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

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

But would you just change the way people play and have fun for nothing better than status quo and epenis?

For depth and game integrity I would. Everybody would be better off that way and nobody would lose.

Originally Posted by Improvavel

If you are changing stuff make sure it is to make the game more interesting and enjoyable, not to frustrate people to prevent them from getting titles and skins.

That is the whole point. Nobody wants game and difficulty balance to piss people off...they want it to make the game better as a whole.

[Red Sonya]

As a side note: in regards to fast food being "high quality", you might want to pick this up. I'm hoping things have changed by then.

You seem like an intelligent individual, so, I'm sure you are familiar with "the sky is falling" and "the little boy who cried wolf" syndromes out there. The medical field is never 100% correct. They told me oh 18 years ago I was going to have a heart attack in a very short time. Well that 18 years have past my blood pressure is 154/98, my cholestorol is like 399, my glucose is 384 and my Ac12 or something or other is like 12.6 and no heart attacks, no strokes, no blah blah and I had those numbers for 18 years now. Studies just do not mean everything, nor polls as no one is God or a god or a guru (no pun intended here lol). But, in all my years I've seen the sky is falling and this is bad for you and that is bad for you and generally living is bad for you so.....don't breathe ok? lol

On the other side of that though NUMBERS do generally equate to some "structure" of TRUTH...that I will agree with, but, there's just too many variables in life and even in people for any ONE thing to say something is this or that. GW is successful because GW WAS like GW was out of the box. WOW IS successful because of the way WOW is and it's been a popluar game since well World of Warcraft I. WOW by the NUMBERS is the most successful, but, of course it doesn't mean WOW is the ONLY successful game out there. Lord knows EQ is successful (was the King for a long time before WOW), Ascherons Call is successful, EQ2 is successful, AO is successful, UO is successful. And the list goes on an on. There seems to be some "my game has to be the best" syndrome here at the Guru though. Most everybody wants to knock WOW or any other game that is part of the mmo/mmorpg genre and well they can knock them all they want to and they can say GW is the best etc etc, but, the NUMBERS still say which is the BEST game. I don't really think that is much of an issue except with those that can't accept the truth.

My point is that by the NUMBERS WOW's ENGINE and TYPES of play are the MOST successful. 10 million people can't be wrong as my analogy of McDonalds everyday. Yeah there's the bad for you to eat message by doctors who eat escargo every night and probably boiled shrimp and lobster (you ever see the cholestorol levels in those things?) who tell US what's good for US kinda like religious leaders try to tell us how to live OUR lives while they go around stealing poor lil old ladies money and playing with our children in not so nice ways. So, I'm a bit don't givea damn what doctors and religious leaders say type today based on my lifetime experiences. You can choose to believe what you want and I too will choose to believe what I want and know and see. We all make choices and of course we all think we individually make always the right ones.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

You don't have to demonstrate a theorem to know how to use its corollary. You don't have to know the equation about critical hits or the equation about caster spell damage to see its effects.

Typical misunderstanding of Maths: no one is asking you to proove/demonstrate anything, I'm pointing to the "basic understanding" of Maths, idem for GW game mechanics. You don't need to be a Maths major to understand how AL affects damage.

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'm not convinced a good guide can be made if we can't even decide why the game is being played and what type of skill should matter.

I don't need to convince you, because too much time is lost in discussion here, and if I could have been able to convince you, it would have happened before.

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

the best etc etc, but, the NUMBERS still say which is the BEST game. I don't really think that is much of an issue except with those that can't accept the truth.

You have got to be kidding me. Unless you are one of those people who think Titanic is the best movie of all time and McDonalds is the best food of all time. Just because a company/franchise makes a very successful run has no bearing on their quality if you ask me...it simply means they are very good at many other things such as appealing to a wide audience, filling a void, etc etc.

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I don't need to convince you, because too much time is lost in discussion here, and if I could have been able to convince you, it would have happened before.

You still haven't told us how you are going to make a guide (to my knowledge I may have missed it a while back). You have only talked about a general guide that would put everything together for players because the current guides are inadequate (which I disagree with). In my opinion you would have much more success with a guide that teaches how to be skilled in a specific part of the game. The question to me becomes what kind of skill is worth teaching?

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

So, I'm a bit don't givea damn what doctors and religious leaders say type today based on my lifetime experiences. You can choose to believe what you want and I too will choose to believe what I want and know and see. We all make choices and of course we all think we individually make always the right ones.

That's not an accurate comparison. You know that, right? You're saying that regardless of the quality you're going to go through with it anyways. That's totally fine, but that doesn't change the quality. In regards to your experience: YMMV. If I decided to swallow fire and live perfectly fine from it, it doesn't mean the same will happen to the person next to me. YMMV.

Again: I'm not stating that the numbers are "wrong". It's simply that WoW has a lot to offer to all sorts of players, and many of those sorts of players don't really care about the going's-on with the game. They just want to get in there and hit some shit, there ain't nothing wrong with that. There *is* something wrong with that being *all* that you cater to.

Either way, none of this really justifies what's happened in Guild Wars: If the "best way" to make the most amount of players is to remove a huge chunk of skill required to get to the rewards easier, how the hell has WoW been surviving for so long (even before it got mad easy)?

Originally Posted by Improvavel

PvE skills would. Since I play 2p+6heroes, and I use PvE only skills to cover heroes AI weakness.

To be specific, it would affect your ability to earn titles.

Originally Posted by Improvavel

But would you just change the way people play and have fun for nothing better than status quo and epenis?

I think you missed this (for about the umpteenth time):

Originally Posted by Me from earlier

Before I'm done, I want you to go through my posts and count the number of times I stated "I don't care about the rewards".

Got it? Good, now you can stop saying stupid crap like this:

Thank you.

Reread above text repeatedly until glued into mind. Is there any specific reason you don't believe us?

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

(to my knowledge I may have missed it a while back).

You did miss it probably.

The question to me becomes what kind of skill is worth teaching?

Which one isn't worth?

[Age]

I have come to the conclusion the reason most ppl $uck at this game is reliance on heros and hench.Then there is the mob AI control which should be changed instead of whole mob coming at you just one does if you attack it or aggro it.I stick by my first response as to why they do considering I am playing another game atm and most are better cooperatively where there is none of that in this game.

Heros and hench make it possible to solo most of the game where there is no cooperation.The builds being used are not that great as well as no strategy.How do you expect a person to play well in group with what said?

There use to be cooperation in this game once upon a time.

[RedNova88]

Correct, Age. However, heroes are a blessing, seeing as how without them you'd either have to tolerate henchmen, or you'd have to PuG. You could always group with friends, but in Guild Wars the community isn't exactly great a lot of the time so making friends can sometimes be difficult. I agree that it makes things easier, and people become reliant on certain things, which makes them weaker in the long run. Been in groups and have had people run ahead of the group as if we were heroes, then whine about dying. Or monks pinging their energy and asking politely for the group to wait... And then they don't.

Stupid people and popularity draw to each other. This is why (if you were there) and played WoW when it first came out the community was (dare I say?) enjoyable. WoW was still very popular when it first came out, but the community was far better than it is now. I guess the same could be said for Guild Wars, the bigger something is the more likely you are to run into random jerks and noobs. HM had just come out when I started GW, so I've really no clue how the community used to be with GW.

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

For depth and game integrity I would. Everybody would be better off that way and nobody would lose.



That is the whole point. Nobody wants game and difficulty balance to piss people off...they want it to make the game better as a whole.

If it is because of the game integrity, I'm sold.

Although we need a character wiping and a purgex of everyone's xunlai chest .

We don't want other people, although it doesn't personally affect me, to be affected and feel bad about the titles and items other people got because of bad design.

We also need to make sure 600 smiting monks and 55 get destroyed and the UWSC too.

So, no consumables, no PvE-only skills, no crappy skills.

All for the good of the game integrity and skill.

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

To be specific, it would affect your ability to earn titles.

Lol. As if you need PvE only skills to get titles.

Originally Posted by Age

I have come to the conclusion the reason most ppl $uck at this game is reliance on heros and hench.

Sincerely, controlling an earth shaker Koss in DoA raven hearth gloom cave, making him stay body blocking and not get to far ahead, selecting offensive stance when I want him to fight everything, avoid combat when I want him to stay back, while managing my own character, doesn't make me weaker.

Community sucks because they care too much about titles and skins that have no relevance to the game play.

Sure it is nice to have them, but you invite some one to play and they will say "I don't need that dungeon", "I'm mapping" or "I'm sorry but I can make 500k in 30 minutes trading in kamadan".

[kostolomac]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

For depth and game integrity I would. I would be better off that way and nobody would lose.

You fail to realize that depth is subjective, for one person who says there is no depth there is at least one who says there is, who is correct? You want to restrict the rewards to those who you think don't deserve them. This is another reason why you want to nerf, nerf, nerf; you want to turn the clock back so you can experience the game when you played it the first time which is impossible.

A bit on topic, the community sucks because of PvX wiki which makes them skip an important part of the game, maikng builds and trying them.

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by kostolomac

A bit on topic, the community sucks because of PvX wiki which makes them skip an important part of the game, maikng builds and trying them.

Yeah for the first few months, I just played the game without looking at strategy and guides to get a feel for it without preconceptions.

[zwei2stein]

Originally Posted by kostolomac

A bit on topic, the community sucks because of PvX wiki which makes them skip an important part of the game, maikng builds and trying them.

Or is it because passable build from wiki that is played in 1-2-3 style is more than enough to win?

[kostolomac]

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Or is it because passable build from wiki that is played in 1-2-3 style is more than enough to win?

If you want to nitpick, nearly every good build is like that. The problem is that the player doesn't experience the making of a build himself, but just copies is. I only use pvx wiki for farming builds.

Also, the best thing you can teach a player is to always ask why. Why does something work like that, why did I fail, why did I win? If someone starts asking that, he will improve much faster and learn more.

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Or is it because passable build from wiki that is played in 1-2-3 style is more than enough to win?

Yes tank and spank by a GvG top team to do DoA is skill. Same tank and spank build played by PuG is 1-2-3 style.

Of course every single build has a majority of skills that are used constantly and a few that are used on occasion.

If most of the skills are in your bar without being used, then you have a bad build.

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

If it is because of the game integrity, I'm sold.

Although we need a character wiping and a purgex of everyone's xunlai chest .

So, no consumables, no PvE-only skills, no crappy skills.

All for the good of the game integrity and skill.

Correct. Even though I wouldn't personally care about a wiping (even with my FoW chars ) you still can't do that. Like I said, we aren't in the business of pissing people off over trivial things. People play the game for different reasons. The problem becomes when something abusive is one of those reasons (like old soul reaping/ursan or current consumables/pve skills) where it must be dealt with at the cost of some people getting pissed. We are in the business of making the game better...well at least Anet should be heh.

Originally Posted by kostolomac

You fail to realize that depth is subjective, for one person who says there is no depth there is at least one who says there is, who is correct? You want to restrict the rewards to those who you think don't deserve them. This is another reason why you want to nerf, nerf, nerf; you want to turn the clock back so you can experience the game when you played it the first time which is impossible.

That is why you strive to make the game deep for the better players of your game. Doing so will make it deeper to everybody else.

And again, this has nothing to do with rewards and I wish people would stop bringing that up. I could give a crap less about rewards. I wouldn't care if GW had ZERO possessions (being a true PvP game). But I understand that there are many people who DO care about rewards so they must be attended to.

And I know I will never be able to experience the game when I first played it (that would be awesome but sadly no). But I do know that the game has taken drastic turns over the years that would better if they never happened.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Or is it because passable build from wiki that is played in 1-2-3 style is more than enough to win?

BTW, I was listening to a GVG vent recording of a KiSu game a while back, and all I could hear for most of the first 20mins (stopped at the end of the first part) is an endless repetition of "3 2 1". Yes, the infamous spike metagame, which requires so much skill right? I've been wondering what differentiates the "skilled players" from the other ones for a while, is it hand-eye coordination mainly? Look at this video on "Become a better gamer" for a funny (but true) explanation of why this is plausible:
http://uk.video.ign.com/dor/articles...4uo71 99xbvwz

Originally Posted by kostolomac

If you want to nitpick, nearly every good build is like that. The problem is that the player doesn't experience the making of a build himself, but just copies is. I only use pvx wiki for farming builds.

Also, the best thing you can teach a player is to always ask why. Why does something work like that, why did I fail, why did I win? If someone starts asking that, he will improve much faster and learn more.

Completely agree. But you need one bit more, when you look at skills, you need to understand game mechanics so that your build does actually work, rather than feels it could work. Trying, failing and changing is a brilliant method, but how many people have the patience?

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

If it is because of the game integrity, I'm sold...

We've been pretty much advocating that since we started here.

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Lol. As if you need PvE only skills to get titles.

Then how would balancing PvE skills affect your game?

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

That is why you strive to make the game deep for the better players of your game. Doing so will make it deeper to everybody else.

Thing is the only way to make it deeper is to make it continuously challenging.

Thing is, if you beat Part X of the game, you will be able to beat Part X of the game again, by repetition of the same strategy.

You can make a mistake, like over aggroing, but it isn't faulty strategy, it's faulty tactics.

You can increase the chance of failure by faulty tactics by improving enemies builds, giving them the illusion of a cohesive team - example of that is Stone Summits and Charr balanced groups in EOTN, erratic patrols and pop ups. Even then, they will present the exact same AI issues.

The AI issues aren't fault of the players or the game becoming dumber. Actually the game became better in terms of AI - they now scatter from AoE damage.

In a game of limited content it is impossible to achieve continuous challenge. Either you add more content or you implement ever changing opposition. That is PvP.

You can give me whatever examples you wish of great games and their difficulties levels. I bet you will be hard pressed to find one where you spent more time playing vs AI than in GW (I don't think I spent as much time in Diablo II).

And again, this has nothing to do with rewards and I wish people would stop bringing that up. I could give a crap less about rewards. I wouldn't care if GW had ZERO possessions (being a true PvP game). But I understand that there are many people who DO care about rewards so they must be attended to.

When people start this thread, and you included, say that some players aren't supposed to play HM and some of the rewards they achieve are undeserved and that is a reason to remove consumables and PvE only skills, it gets a bit hard to dissociate those things.

You will also have to attend to the players that have beaten the game more than once too.

Starting that 3rd or fourth, or in my case tenth, character isn't fun. All those quests, and missions that I can do while asleep... I want to move. And those missions where I fall asleep, pretty much include every mission in NM. I want to get my characters in HM and Elite areas/dungeons.

As loads here will state, they dislike grind. They play GW because grind was small.

But then if we talk about reducing the time needed, by usage of powerful skills and consumables, people complain because what used to take hours, now takes a fraction of that time.

So how is it?

Is grind bad or not?

Is it bad if we are talking about "reputation titles", which by the way require less grind now, meaning players get more powerful skills earlier in their careers as opposed to later when they were more experienced, but it is good if we are talking about doing a vanquish (or the same vanquish by nth time for faction) or doing an elite area/dungeon?

Spending time to get somewhat stronger at the game is bad, but having to spend x hours doing some area for the nth time opposed to x/2 hours doing that same area for the nth time is good?

As it is, the PvE end game is getting resources to spend them on money sinks or grinding titles.

Is it bad removing the time needed (read grind) to acquire your resources for the money sinks?

Look at the change on the level required to go in EOTN. For players starting for the first time, it is bad. They are skipping loads and getting their hands on consumables and skills a lot powerful quite early (and the less grind required means more powerful too), but for veteran players means you can skip a large part of the repetition content.

You cant ignore neither the veterans or the new players.

snaek said something that it took time for the player base, veterans included, to catch and understand the power of skills like save yourselves and cry of pain.

So veterans aren't challenged by the game but they still take time to realize and use the power of the tools available but then when the less veteran/sharper player base catch up, they cant use those tools anymore, because the veterans are already done with those?

You cant ignore GW PvE is a limited in size environment.

After you finish PvE and if you want to keep playing PvE, what is left is repetition.

I know Bryant Again will say "but look at Fallout 3 and Mass Effect! The harder difficulty settings are challenging! GW HM isn't challenging anymore!".
How many hours did you spent playing Fallout 3 and Mass Effect? How many hours did you spent playing GW?

I know I've played some 4500+ hours in GW. Only 500 of those in varied PvP.

Can you say to me that I will be challenged by Mass Effect and Fallout 3 after 4000+ hours?

If I can I'm going to buy those right now! (well only if I can play them over the internet with my GF)

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then how would balancing PvE skills affect your game?

Increasing time needed to kill.

If you nerf defenses, more resources from offense will need to be relocated for defense - dead teams do no damage.

If you nerf offense, you just cant relocate resources from defense to offense because enemies are still as strong as ever. Most likely, you will need to increase defense, decreasing offense further more.

2 player + 6heroes are much much slower than human teams already. That is why I need 4-5 hours to do a heroway DoA full run in NM (no consumables though and the breaks to breath and eat and whatnot) as opposed to like 1 hour or less for cry teams in HM (they use consumables though).

Removal of Save yourselves for example, could imply changing one of the human characters for Extend conditions duty, meaning less damage (and if techno babble also goes an additional source of daze), maybe the drop of one of the 3 copies of discord for [[ward against harm] and further wards.

So, slower.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Thing is the only way to make it deeper is to make it continuously challenging.

I don't think that's what we're asking here. Sure these changes would draw me a bit more back into the game, but it's more about maintaining it, keeping it to what it once was, and with chance improving it.

Originally Posted by Improvavel

But then if we talk about reducing the time needed, by usage of powerful skills and consumables, people complain because what used to take hours, now takes a fraction of that time.

So how is it?

Is grind bad or not?

Uh, if we wanted that "grind" reduced, we wouldn't want it reduced through breaking the game.

Originally Posted by Improvavel

I know Bryant Again will say "but look at Fallout 3 and Mass Effect! The harder difficulty settings are challenging! GW HM isn't challenging anymore!".

I don't think you even know why I brought those games up.

Originally Posted by Improvavel

...

So, slower.

That's usually the result when you nerf overpowered crap.