no use for it (like what we have now, being complained about on both PvE *and* PvP sides).

I think one of Burst's points is that if the codes exist in a game, you are ALREADY self imposing (gimping) yourself if you don't use them. Technically not using the codes is not a game imposed challenge, but self imposed. Although I think the GW situation is much different (and I said why in a previous post), I think there is a good point there.

I'd argue that the only way to have a perfect challenge setting without any self imposing involved is playing against other players....but that would probably go off topic. To me this thread has gone way too philosopical and not too practical.

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

No, you can't cater to everyone. You're never going to cater to everyone. Epic knew this. They also knew that if they did appeal to those who wanted an easier time in Insanity (easier to gain achievement bragging rights, equivilent to e-peen) they would be making those who wanted to sustain the game pissed off.

Why did you cave in on that? How many examples can we name that "cater to everyone" and still make loads of money? A lot...

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I think one of Burst's points is that if the codes exist in a game, you are ALREADY self imposing (gimping) yourself if you don't use them. Technically not using the codes is not a game imposed challenge, but self imposed. Although I think the GW situation is much different (and I said why in a previous post), I think there is a good point there.

The thing is, at least for most games, those "cheat codes" aren't readily accessible. If they're in there they must be intended for use from the devs, right? But if that were so why aren't they just listed easily in the options menu?

The devs may be wanting to keep you on the rail of "this is how the game is meant to be played, but those cheat codes? Just shits and giggles". That could be part of the reason they call them "cheat codes", since it's going against the "preferred method of play". Or it could be a reward for actually figuring it out, in which case, ehhh k?

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Why did you cave in on that?

What?

All that that passage said was that you're never going to make 100% of all players happy...not that this is a bad thing, since I'd classify those players as crazy.

Example: There was one person I knew after they took out attribute refund points who was actually pissed at ANet for it...Yeah, I wish I was joking, too. The point is that these "wackos" aren't really a loss.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The problem here is that the only answer is pointing fingers. The other poster said it perfectly...if somebody wants to be good in Guild Wars they can get good. Maybe not the best, but definately in the "good" category. It is all a matter of want...I don't buy that the game is too complicated or that people can be taught to want. While your guide is a cool idea, I don't think it would solve either of those problems.

This answer is so wrong on many points, sorry but I'm short on time and will only let you ponder on this thought:

just imagine what our RL would be with this philosophy (where pointing fingers really is important because it's just not about "fun"), a society with only personal responsibility and duty? No room for collaboration, I'll do something so that it can help the others, rather than telling them "go grab a book and learn" (an answer I'm sometimes tempted to say to my students...btw I do tell them to read books, but I tell them specifics, with topic, page numbers, and precise exercise, not just "go read a book").

No wonder that this community is not healthy (I don't blame you personally, I blame this mentality). How do you think our community would be if, instead of lengthily discussing theoretical topics on gaming you'd spend it on teaching new or inexperienced players? (I'm not asking you to do it, just ponder on what difference it'd make)

[Akaraxle]

The quality of the players in Guild Wars that don't try to engage in competitive PvP (GvG) has severely degraded over time, the reasons being manifold.

For PvE, I blame the lack of a proper tutorial, a gentle learning curve, skills being handled out little by little, and missions that require teamwork. Prophecies had all that, subsequent chapters didn't; as a result, players became close-minded and more prone to farming and AI exploiting, things I wouldn't consider "skill".

For PvP, it may be the degradation of all the formats due to unmantainable balance and the lack of a proper entry point. The skillset introduced by subsequent chapters made it so there are stronger, less subtle tools to achieve several things and thus it is easier to "win". Also, the removal of build templates (albeit outdated) was a terrible choice in my opinion: newbies don't have a starting point for their character, a general idea that tells them what their role is, and end up rolling a lolsin from the wiki thinking they're owning shit because they're pressing buttons in the right order.

Concerning GvG, there simply isn't a way to get into it besides GvG itself, which can be quite brutal and discouraging and first. Random Arena is blighted by sins and hex spam and seldom involves teamplay; Team Arena is gimmick land; Heroes' Ascent is a joke (when Tombs was still somewhat meaningful, players met and guilds formed in ToPK); Hero Battles is a steaming pile of donkey crap. Alliance Battles is a fun format which can help one develop some degree of movement strategy, but most people seem to care about nuking shrines with arcane echo RoJ or MS so it's not exactly a place where you can develop much skill either.

Then there's those people that have been playing for 3+ years and still haven't made it at least into the top500. I honestly have no explanation for such cases.

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The thing is, at least for most games, those "cheat codes" aren't readily accessible. If they're in there they must be intended for use from the devs, right? But if that were so why aren't they just listed easily in the options menu?

The devs may be wanting to keep you on the rail of "this is how the game is meant to be played, but those cheat codes? Just shits and giggles". That could be part of the reason they call them "cheat codes", since it's going against the "preferred method of play". Or it could be a reward for actually figuring it out, in which case, ehhh k?

This is a good point actually. Many cheat codes aren't even accessible until well after the game has already been released as a way to boost sales. I don't think they are meant to be used immediately the first time you play the game.

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

What?

All that that passage said was that you're never going to make 100% of all players happy...not that this is a bad thing, since I'd classify those players as crazy.

First you were saying the best games are for everyone, then you said no game can cater to everyone. Perhaps I misunderstood. There is a difference between catering to everyone and making everyone happy. I think games can do the former but not the latter.

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

just imagine what our RL would be with this philosophy (where pointing fingers really is important because it's just not about "fun"), a society with only personal responsibility and duty? No room for collaboration, I'll do something so that it can help the others, rather than telling them "go grab a book and learn" (an answer I'm sometimes tempted to say to my students...btw I do tell them to read books, but I tell them specifics, with topic, page numbers, and precise exercise, not just "go read a book").

No wonder that this community is not healthy (I don't blame you personally, I blame this mentality). How do you think our community would be if, instead of lengthily discussing theoretical topics on gaming you'd spend it on teaching new or inexperienced players? (I'm not asking you to do it, just ponder on what difference it'd make)

I don't mind people teaching or others wanting to learn (in fact I advocate both)...but I'm talking about "want" here. In society if people don't want to do something they simply won't do it. This is especially true when the risk for not doing is low and the reward for doing is not enough (like we have in GW). If a person doesn't want to go to school he/she won't go. If a person doesn't want to read a book they won't. I personally think this extends all the way to if a person doesn't want to succeed they probably won't. If a person wanted to succeed, they would attempt to do the things required to do so. Hiding behind "the game is too hard" or anything else is just excuses that really nobody is going to care about in the end. You simply can't teach people to do things they don't want to do.