Curse

Spazzer · Jul 09, 2008, 05:54 PM // 17:54

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Just seems like the developers were way out of touch with the playerbase on that decision.

Snow Bunny · Jul 09, 2008, 06:00 PM // 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

And yet on an FPS you can freely and easily join a server. Nobody makes you find a group of 8 other players before joining. Nobody demands you have a certain title rank to enter their server. And if for some reason you're kicked, there are many other servers for the game that you can visit.

Titles are the primary culprit. There's just as much shit-talk in PvE what with PUGs, but you don't see people in post-searing Ascalon declaring that they're quitting because the prophecies scrubs keep yelling at them.

Try joining a starcraft game that's not full of people absolutely terrible. Unless you have a record something like 107-0-12, you're gonna get booted.

around · Jul 09, 2008, 06:24 PM // 18:24

GW right now is balanced with regards to 8vs8. For a TA ladder to be a proper indicator of skill and not build, you'd have to completely change the way balance is done.

RotteN-5vs5 sounds interesting, as it's basically a TA team + flagrunner. In addition, individual player skill would be more important, and mediocre teams wouldn't be able to hide behind a skilled stratcaller. In fact, the more I think about it, the more tempting 5vs5 sounds. However, they'd have to completely redesign all the existing maps, and reduce the complexity of skill interactions; by this, I mean either reduce the number of skills or make their interaction for simplistic, because right how there are too many skill combinations to have an answer for on 4 people.

Bryant Again · Jul 09, 2008, 07:06 PM // 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigtime102

Yeah easy for u, but I dont have that time, well i do have lots of spare time by my time attention span is short...

That's not GW's fault. That's about all I can say to that.

DutchSmurf · Jul 09, 2008, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

GW right now is balanced with regards to 8vs8. For a TA ladder to be a proper indicator of skill and not build, you'd have to completely change the way balance is done.

Or take the easy (and best) way out and make it a sealed deck of some sort. I think people will rather have a limited amount of viable builds that are balanced against each other then they will want to be able to make their own builds.

RotteN · Jul 09, 2008, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

RotteN-5vs5 sounds interesting, as it's basically a TA team + flagrunner. In addition, individual player skill would be more important, and mediocre teams wouldn't be able to hide behind a skilled stratcaller. In fact, the more I think about it, the more tempting 5vs5 sounds. However, they'd have to completely redesign all the existing maps, and reduce the complexity of skill interactions; by this, I mean either reduce the number of skills or make their interaction for simplistic, because right how there are too many skill combinations to have an answer for on 4 people.

Of course everything should be designed for 5v5 then instead of 8v8. They already mentioned they'd make fewer skills but with different effects for one skill depending on position/actions/... It's a possibility, and a good one, specially since there will be only one "organised" PvP format. So everything can be balanced towards that format.

sixofone · Jul 09, 2008, 07:49 PM // 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowerpoke

pvp has a steep learning curve in gw1; there are numerous game types to master and the unlocking system certainly doesnt help either, with new players having very limited tools to work with.
and in the competitive environment, it can be rather hostile and unfriendly.

if gw2 can improve on some of those points, i suspect more folks will give pvp a try.

That was my experience. I bought GW:NF as my serious foray into online MM-whatever, and was very aware that I'd be a n00b. I understood from the reviews I had read, and the package, that the PvE was a way to learn the skills before moving on to PvP - though I could "jump right into PvP" if I wanted to.

There's really no one to guide you, and PvE doesn't really prepare you for the pace, nor the skill choices, one needs to PvP effectively.

Like the OP, it was my understanding that PvP was the end-game content if I so wanted. Otherwise, once the campaign was done, that's it! (Though, I love to create characters, and this game really does play very differently based on what you choose to play!)

PUG experiences didn't help, either, in terms of learning to work as a team. And, how do you find a good Guild? One that appreciates the concerns and interests of its members?

NoPantsRepublic · Jul 09, 2008, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

On another note, Dawn of War II is probably going to include Tyranids.

I KNEW IT
---------

DreamWind · Jul 10, 2008, 12:23 AM // 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by RotteN

It doesn't matter what kind of game GW1 "technically" is. What matters is how people view it, and how they play it. You can go on about CORPG till your head explodes, that won't make anyone pick up PvP.

In my opinion it does matter what GW1 technically is (was). If a bunch of people bought the game to play it a certain way, so be it. Let them play it that way.

But what about the people who bought it for what it was technically supposed to be? You don't go and do a 180 on your entire game structure, especially with the marketing plan they had. They sold millions with their core philosophy intact. Their system was working. Changing their philosophy just pisses off consumers and leaves us (or at least me) with the impression that Anet is a company that will give up on their goals, cave in to pressure, and not do anything unique ever again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

And this folks is why people don't like PvP.

They don't say things other people want to hear, they state the facts.

I laughed (because its so true).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

TA ladder/ATs would have been an amazing addition to the game, though sadly were passed over in favor of HvH.

Agree 100%. Although there would have been balance issues involved, but that isn't anything new.

fireflyry · Jul 10, 2008, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by RotteN

A lot of GvG players from good guilds actually enjoy playing AB, and do so regularly. So saying "the only PvP is high-end" isn't realy the case.

Agreed.

It's more the attitude that these "entry-level" aspects are just for scrubs as opposed to maybe players from PvE giving PvP a try.I mean that seems to be the core reason they were implemented in the first place.

So you play AB, RA, TA, etc, etc and think "This is pretty fun, I might try something more competitive" and BAM!!.The community rapes you for even attempting or thinking such absurdity.I'm not stating this is always the case but after talking to the players in my alliance and others over the last few years it seems to be fairly common.

There just seems to be this mentality, I'm not getting into the pedantics of whether it's deserved or not, in GW at times that GvG, HA, etc is the ONLY relevant form of PvP in the game.

The gap in entry level PvP and what is considered the "serious" side of PvP is pretty huge imo and I seem to observe a lot of problems in the transition for newer players.

DarkNecrid · Jul 10, 2008, 02:32 AM // 02:32

There are tons of guilds that are there for learning to GvG. kisu (Billiards), mine, etc. You just have to actively look for them.

CyberNigma · Jul 10, 2008, 03:29 AM // 03:29

I like PvP. I just never got into this RPG PvP. I play other types of games for my pvp fix -> FPS, RTS, Magic:TG, Warhammer 40k (the real one). PvP in a Roleplaying Game never really interested me. It still doesn't. To me it's kind of like taking two parties and a Dungeon Master at a table and having them compete.. It's just not my thing, although some people do.

EDIT: well, at least not arena-type pvp anyhow.. I'm a former shadowbane player and I'm ok with world pvp, something that you can still get into like PvE.

JR · Jul 10, 2008, 03:30 AM // 03:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

For a TA ladder to be a proper indicator of skill and not build, you'd have to completely change the way balance is done.

There is a subtle difference you are missing between overpowered skills and buildwars.

Broken shit has been allowed to run rampant in TA for a long time due to the excuse you just gave; "You can't balance TA." Frankly it's garbage. I can name an lot of situations where overpowered GvG builds have stemmed from modified TA builds, and the problem could have been nipped in the bud a lot earlier if attention was also paid to that format.

Buildwars is stronger in TA, obviously. It's not nearly as objective based, and with fewer characters it's easier to leave yourself vulnerable against overload builds. However, that doesn't kill the format; a lot of people definately still enjoy it.

In terms of maps I honestly wouldn't change anything. Forcing objectives into 4 man play is silly. The only thing I believe would need to change is adding a focus for TA in balance updates. Combine that with a ladder and ATs and my mouth is already beginning to water.

This is of course assuming that balance updates would be sensible and well thought out...

RotteN · Jul 10, 2008, 11:35 AM // 11:35

it would indeed be harder to balance a game for both 8v8 and 4v4. However, GW2 will only have one format, so they can pick whatever teamsize they want. And with that in mind i'd say 5v5 would be way better than 8v8

around · Jul 10, 2008, 12:07 PM // 12:07

Quote:

Broken shit has been allowed to run rampant in TA for a long time due to the excuse you just gave; "You can't balance TA." Frankly it's garbage. I can name an lot of situations where overpowered GvG builds have stemmed from modified TA builds, and the problem could have been nipped in the bud a lot earlier if attention was also paid to that format.

I never said TA couldn't be balanced. I was saying that GW is currently balanced with 8v8 in mind, so unless they also balance everything for 4v4, a TA ladder would be more a case of getting lucky with your build than anything else.

JR · Jul 10, 2008, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

I was saying that GW is currently balanced with 8v8 in mind

And I'm saying that's just a weak excuse for Izzy not dealing with the problems in TA.

I agree that balance should always favor 8v8 whenever there is a conflict of interests between the two, but most of the time that wont be an issue.

DarkNecrid · Jul 10, 2008, 05:11 PM // 17:11

I think what JR is trying to get across to you spawn is that there are a lot of issues in TA that simply wouldn't affect the GvG meta or even the HA meta at all. Look at like that shove team that was (is? idk I don't TA) going around, no one runs that crap in 8v8. There are so many gimmicks in TA because it's 4v4, and probably 95% of them don't really have anything to do with 8v8 at all. Izzy could more than likely balance TA without harming any other game modes, since it has a lot of mode specific stuff to it.

cgruber · Jul 10, 2008, 05:17 PM // 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

I think what JR is trying to get across to you spawn is that there are a lot of issues in TA that simply wouldn't affect the GvG meta or even the HA meta at all. Look at like that shove team that was (is? idk I don't TA) going around, no one runs that crap in 8v8. There are so many gimmicks in TA because it's 4v4, and probably 95% of them don't really have anything to do with 8v8 at all. Izzy could more than likely balance TA without harming any other game modes, since it has a lot of mode specific stuff to it.

Because when you're getting monk stomped in TA you don't often have a back-up healer to infuse you. Which is essentially the strategy in ~90% of the 4v4 matches.

DarkNecrid · Jul 10, 2008, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgruber

Because when you're getting monk stomped in TA you don't often have a back-up healer to infuse you. Which is essentially the strategy in ~90% of the 4v4 matches.

you should do what the pro gvg teams do and take 3 monks amirite

JR · Jul 10, 2008, 05:20 PM // 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

you should do what the pro gvg teams do and take 5 monks amirite

Fixed .