Curse

ZenRgy · Sep 07, 2008, 09:22 PM // 21:22

Guild Wars balance isn't meant to be a game of rock, paper, scissors.

Also the major problems in Guild Wars PvP (gimmick builds) aren't "leet builds". People shouldn't have to bring 4 copies of aegis, 2 bsurge and 3 copies of "Shields up!" to face 3-2-1 builds such as ranger spike (or hex removal on all midlines to counter hexes). The "There are counters for everything." argument is flawed.

Kenagalaz · Sep 07, 2008, 09:41 PM // 21:41

No one REALLY cares about who the problem is. People might say it to express their frustration (because for many people that's the only way they know how to). But reaching a conclusion of who the problem is won't change anything. The real question is what innovation will bring change that will address the issue at hand.

zwei2stein · Sep 07, 2008, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain_carter

I agree with this, the lack of new campaigns is the problem we have, that was the way things were meant to be and the way that the game stayed interesting and kept people playing, the game doesn't work anywhere near as well without these content additions.

I'd disagree with it being Jeff Strain lying that is the problem, more whoever or whatever made him a liar, which may have been himself I don't know whose decision it was to cease creating new campaigns.

He did'nt lie at that time because he probly thought it will happen.

But it is not easy either. It simple matter of scale:

Quests. Each chapter requires connection quests. Two per previous existing chapter. CH4 would have had 6 those quests. CH5 8, CH10 would feature 18 *new* quests just to connect! That is explorable or two worth of quests. to intercononect 10 expansions you need, what, 90 quests?.

Skills. Chapter gives aditional skills for previous classes. 25 per class plus 75 for introduced class. Ch 10 would, if they continued with skills this way they would add 750 brand new skills (!!!). By that time game would have well over 5 thousands skills.

Armors. If by chapter 10 you have 24 classes, do math on how many armor sets there would be for them based on how NF handled foreign chars.

Just those 24 classes. Or weapon skins for 24 classes times 10 expansions worth of weapons. You can create sword looking thing only so-many-times.

If everything went fine then Chapter 7 would have been out right now, and combined size of GW world would be 2 times of WoW. Given size of arenanet you can see how this is impossible.

Bryant Again · Sep 07, 2008, 10:03 PM // 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Oh, btw, the problem is that the game is old and was by its very design can't last forever.

Honestly, what game can? While yes there are games that I'm still playing to this day, it's entirely subjective.

BuD · Sep 07, 2008, 10:53 PM // 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Honestly, what game can?

The original Unreal Tournament released in 1999 is still going strong, it may not be up on the X-Fire top 10 but there's still a lot of people playing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament

Phaern Majes · Sep 07, 2008, 11:09 PM // 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by isamu kurosawa

Misquote ftl.

I seid "People don't pug out of personal choice."

That implies that there are people who choose not to pug, not that absolutly every gw player chooses not to pug.

The fact that you know people that DO choose to pug does not mean that everybody chooses to pug.

If you are going to start a counter-arguement make sure you know what it is about first.

Sorry ambiguous statements get me sometimes. I took it to mean that there were plenty of puggers but they didn't pug out of choice. Rereading I see that it could mean what you intended it to mean, so I retract my previous statement

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycan X

The original Unreal Tournament released in 1999 is still going strong, it may not be up on the X-Fire top 10 but there's still a lot of people playing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament

Heh I even still pull the game out every now and then, still the best unreal tourney to me.

Winterclaw · Sep 08, 2008, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenRgy

Guild Wars balance isn't meant to be a game of rock, paper, scissors.

Also the major problems in Guild Wars PvP (gimmick builds) aren't "leet builds". People shouldn't have to bring 4 copies of aegis, 2 bsurge and 3 copies of "Shields up!" to face 3-2-1 builds such as ranger spike (or hex removal on all midlines to counter hexes). The "There are counters for everything." argument is flawed.

I hate ranger spike and would be happy if there was a better way to counter it... Maybe a ward against ranged skill for earth els. And if you do bring all those skills to counter it, you lose all those slots that can be used against other builds that might not be ranger spike.

Bryant Again · Sep 08, 2008, 12:20 AM // 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycan X

The original Unreal Tournament released in 1999 is still going strong, it may not be up on the X-Fire top 10 but there's still a lot of people playing it.

I am offended that you felt the need to link to it : ( Anywayz

There's a ton of games out there that are like that. Many still are actively played, some have more players than others, and some are still booming years after release. But games are merely just toys. They're not meant to last forever. If you get bored of them than np.

Granted, some games do really hold players for years and years on end, and it's very likely the same will happen with Guild Wars.

@below: late by 2 mins ;p

trialist · Sep 08, 2008, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Honestly, what game can? While yes there are games that I'm still playing to this day, it's entirely subjective.

While a game may not be played all the time forever, a game can become a classic that is still played years after it was hot.

IGN Top 25 PC Games of All Time 2007

Number 1 is XCOM: Ufo Defense, released in 1994, beating even Starcraft, as well as WOW, and its even more amazing, given that the game was originally released in dos and people even download dosbox to be able to play it today.

@above: yep

Apok Omen · Sep 08, 2008, 02:18 AM // 02:18

It's always easier to blame the higher authority.

The vast majority of the game (and the world) are sheeps, all following the loudest ''BAAA!''

Example: People want to know what is wrong with gimmicks. A logical person says, quietly and calmly, that a certain skill is imbalanced and must be slightly nerfed. Someone sees this, and tries to put the same message in caps lock (cuz we all know caps lock is cruise control to attention) and spreads it in many threads. Now, everyone who reads that guy's message repeat him, as if it's a petition or a vote.

But it isn't. And when they don't get an answer from Anet, they start saying ''fuk izzy and anet!!!''. This, of course, becomes a trend and a slogan. But what they don't realize is that they never return to the answer to the problem. They follow some loudass like sheep. It's human nature.

The problem is, of course, all of us. People are stupid, but a person isn't. However, this actually isn't a problem, it's a cycle, like life. There will always be sheep, trying to be as arrogant as their leader.

Oh, and people who are complaining and whining about the game's economy. They are also an unsolvable problem.

fireflyry · Sep 08, 2008, 03:34 AM // 03:34

Nah the game actually has pretty obvious flaws and people raising and discussing their concerns is actually good for the game.

Trying to stifle such debate and constructive criticism is idiotic if you are actually a fan of GW or any other game.The consumer defines the market.

I hate these care-bear threads that state "If you have any issues with a game you should go skip through the dandelion fields where the rivers are made of chocolate and we all have pink and purple gum drop smiles, friends and intercourse all day long.Your all terribly silly to complain on an official forum!!"

Trying to take the moral high-ground over anyone that takes the time to express and discuss concerns with a gaming product just makes you look silly and overly self-righteous.

All in all a pretty worthless thread imo.

Socrates The Mauler · Sep 08, 2008, 03:37 AM // 03:37

I prefer to think of it like this: What was fun 3 years ago just ain't anymore. The whole M:TG/GW thing is played out. There just isn't Enough for me.

You know how skills are hosed and watered down in GW? Same thing in Magic. Take say Demonic tutor and the later watered down Vampiric tutor card.

Because the game play is already set in stone it cannot be changed. Only thing to do is offer slightly weaker versions of the older cards/skills.

I feel both games are victims of their own gameplay. Its like nobody thought ahead of time when they made the game.

Having played both games I'm just bored with this style of play. Hope they put some original thought into GW2, maybe break away from the mold a little bit, and not just keep offering weaker more obscurely worded skills.

Martin Alvito · Sep 08, 2008, 05:50 AM // 05:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa F

Builds can be beaten. ALL builds can be beaten. No nerfs, just trying. Maybe, instead of complaining about how this build or that skill is broken, we take some time and work on what makes it broken, and find a skill to fix it.

Sure, but the problem is that once a build locks you into running X, Y and Z skills in order to counter it, the build becomes environment-defining. If you have to run X, Y and Z, then the field of options becomes far, far more limited than it once was, and you get a stale, imbalanced meta quickly.

A healthy meta provides options so that you don't face the same build and play the same way every match. Granted, part of the problem is that players have decided that the conventional "balanced" 2 melee, 1 Me, 2 Mo, runner, 2 midliner build represents the height of "skilled play" in this game, which in and of itself tends to crowd out viable options.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa F

It's a game. We are the ones who make it fun or not. If you liked it in the beginning, but don't now, the basics of it haven't changed.

The problem is that ANet released a horrifically overpowered expansion (Nightfall) as a reaction to the lackluster sales of a mostly underpowered expansion with weak PvE content (Factions). Play balance has been more or less shot to hell ever since. The obvious lessons:

1) spend more time designing skills and testing
2) energy management primary attributes inevitably lead to balance problems!

While the core gameplay mechanics are the same, developer decision-making in the last couple of years has not been kind to the game. If you compare the present to the late Prophecies or late Factions meta, it's no contest. Those were just superior play environments, supporting a wide variety of viable play styles and builds across multiple PvP formats.

Our right to complain is fully justified when you consider boneheaded balance decisions such as perma-SF-for-dummies in PvE. When the devs insist on making balance changes where the undesirable consequences are immediately apparent and swiftly realized, people are going to get upset. See also: initial VoD mechanic change. It was OBVIOUS that if you devalued killing NPCs like that, no one would ever enter the other team's base and everyone would just 8v8 at the stand all match. The risk (additional pressure) wasn't worth the reward (a chance to get to the other team's lord early if you managed to totally overpower them).

Avarre · Sep 08, 2008, 06:11 AM // 06:11

Deleting posts, try to stay somewhat related to the topic.

PS: Ufo defense was awesome.

Cobalt · Sep 08, 2008, 12:03 PM // 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

The problem is that ANet released a horrifically overpowered expansion (Nightfall) as a reaction to the lackluster sales of a mostly underpowered expansion with weak PvE content (Factions). Play balance has been more or less shot to hell ever since. The obvious lessons:

1) spend more time designing skills and testing
2) energy management primary attributes inevitably lead to balance problems!

While the core gameplay mechanics are the same, developer decision-making in the last couple of years has not been kind to the game. If you compare the present to the late Prophecies or late Factions meta, it's no contest. Those were just superior play environments, supporting a wide variety of viable play styles and builds across multiple PvP formats.

I think overpowered areas are partially of to blame but I still think it is skill nerfs that are ultimately to blame.

Back when it was just Prophecies there was a plethora of pugging going on from start to finish and for UW and FoW. Builds did not matter much nor did team make up with the exception of most wanting two monks particularly for for end game areas, UW and FoW which is understandable.

Then we started getting lots of nerfs, big nerfs and most had absolutely nothing to do with balancing the classes they were to stop or retard soloing aspects of the game. As people figured out different ways to solo or power their ways through the game the more nerfs we got. As a result viable skills became more and more limited as well as viable classes in order to achieve success.

Which is why today we have many areas which one can only get it groups if they are a certain class with a specific skill set, armor, runes, and weapons and few who want to go to that extreme.

Thus nerfs killed pugging.

Savio · Sep 08, 2008, 01:37 PM // 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobalt

Then we started getting lots of nerfs, big nerfs and most had absolutely nothing to do with balancing the classes they were to stop or retard soloing aspects of the game. As people figured out different ways to solo or power their ways through the game the more nerfs we got. As a result viable skills became more and more limited as well as viable classes in order to achieve success.

Nerfs weren't done with regard to PvE at all. If the nerfs did anything to PvErs, it would be to ruin farming builds or team builds modeled after PvP builds. The random pug builds wouldn't have seen an effect.

People stopped pugging when they realized that puggers were bad players with bad builds. When a dumb AI with only 5 skills performs better than you, you're pretty bad.

Quote:

Which is why today we have many areas which one can only get it groups if they are a certain class with a specific skill set, armor, runes, and weapons and few who want to go to that extreme.

There aren't many areas like that, and there are many who are willing to run it because it's the most successful pug strategy.

romeus petrus · Sep 08, 2008, 02:23 PM // 14:23

The game is more than 3 years old, what did you expect. If you spend your play time doing mindless title grinding of course you are going to be bored. As pointed out earlier, GW was never meant to last forever by design.

Having said all that, there is still a lot of fun to be had in the game. You just have to think outside the title whoring box.

[DE] · Sep 08, 2008, 02:31 PM // 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa F

Builds can be beaten. ALL builds can be beaten. No nerfs, just trying. Maybe, instead of complaining about how this build or that skill is broken, we take some time and work on what makes it broken, and find a skill to fix it. You have 8 skills on your bar, and over a thousand to choose from. Are you telling me we are such bad players we can't use one as a counter, especially if we are going into an area, like GvG, where we know we'll encounter that "leet build"?

lol...

The 'everything has counters' argument is terrible and if you've ever played in PvP you might realize that. But no... it's Anets fault for poor balance, etc - not ours

edit: Sorry if someone already said something similar. I didn't read the thread, I actually stopped reading as soon as I read that quote and decided that the OP had no idea what they were talking about.

Zahr Dalsk · Sep 08, 2008, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Honestly, what game can? While yes there are games that I'm still playing to this day, it's entirely subjective.

A 100% moddable game. Morrowind, I would say, has the longest potential lifespan of any game, ever. Oblivion follows a similar pattern, though of course Morrowind is superior. What it means, basically, is that the game is designed on the assumption of added content, is easy to mod, and can receive user-created content for as long as it will run on a standard PC and there are people making mods for it.

Most MMOs will die eventually for this reason; companies can keep making content; if they do it really well and keep people playing, like WoW, their game will last a very long time, but somehow modders with no funding and small or 1-man teams are able to produce excellent content on a regular basis, such as those seen by some of Morrowind's best modders.

Obviously this is more difficult in multiplayer games... nigh impossible, one might say. So it's certainly no solution for GW, unless modding was made publicly doable and there was a large volunteer team that looked through incoming mods to make sure suitable content was entered. That's a viable solution, except that ArenaNet wouldn't be able to coordinate it, I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa F

Like reading a book.

I read books a fair amount, and I have to say, gaming is generally more enjoyable, though most games have terrible storylines :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa F

Seeing the sun.

Comes right through my window, saves me the trouble of using the light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa F

Making friends in the real world.

People I meet online are real. I am simply using an alternate form of communication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa F

Having sex.

When did that get so important? Your idea of the best leisure activity is not the universal perfect choice.

Vamis Threen · Sep 08, 2008, 04:49 PM // 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

A 100% moddable game. Morrowind, I would say, has the longest potential lifespan of any game, ever. Oblivion follows a similar pattern, though of course Morrowind is superior. What it means, basically, is that the game is designed on the assumption of added content, is easy to mod, and can receive user-created content for as long as it will run on a standard PC and there are people making mods for it.

Most MMOs will die eventually for this reason; companies can keep making content; if they do it really well and keep people playing, like WoW, their game will last a very long time, but somehow modders with no funding and small or 1-man teams are able to produce excellent content on a regular basis, such as those seen by some of Morrowind's best modders.

Obviously this is more difficult in multiplayer games... nigh impossible, one might say. So it's certainly no solution for GW, unless modding was made publicly doable and there was a large volunteer team that looked through incoming mods to make sure suitable content was entered. That's a viable solution, except that ArenaNet wouldn't be able to coordinate it, I think.

I doubt that it is feasible. Part of the appeal of players choosing to add mods to their games is choice. If the extra city or the story behind a questline is incongruous, then you can choose not to add it. If you like the new sword or weird profession, then go for your life.

In a MMORPG we don't have that choice. So you are correct, Anet would have to vet all the content, and as far as I'm aware no company, even those which actively encourage modding, does such a thing. It raises questions about intellectual property as well as the practical difficulties. I don't see GW becoming open-source anytime soon. Or ever.

I'm not sure many Modders, who are often independent-minded, inspired or have their own agendas, would subject themselves to the process either, as they would lose ownership of their mod.

So I can't see it happening in GW. Interesting idea though.