Curse

Tyla · Jun 13, 2008, 02:11 PM // 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lopezus

personally i wouldnt mind but it will be just reverting to pre pve skils/EoTN state where you can be masterfully skilled mesmer and your presence in some end game content (DoA) would be practicly not possible. So it won't be going back to skill>time period of gw.

Because all they did was buff the mobs up to insanty.

It's probably possible though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

You somehow believe that a game should be more than just for enjoyment. If speaking on behalf of themselves so they can enjoy said game, which itself is making the game fun to them, how is that not speaking on behalf of the game in their eyes? Making the game more fun is what everyone should be aiming for. The problem? What you and a few others find fun isn't what the majority of players find fun. The needs of many... You can paint it anyway you want in your head, but at the end of the day, its just two people with different opinions and only one of these groups run around with an elitist attitude attempting to put down people with an opposing viewpoint.

Okay, before the PvE / PvP split (Which was a very long time period before implimentation), why did the minority instead of the majority decide on skill balances?

Changing the direction of a game's original design is bad. It's as simple as that.

Bryant Again · Jun 13, 2008, 02:13 PM // 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lopezus

form your perspective it probably is, but for ANet it probably it isn't, thay don't consider pve skills as atrocieities but as patch up issues to unbalancend content .

That is exactly why this thread is created: Why doesn't ANet consider these PvE skills as atrocities? Was it a huge lack of forethought? A general "uncare" for the PvE game or for GW?

And what is considered "unbalanced" content? While there are a few issues and mainly regarding the Mesmer class (who isn't voided entirely useless, you know), I'm not entirely sure what else was considered "unbalanced".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

You somehow believe that a game should be more than just for enjoyment. If speaking on behalf of themselves so they can enjoy said game, which itself is making the game fun to them, how is that not speaking on behalf of the game in their eyes?

The thing is that the game used to provide more than just enjoyment. Guild Wars was still selling just fine before all the "need" to add all of these "desperately asked for" additions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

The problem? What you and a few others find fun isn't what the majority of players find fun.

As stated several times, by myself included, we have no idea what the "majority" of players find fun. But what I do know, and what I just mentioned above, is that it seemed as those the majority of players were having much "fun" before tossing the idea of "skill>time" over the bridge.

And another thought: If PvE skills plus UB and the like were catered to the "majority" of players, they wouldn't be based off of a title.

Lopezus · Jun 13, 2008, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

That is exactly why this thread is created: Why doesn't ANet consider these PvE skills as atrocities? Was it a huge lack of forethought? A general "uncare" for the PvE game or for GW?

And what is considered "unbalanced" content? While there are a few issues and mainly regarding the Mesmer class (who isn't voided entirely useless, you know), I'm not entirely sure what else was considered "unbalanced".

ow c'mon that's the same argumentation you are not agreeing with when people say : "UB ? -atrocity, nonsesse it has only few issues , or unbalanced ! - hardly, i don't so any imbalance" etc. so no double standards plz.

And how come you so agreed with Avarre post when it seems you didn't read it at all. Avarre states quite clearly that Anet changes to Gw goes way beyond pve skills. And about mesmers in pve there is very interesting post created by Avarre himself again worth reading.http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ghlight=avarre

DreamWind · Jun 13, 2008, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

3. Guild Wars 3 starts off "good" and stays "good", but the perception of the players change. And instead of letting the game go, they cry a river.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your statement is?

The game and its goals changed. There is no doubt about that....it is a FACT. There is no perception involved in that. Whether or not the change was good is the opinion part.

For those of us who think the change was bad, I don't see how we can intelligently believe that Guild Wars 2 will be any different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

They provide a service which you pay for. If you're happy about the service, end of transaction.

Big difference here. What happened in this situation was that they provided a service that many people paid for and enjoyed, but then they completely changed the service to something else after they took the customers money. Essentially they said "here buy this great concept of a game", and then took your money and changed the concept.

Normally people wouldn't care as much because online games do change, but in this case they completely changed the core ideas and goals of the game. That absolutely SHOULD make a lot of people upset, especially when many of them are huge fans of their game and its original ideas.

Also, a really bad misconception needs to be cleared up. There is an idea that if Anet stuck to their original vision, they wouldn't have any players. The idea is that Anet had to mold their game regardless of their vision. I am here to tell you that this is a load of bull on so many levels. I could make another page long post about it, but I'm too lazy at the moment. I might have to if it comes up again.

Bryant Again · Jun 13, 2008, 02:42 PM // 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lopezus

ow c'mon that's the same argumentation you are not agreeing with when people say : "UB ? -atrocity, nonsesse it has only few issues , or unbalanced ! - hardly, i don't so any imbalance" etc. so no double standards plz.

It's irrefutable: Ursan Blessing, along with most of these PvE skills, are overpowered. If not, this thread would not exist. It's about *why* these overpowered skills are existing in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lopezus

And how come you so agreed with Avarre post when it seems you didn't read it at all. Avarre states quite clearly that Anet changes to Gw goes way beyond pve skills.

PvE skills were released on June 15th, 2007. Prior to that, Guild Wars had sold 3 million copies (and on Aug. 21 they would have reached 3 million). The point is that there wasn't any need to complete "simplify" the game via PvE skills and the like. You could go back to saying how mesmers were in a bit of trouble, but again that does *not* excuse abandoning balance for the entire game.

Guild Wars PvE has always been in a need of "touching up". PvE skills, along with the titles that come with them, have been the strongest and most gamebreaking concern. The other things, most of which have been fixed, just do not compare.

Lopezus · Jun 13, 2008, 03:03 PM // 15:03

Quote:

It's irrefutable: Ursan Blessing, along with most of these PvE skills, are overpowered. If not, this thread would not exist. It's about *why* these overpowered skills are existing in the first place.

The answer is clear in Avarre post so you would have know it if you have read it. It's very simple because game pve content was broken and moved far away from original being skill>time, so patching it up with pve skills was a way to go without : A : touching - at least balanced to a degree pvp content, B: rewriting whole game.
Averre question lies in what caused devs to change the original concept of the game in the first place.

Bryant Again · Jun 13, 2008, 03:09 PM // 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lopezus

The answer is clear in Avarre post so you would have know it if you have read it. It's very simple because game pve content was broken and moved far away from original being skill>time, so patching it up with pve skills was a way to go without : A : touching - at least balanced to a degree pvp content, B: rewriting whole game.
Averre question lies in what caused devs to change the original concept of the game in the first place.

Unless Avarre came in here and clarified, I'm pretty sure that's not why he's mainly upset in this letter.

Lagg · Jun 13, 2008, 03:13 PM // 15:13

While I do completely agree with Bryant Again's perspective, we can only objectively be sure of one thing:

Guild Wars today is no longer the game it was in 2005 — 2006.

Whether this is a good or a bad thing is entirely personal.

To me, it's a bad thing, as all but a handful of my friends have stopped playing.

All of them have done so for the same reason: the game has strayed too much from its original premise.

Those who remain are in my situation, living off a fool's hope that this game will once again (weighing my words very carefully here) "resemble the old Guild Wars".

Bryant Again · Jun 13, 2008, 03:31 PM // 15:31

While that is definitely true, Lagg, it's the fact that Guild Wars is no longer unique that's depressing.

Golgotha · Jun 13, 2008, 03:38 PM // 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The thing is that the game used to provide more than just enjoyment. Guild Wars was still selling just fine before all the "need" to add all of these "desperately asked for" additions.

What? Pray tell, what was it providing past enjoyment?

Quote:

As stated several times, by myself included, we have no idea what the "majority" of players find fun. But what I do know, and what I just mentioned above, is that it seemed as those the majority of players were having much "fun" before tossing the idea of "skill>time" over the bridge.

Here's a hint: The same ten or so people seem to have an awful lot of time to complain on the forums all day about the need for PvE nerfs while how many thousands of people are actually in game, enjoying it. Hmm.. I wonder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Big difference here. What happened in this situation was that they provided a service that many people paid for and enjoyed, but then they completely changed the service to something else after they took the customers money. Essentially they said "here buy this great concept of a game", and then took your money and changed the concept. .

You paid how much for the game? And how many hours have you logged? Safe to say, unless you purchased the game in the last five months that you've had your money's worth. Don't assume a game should remain true to it's own vision, or your's, indefinitely. Game's change. Move to another or wait until it fits what you're looking for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyla

Okay, before the PvE / PvP split (Which was a very long time period before implimentation), why did the minority instead of the majority decide on skill balances?

If that were so, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me that they nerfed PvE skills because of GWGuru thread complaints, then Apparently Anet wasn't impressed by the direction their opinions were pushing the game. Thats more than obvious by the last few updates and huge buffs to previously nerfed skills.

Bryant Again · Jun 13, 2008, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

What? Pray tell, what was it providing past enjoyment?

Challenge, difficulty, and uniquity (I don't think that's a word, though). With PvE skills, Guild Wars lost all three.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

Here's a hint: The same ten or so people seem to have an awful lot of time to complain on the forums all day about the need for PvE nerfs while how many thousands of people are actually in game, enjoying it. Hmm.. I wonder.

The different ten or so people were complaining about the game being "too hard" when they could've switched to Normal mode, and yet ANet changed the game for them. You're still going to have a hard time telling me that these PvE skills are for the "majority" when they're tied to titles that take a lengthy time to max out.

Not only that, I wonder how many thousands were enjoying the game *before* all of this happened?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

You paid how much for the game? And how many hours have you logged? Safe to say, unless you purchased the game in the last five months that you've had your money's worth. Don't assume a game should remain true to it's own vision, or your's, indefinitely. Game's change. Move to another or wait until it fits what you're looking for.

The point of this thread is to show that Guild Wars changed for the *worse*. By abandoning the concept of "skill > time", it abandoned what made it unique and different from your standard MMO grind game. Was it bad that it was unique? No, since it sold 3 million copies in the mean time.

DarkNecrid · Jun 13, 2008, 03:49 PM // 15:49

Quote:

Really? They provide a service which you pay for. If you're happy about the service, end of transaction. If you want to play politics, go right ahead but don't be surprised when most people don't care.

Key section right thar.

I think it's pretty obvious most of the people posting in this thread, aren't.

It isn't politics, it's basic consume-producer relationship law. Even if I am happy with the service, that isn't the end of the transaction, I still get to voice my opinions on how uber the product is.

Quote:

You paid how much for the game? And how many hours have you logged? Safe to say, unless you purchased the game in the last five months that you've had your money's worth. Don't assume a game should remain true to it's own vision, or your's, indefinitely. Game's change. Move to another or wait until it fits what you're looking for.

Don't assume people get their monies worth.

And I think that's pretty cool telling people to abandon the game, you must really dislike ArenaNet, eh? Telling people to abandon their product is basically telling them to not come back to their other products, which is basically telling people to not give them money.

Golgotha · Jun 13, 2008, 03:50 PM // 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Challenge, difficulty, and uniquity (I don't think that's a word, though). With PvE skills, Guild Wars lost all three.

Uniqueness. But in the end, all of those are a means to enjoyment. Some people find all those things enjoyable, others don't. I personally know guildmates who don't prefer the difficulty, therefor they use skills such as Ursan. Would they still be around without the skill? Who knows. Do I prefer they actually learn why they're having difficulties? Sure, but thats not for me to decide.

Quote:

The different ten or so people were complaining about the game being "too hard" when they could've switched to Normal mode, and yet ANet changed the game for them. You're still going to have a hard time telling me that these PvE skills are for the "majority" when they're tied to titles that take a lengthy time to max out.

I got a guildie to r8 Norn in a day and a half. It doesn't take long.

Quote:

Not only that, I wonder how many thousands were enjoying the game *before* all of this happened?

Theres no connection. People move on from games, GW is no different. Thats along the lines of saying "wonder how many people enjoyed life here before the civil war", because its natural for a game's population to die off, but their decisions determine whether it's rebuilt.

Quote:

The point of this thread is to show that Guild Wars changed for the *worse*.

Completely your opinion and yet, again, you speak it as if it were a solid fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Key section right thar.

I think it's pretty obvious most of the people posting in this thread, aren't.

It isn't politics, it's basic consume-producer relationship law. Even if I am happy with the service, that isn't the end of the transaction, I still get to voice my opinions on how uber the product is.

Don't assume people get their monies worth.

And I think that's pretty cool telling people to abandon the game, you must really like ArenaNet, eh?

Nice try. If you don't enjoy a game, why stick around? ArenaNet already has your money, so how would that adversely effect them? In the end, the people that aren't happy are just drops in a hurricane as there are thousands of people too busy enjoying the game to sit around complaining on a forum all day.

garethporlest18 · Jun 13, 2008, 03:52 PM // 15:52

Golgotha, Anet pretty much went and did a SWG on us. But because most people choose not to complain and "whine" about it, it doesn't get fixed or change. Maybe they feel they don't have the power? I'm not sure, but if Anet knows more people don't like what's going on than those that do, they'll fix it.

This game wasn't suppose to be a PvE based game and that seems to be what it has become. As for PvE becoming easier...there isn't anything you can do about that. If you don't add grind, it gets boring because of the lack of content, they can't keep adding new areas they don't have the money nor do they have the manpower. So they add grind in the form of vanity and titles to keep you playing the game. But when people see that grind in there they get all bent out of shape too, so you cannot win with PvE.

Hence why ANet should have just stuck with shallow PvE with no titles (the vanity grind was always there) and focused on PvP and the majority that plays the game now would never be playing and we'd all be happy.

Bryant Again · Jun 13, 2008, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

Uniqueness. But in the end, all of those are a means to enjoyment. Some people find all those things enjoyable, others don't. I personally know guildmates who don't prefer the difficulty, therefor they use skills such as Ursan. Would they still be around without the skill? Who knows. Do I prefer they actually learn why they're having difficulties? Sure, but thats not for me to decide.

If they're having trouble, then why not switch into Normal mode? That's all that this "unskilled" and vocal minority had to do. But instead of being content that the game doesn't have to be difficult for them, ANet saw it fit (for some reason) to dumb down Hard Mode, too.

I don't mind people having difficulty with a game. I don't like locking people out of content because of the difficulty. But I have problems with lowering the hardest challenges in the game to be as easy as the easier challenges when all content could be seen on the lower setting. It would be like God of War having God Mode be as easy as Normal mode, or Nightmare mode in Doom being as easy as "I'm Too Young To Die" (easiest setting).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

I got a guildie to r8 Norn in a day and a half. It doesn't take long.

And you and your guildie represent everyone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

Theres no connection. People move on from games, GW is no different. Thats along the lines of saying "wonder how many people enjoyed life here before the civil war", because its natural for a game's population to die off, but their decisions determine whether it's rebuilt.

People are using the "it helps the majority of casual players" argument as a means to allow overpowered skills. If it doesn't matter, then why do the overpowered skills exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

Completely your opinion and yet, again, you speak it as if it were a solid fact.

And like facts, I provide evidence. The core piece of evidence being that the one thing that sold Guild Wars next to being "free to play" - skill > time - is no longer present in the game. It's hard to not consider this a bad thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

Nice try. If you don't enjoy a game, why stick around? ArenaNet already has your money, so how would that adversely effect them? In the end, the people that aren't happy are just drops in a hurricane as there are thousands of people too busy enjoying the game to sit around complaining on a forum all day.

Interestingly enough, the exact same thing could've been said to those who complained about the game being "too hard". Why did ANet listen to them, another minority, when the majority was off enjoying the game?

DarkNecrid · Jun 13, 2008, 04:04 PM // 16:04

Quote:

Nice try. If you don't enjoy a game, why stick around? ArenaNet already has your money, so how would that adversely effect them? In the end, the people that aren't happy are just drops in a hurricane as there are thousands of people too busy enjoying the game to sit around complaining on a forum all day.

Because they have other products? It isn't as easy as "we have your money now go away".

If say, idk, a ton of Snicker bars wound up poisoned and killed a ton of people, you'd be pretty adverse to buying other products from them, yes? Well, while Guild Wars hasn't killed anybody, receiving a substandard product from a company, does produce a negative effect on people with said producer's other products.

People stick around because they have that right as a consumer. You have no right to take that away, or attempt to take that way. Doing such is not only blatant fanboyism (h...harming my precious...game....), but it's completely idiotic and goes against the basic structure of a business relationship between a consumer and the producer.

Gun Pierson · Jun 13, 2008, 04:14 PM // 16:14

Ok I'll give another example of terrible game design: Getting max Kurzick title.

First of all it's tempting to get the title for a few reasons:
1) it pumps up the pve kurzick skills
2) it helps getting GWAMM
3) at one point a veteran player needs new goals when all the others are done

Now there are a few ways to get the title:
1) playing pvp -> chance of loosing games
2) doing hfff runs -> fastest way
3) playing pve with blessings from shrines

The title is set at 5 million points, this is extremely high. So doing hfff runs is the best way to get it over with. So I'm doing these runs lately and almost nothing else. It's boring grind.

How can you call this a good thing? It doesn't reflect skill, it will only say I was masochistic enough to do the grind. It will get me better skills than the average player can use, cause the average player doesn't have the time to do this grind. On top I will net about 3 million in gold doing the quest over and over again. This is an amount of gold the average player can only dream about.

conclusion: the title will not increase my learning curve by a lot, it's an example of time > skill, which is not good for the veteran player nor the average player.

You can say don't go for the title, but that's not the issue. We're talking about game mechanics here.

aapo · Jun 13, 2008, 04:29 PM // 16:29

Jesus Christ that is one badly written piece. All the time the author is trying to convince that he doesn't mean to put down new players or players who are using skills he doesn't personally like. Then burbs out crap like this:

"New people in the game are great, but you are not supposed to have the same level of success as me if you just picked this game up."
"Most of the old players for PvE who were revolutionary or skillful are gone."

And another thing, try to think what kind of game you would like to play. So you made a mistake worth $150+ by buying a game that didn't meet your expectations and were made by amateurs. SH*T HAPPENS DUDE and it could be a lot worse. Servers shutting down because of lack of income. I think it's about time to move on.

Why are you using failing game as an example what Guild Wars should be?

"Look at Fury – a game that only existed before it was actually released, and how it drew a lot of the Guild Wars scene to it. It provided what you stopped providing, and offered the hope that maybe this time, it will be a game that rewards its players. Even though Fury was buggy, had brutal system requirements, and never even survived release, it attracted players, and a lot of notable ones at that."

- Didn't ANET do exactly like Auran Games did with Fury? Made false promises and ended up in dirt?

pumpkin pie · Jun 13, 2008, 04:35 PM // 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

Ok I'll give another example of terrible game design: Getting max Kurzick title.

First of all it's tempting to get the title for a few reasons:
1) it pumps up the pve kurzick skills
2) it helps getting GWAMM
3) at one point a veteran player needs new goals when all the others are done

Now there are a few ways to get the title:
1) playing pvp -> chance of loosing games
2) doing hfff runs -> fastest way
3) playing pve with blessings from shrines

The title is set at 5 million, this is extremely high. So doing hfff runs is the best way to get it over with. So I'm doing these runs lately and almost nothing else. It's boring grind.

How can you call this a good thing? It doesn't reflect skill, it will only say I was masochistic enough to do the grind. It will get me better skills than the average player can use, cause the average player doesn't have the time to do this grind. On top I will net about 3 million in gold doing the quest over and over again. This is an amount of gold the average player can only dream about.

conclusion: the title will not increase my learning curve by a lot, it's an example of time > skill, which is not good for the veteran player nor the average player.

You can say don't go for the title, but that's not the issue. We're talking about game mechanics here.

if you hate it so much why are you doing it? proof your skill is > time by not doing Hfff and still able to get the 5mil faction in the shortest time possible, challenging enough for ya? huh?

Come to think of it (IMHO), "activities like HFFF" is exactly why Arena Net has come up with PvE skills.

Red Sonya · Jun 13, 2008, 04:39 PM // 16:39

Quote:

The core piece of evidence being that the one thing that sold Guild Wars next to being "free to play" - skill > time

Sorry, but, that's speculation once again you can't prove. You DO NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION you CAN'T GET THAT INFORMATION. Therefore that statement is invalid. But, it IS valid that a lot more people wanted the easy game we have now than the hard nobody but the elite could get to before game. Guild Wars sold for MANY reasons, not just a reason to push your agenda to the forefront. I didn't buy GW because it was skill>time and I'm sure others didn't buy it because of that either, but, I have no statistics therefore it's invalid to say GW sold because of my reason just like it's invalid for you to say GW sold because of skill>time without documentation it's invalid. And you can't provide any bud. Some may have bought it because it was skill>time, but, you can't prove anymore than that, thus it has no relevance to the discussion.