Curse

Maria The Princess · Jun 18, 2008, 03:07 PM // 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

You know what the arguing in this thread shows? That you all care a lot about Guild Wars and what is best for it. That is something pretty special I think. Arena Net should be proud they have fans like you guys, devoted to their game and its well being.

Do try and keep the personal flames down a wee bit okies? I would hate to see this great thread closed and devolve into a pile of Ursan bitching feces.

This thread is quite different from many other Riverside Ursan complaint threads. It doesn't mention Ursan as being a primary problem, and it is extremely well written, not rude or insulting, and is very mature. Statements such as the one you have written are the opposite of that. Please refrain from posting slander; you simply didn't read the thread or didn't bother to think of it on a deeper level. Most veteran players agree with this thread or have quit and don't care anymore. The truly devoted players commented and agreed.
'

AMEN

generally players who are not very happy with their game just quit, GW fans are actually trying to fight in their own way to keep their game and try to get it back to the state when people were generally happy.

Martin Firestorm · Jun 18, 2008, 04:06 PM // 16:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I also have a very serious question - they state they will not alter certain things - Ursan and Hero allowance past 3, namely. They often cite technical impossibilities as their reason. In the past, they cited that same reason as protestation against the PvE/PvP split, and have since proven the ability to do so.

Where does that leave them credibility wise?

Anet has never said the 3 hero limit or the current version of ursan cannot be altered due to technical limitations. About the only thing like that I've ever heard is the auction house.

Ravious · Jun 18, 2008, 05:16 PM // 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Inde's sooth.

Amen. The whole "we are not an MMOG" thing is just marketing bs. They are not a traditional MMOG, they are not a dikumud-style MMOG, they are not an EQ/WoW clone are great things. And yes, it seems that initially CORPG would've fit... especially if the later content updates were very PvP oriented. But we know the road A.Net went...

I would posit that Fury is the only true CORPG. Guild Wars has always been an MMORPG with excellent PvP to the degree that it could be considered a competitive online game (COG).

Inde has great points about creating your own classifying genre. Most people don't care and will you classify you into a similar category until enough competition comes along to make it a whole different category (TTH for instance ranks GW right along with WoW and EQ2 for "pulse of MMOs"), and if people do care you are the only one there.... first and last.

I am glad that Regina at least attempted to compromise GW2's "genre classification" by saying it would have MMOG elements. Hopefully this time marketing won't parade around the ridiculous CORPG-classification.

Targren · Jun 18, 2008, 05:49 PM // 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by sph0nz

People need to learn to take criticism instead of crying about somebody "changing the way they play their game" whenever somebody imposes a better idea on another player.

Read what I said and the post I was responding to.

"Forcing me to change my playstyle" was the complaint of the anti-UB rant I was responding to, and I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of it. Claiming that UB should be nerfed because non-UBers do NOT want to change their play is BS. What makes them more important (not better players, not better people... but more important) than those who want to use it?

More people apparently want to use it than don't. So adapt. Get friends/a guild that agrees with you, and go from there.

If the Anti-UBers are not a minority, then they are lying when they claim they "can never get a pug because they don't use Ursan". Either way, there's no real reason for the nerf other than fragile ego being threatened because "QQ they did it so easy after I spent soooooo long doing it the hard way."

Life's rough in the big city.

Moa Bird Cultist · Jun 18, 2008, 07:20 PM // 19:20

Irrespective of the 39 pages of discussion, counter-discussion, arguments and plain in-fighting, which I have not the time to read, the original points made by Avarre and Noran still stand. That is why I have not played the game since last October. It simply isn't fun anymore and the mass exodus of original players reflects that. Make no mistake, the number of those people who are likely to invest in GW2 is tiny and in that respect, the damage is already done.

Lets take me for example; Two years ago, you would have been far pressed to find someone who was more hopelessly addicted to the game - I played four hours per day, every day, from my local internet cafe and sang the praises of the game whenever I could. If anyone criticised the game, I would often be the first to defend what I saw at the time, as a plus. Two years later and it doesnt take much to see that the game is an empty shell of it's former self, the lifeblood of it's veins, the players, drained by the game's underlying repetetive, unimaginative nature.

So, I guess this is goodbye, GW1. It was fun while it lasted and I wont forget it, but no end of skill balances can save you now.

Symeon · Jun 18, 2008, 07:55 PM // 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina in this thread

As you admitted, one of the things ArenaNet needs to do is try and please everyone. With the number of different perspectives and play styles out there, this is a monumental task and we do our best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina on the wiki

The designers are well aware that they can't please everyone, and that trying to please everyone is an exercise in futility.

Either one of these was a lie, or ArenaNet don't actually know what they're trying to do.

Skye Marin · Jun 18, 2008, 08:16 PM // 20:16

That only means that they are willing to try the impossible for the player base. Few developers would do that.

Age · Jun 18, 2008, 09:19 PM // 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR
Dumbing down the game
Ursan template should have been designed to improved players, but doesn't even give you a full bar of skills. Interrupts and KDs with meaningful recharges, for example. It should have been created as an easier way to get through areas - but not neccesarily faster than a good team using regular bars. It would be healthier as a useful addition to a regular group, rather than people taking full Ursan teams and steamrolling areas. In this way it would have helped compensate classes that aren't optimal in PvE (Assassin, Mesmer).

Hard Mode / Elite areas = just bigger damage numbers.
Instead of just making numbers bigger, try mixing mob capabilities. Create mobs with a more even balance of professions. In that kind of environment teamwork and communication would be more important. It would be harder to spec against a specific area or mob type, and give more of a challenge.

Classes
Need varied and specific roles. Overlap means one will be strictly
inferior. Inferior classes generally need gimmicks to see play.

See: Warrior vs Dervishes and Assassins.

I do agree with most of your post however I would like to see pve skills asscoiated with a attribute instead of rank.

Quote:

Wouldnt be a problem at all. So because you dont have friends that can be everywhere you are you want things screwed up just so they are forced to be where you are at. Gotcha now I see where you're coming at. You want to form a fast pug thats balanced simple. Type this Free FoW clear for Balanced only.

To Mani. I would want to do this if I wanted to go down and go through the whole UW or FoW with no Ursan group.I am not going to pay for the whole thing and you know what my goal is and it should be there for others that are basically soloing the game with no guild or friends.This is where the ladder guilds suceed in as they can play a balanced team to go down there and get what they want and clear everything.It is what I would be doing if my guild was much bigger and more active.

You know me I am pretty cheap as I don't like paying for scolls and other gold sinks.I like saving my gold.

Rift · Jun 18, 2008, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Age

I do agree with most of your post however I would like to see pve skills asscoiated with a attribute instead of rank.

This can't be. The premise of the expansion was to expand character development beyond level 20. How to you do this, without increasing the level-cap so you're not breaking all pre-existing end-game content? You introduce class-agnostic skills linked to a 'growth' metric, similar to leveling. These skills, at high 'levels' would undoubtedly surclass profession-specific skills.

So Reputation is in fact your 'extra' and somewhat optional levels or character development, that are not contigent or strongly coupled with any of the pre-exiting content.

DreamWind · Jun 18, 2008, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Guild Wars was never "technically" marketed as an MMOG in Anet's eyes. They stated repeatedly that it was a CORPG. BUT... big but, they are riding the coattails of the MMOG market but still massiver multiplayer on-line game fits the description of Guild Wars (I would challenge someone to argue that Guild Wars is NOT a massive multi-player on-line game. Most people now days see this as a description for the interaction in the game and not a storyline). Guild Wars was trying to be very, very unique and they succeeded in the beginning in that regard. The gameplay, mechanics, were quite different from the other MMOG's on the market. But categorizing your game yourself (as Anet did) technically put it in a place all by itself.... with no competition. So it's a catch, is this either the best and the worst CORPG (thinking about it, it would be forced to be both if it's the ONLY game in this category)? Or you compare it to the games that it's remarkably similar to.

Personally, despite what Anet marketing says... everyone knew it would be compared to other MMOG's. Even Anet knew that. You can't self-categorize your own game and then complain when people try to compare it to similar games on the market today. Especially since no other games have come out into that category as well.

I see what you are saying. I think the problem some people (including me) have is that the game was originally marketed as (and built from the ground up as) a CORPG with MMORPG elements.

Sure the majority are going to classify it as a MMORPG and compare it to other MMORPGS, but who cares? Let all those people buy the game for the MMORPG elements. The game succeeded on that alone while keeping its (original) core philosophy.

The problem I have is that they completely CHANGED their game from a CORPG with MMORPG elements, to an MMORPG with CORPG elements. They won't come out and officially say that, but they know its true. Thus they went from being extremely unique to just being barely unique at all. As Avarre brilliantly stated...they can't compete with WoW on WoW's terms. A lot of Anet's sales were based on their original ideas and they know it. I honestly believe they know they screwed up with Guild Wars 1. Now they are scrambling to keep players through HoM and promises of change for Guild Wars 2.

Age · Jun 18, 2008, 10:11 PM // 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rift

This can't be. The premise of the expansion was to expand character development beyond level 20. How to you do this, without increasing the level-cap so you're not breaking all pre-existing end-game content? You introduce class-agnostic skills linked to a 'growth' metric, similar to leveling. These skills, at high 'levels' would undoubtedly surclass profession-specific skills.

So Reputation is in fact your 'extra' and somewhat optional levels or character development, that are not contigent or strongly coupled with any of the pre-exiting content.

I don't beleive so and this is GW not GW2 and if rank meant anything then a rank 12 should be able to take on a rank 3 player in HA.Rank means nothing in HA play so why worry about it.

Akaraxle · Jun 18, 2008, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

Read what I said and the post I was responding to.

"Forcing me to change my playstyle" was the complaint of the anti-UB rant I was responding to, and I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of it. Claiming that UB should be nerfed because non-UBers do NOT want to change their play is BS. What makes them more important (not better players, not better people... but more important) than those who want to use it?

More people apparently want to use it than don't. So adapt. Get friends/a guild that agrees with you, and go from there.

If the Anti-UBers are not a minority, then they are lying when they claim they "can never get a pug because they don't use Ursan". Either way, there's no real reason for the nerf other than fragile ego being threatened because "QQ they did it so easy after I spent soooooo long doing it the hard way."

Life's rough in the big city.

Your argument is dumb. Reason: people want to play their RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing profession, not some class-independent buttonmashing fest. It's not about choosing Word of Healing over Healer's Boon, it's about playing your profession over not playing it.

The presence of an abusable mechanic drastically reduces the chances for people to undertake their role within a structured group, and that is even worse for a newbie that has few connections. "Find people like you" is a retarded counter-argument within a game genre that should be all about socializing; when the ability to do so -- while playing according to the original game design -- is compromised, something is wrong.

Player generated issues are issues too. Just because something is permitted by the software itself and not directly damaging, it doesn't mean it can be overlooked.

Crom The Pale · Jun 18, 2008, 10:22 PM // 22:22

Anet painted themselves into a corner with the level cap and had to think of creative ways to allow players to exceed it without actually leveling up past 20.

GWEN and the other PvE only skills were an attempt to do this, to grant those with level 20 chars something to grind, yes grind, up just as you had to grind up experiance points to reach level 20. This is not traditional grind in some ways since you can complete quests and mission as well as killing monsters on maps to advance the titles. However they may have set the ranks a bit too high forcing players to do more traditional grinding to max the titles. What I think might have been better would be 1 normal mode Hero bood + 1 Normal Dungeon + 1Hard mode Hero or 1 Hard mode dungeon = 1 max title.

Snow Bunny · Jun 18, 2008, 10:27 PM // 22:27

I re-read Sha's letter, and was surprised to see the reasonably hostile reaction it provoked, when in fact, most of Sha's fears and complaints were absolutely warranted and spot on.

Fast forward several months, through some rather drastic changes, and we have Avarre's equally thoughtful letter, which yielded a much different brand of response.

In the same manner that most players, save for several veterans, some of the mods, and various other traditionally realistic posters here, attacked Sha's letter for being overly pessimistic, Avarre's letter is being equally criticized by the same audience, except to a lesser extent, mainly because so many of Avarre's complaints are glaring at us.

Several months from now, when ANet continues to ruin their product further, and months after that, when ANet produces Gw2 and ruins that, will we need 'An Open Letter to Anet' Parts 3 and 4 to convince the carebears here and at Anet that ANet's wrong?

Nevin · Jun 19, 2008, 12:20 AM // 00:20

What can I say other then this is why I have moved on. (Shameless plug for AoC)

pumpkin pie · Jun 19, 2008, 03:04 AM // 03:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Pumpkin, man I'm going to seem so bitter but I swear I'm just posting a response here:

Guild Wars was never "technically" marketed as an MMOG in Anet's eyes. They stated repeatedly that it was a CORPG. BUT... big but, they are riding the coattails of the MMOG market but still massiver multiplayer on-line game fits the description of Guild Wars (I would challenge someone to argue that Guild Wars is NOT a massive multi-player on-line game. Most people now days see this as a description for the interaction in the game and not a storyline). Guild Wars was trying to be very, very unique and they succeeded in the beginning in that regard. The gameplay, mechanics, were quite different from the other MMOG's on the market. But categorizing your game yourself (as Anet did) technically put it in a place all by itself.... with no competition. So it's a catch, is this either the best and the worst CORPG (thinking about it, it would be forced to be both if it's the ONLY game in this category)? Or you compare it to the games that it's remarkably similar to.

Personally, despite what Anet marketing says... everyone knew it would be compared to other MMOG's. Even Anet knew that. You can't self-categorize your own game and then complain when people try to compare it to similar games on the market today. Especially since no other games have come out into that category as well.

Edit: And... he deleted his response. Fine, I'll address it to Regina then :P

I've always thought of Guild Wars as an MMORPG, and when I saw Regina says it isn't an MMORPG, that just made me very mad, cos I thought thats how Community Relation respond to their customer, when they have problems, you say no no, your wrong, cos we are not what you think we are, so I went to look up the official webpage, and some other webpages, like wiki, and pc gamer and well lots of others webpages, all confirm that Guild Wars is a MMORPG, so I posted Inde, then I found what you posted above, so I deleted :P~ , well I am sure it isn't just me to have the impression that Guild Wars is an MMORPG.

anyway, i deleted post before you posted, so did not meant to make you sound like your responding to ... er what ever :P~

now, what I want to know is what is the different between CORPG and MMORPG,

Avarre · Jun 19, 2008, 04:17 AM // 04:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skye Marin

That only means that they are willing to try the impossible for the player base. Few developers would do that.

I think everyone would prefer they didn't try the impossible, and instead did the realistic. At least then, whatever they tried to do, would most likely be of high quality and clear focus.

samifly · Jun 19, 2008, 04:23 AM // 04:23

A CORPG is a competitive/cooperative online role playing game. Its not massively multiplayer because of being entirely instanced, other than towns.

Phaern Majes · Jun 19, 2008, 04:24 AM // 04:24

This pretty much describes my GW experience. I enjoyed GW when it first came out and I continued to enjoy it throughout the release of factions and upto Nightfall. And hell I'll even admit that I did enjoy NF for about the first week. Then things went downhill for me.
None of my guildies ever wanted to group up and do things they just all started H/H. Pugs more often consisted of people who didn't own NF, didn't understand how to setup heroes, or for whatever reason refused to use them. Now they weren't always bad players but for the most part it became painful to play with others.
I enjoy grouping with people if I wanted to do something by myself for 3-5 hours I'd find a different game. There are a lot better single player games out there than GW, and that is what it essentially became for me with the release of NF.
Then the EotN came out and well lets face it, it was rushed and not very well thought out. All the bugs, glitches, lack of thought on skills, and God knows what else a game could have, that expansion had them all. It also moved GW further into the camp of time > skill rather than skill > time. Its more about how long can you grind at it than how good you are. There is no difficulty to the dungeons or missions and the grind required to get new armor, consumables, better pve-skills, etc is ridiculous.
Understand, I'm not complaining. I didn't like the new armors anyways, consumables you can get at rank 3 or 4, whichever I managed to unlock them, and the pve-skills are mostly worthless with a couple of exceptions. My point is that it shouldn't of went down this road, and it did make the game much less enjoyable for me.
I've moved on to other games. I log back in every couple weeks but can't force myself to stay on more than 20 minutes before I'm already sick at the state of the game.
I have no intention of buying GW2 at the moment, and while that may or may not change, I can for certain say I will not buy it at its release. I will wait 2-3 months after the release and give it a good hard look to decide if Anet decided to make a game that I can enjoy or if they continued down this path to hell.

Cacheelma · Jun 19, 2008, 04:37 AM // 04:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by samifly

A CORPG is a competitive/cooperative online role playing game. Its not massively multiplayer because of being entirely instanced, other than towns.

And that's the only (small) difference the game has.

There're many other korean games that isn't "massively multiplayer because of being entirely instanced, other than towns" too. Yogurting, for one, fits that description perfectly. The game calls itself "Casual-MMOG". It shows that it doesn't really matter how you want to categorize a game.

My friends think GW is the same as other MMOGs, but they never expect the game to have all those grind-fest stuff or high level cap or whatever that traditional MMOGs should have (Hell, they all left the game as soon as Anet tried to turn GW into one of those).

It's all about how the company makes the game to be, not just how people, or the dev, want to call it.