Curse

Loviatar · May 22, 2008, 11:49 PM // 23:49

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

You are here since early 2005. Do you really consider yourself to be among the crowd of the clueless casuals, casuals being considered nowadays to be dumb as a bump somehow, that like easy buttons?

perfect elitest example

here is what i am refering to and the quote on it.

the hardcore are not even enough to be counted in the bottom line.

JEFF STRAIN

Quote:

Pay close attention to complexity creep. Don't assume that most of your players are reading your website and consuming information about your game. Most of your players will never read your website, never visit fansites, and never participate in forum discussions. We are often immersed in the community forums and rants and raves posted to game fansites, and it is easy to lose perspective about the knowledge level of most of our players. Players who participate in fansites and send six-page emails to your community team are experts at your game – they probably know more about it than you do – so it's important to realize that they do not represent the average player. The vast majority of your players are not digging into every detail of every spell or creating lists of animations so that they can react when they see the basilisk twitch its nose. They want to play, not study, so take care to create a game that allows them to do so.

linkie on that

http://www.guildwars.com/events/trad...7/gcspeech.php

SerenitySilverstar · May 23, 2008, 12:03 AM // 00:03

Holy Crap Loviatar. That's a quote that needs to be put at the head of this forum with flashing neon lights with a big flashing headline "Warning! Not everything in this world is about YOU, elitist snob!"

Lady Lozza · May 23, 2008, 12:48 AM // 00:48

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of:
"Warning - the average Guru poster IS NOT the average GW player!"

Phineas · May 23, 2008, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azora

i read somewhere that god areas aret affected by over farming/loot scalling and all those things that ruined pve

soo more people means more ectos wich means they drop price (and my aprents say i suck at math)

They need to worry more about your spelling than your maths.

I'm sorry to see Glyph of Concentration reverted to 'nerfed' status. That's all.

Kali Magdalene · May 23, 2008, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrAnt1c²

Won't more people farming UW, decrease the drop rate of ecto's and such?

People still believe this?

DreamWind · May 23, 2008, 01:24 AM // 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Strain

Pay close attention to complexity creep. Don't assume that most of your players are reading your website and consuming information about your game. Most of your players will never read your website, never visit fansites, and never participate in forum discussions. We are often immersed in the community forums and rants and raves posted to game fansites, and it is easy to lose perspective about the knowledge level of most of our players. Players who participate in fansites and send six-page emails to your community team are experts at your game – they probably know more about it than you do – so it's important to realize that they do not represent the average player. The vast majority of your players are not digging into every detail of every spell or creating lists of animations so that they can react when they see the basilisk twitch its nose. They want to play, not study, so take care to create a game that allows them to do so.

LoL. That quote is the exact reason PvP is dead, Ursan rules the land, balance is down the toilet, and this update with all its numerous flaws and hilarious skill changes has happened to begin with. I'm glad everybody is happy.

Kali Magdalene · May 23, 2008, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

Terrible. Just what I thought would happen when they announced seperate skill balancing. Only buffs to PvE.

Bye bye balance. Bye bye challenging PvE experience. Bye bye fun.

Did you miss the mix of buffs and nerfs to PVE and PVP at the end of the list of changes?

Burst Cancel · May 23, 2008, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by C2K

Because cheats don't belong in MMOs?? If you use any of those codes in a generic online match for the games you mentioned, people would call you a "lamer" and leave the match. In the case of Doom, you could even be IP banned from the server.

Missed the point. Why don't cheats belong in MMOs? The rest of your argument is completely irrelevant because 1) it doesn't matter what people think of you, and 2) Doom and SC are competitive settings, whereas GW PvE is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

That's a question only in your own tortured mind that sees not the choices that are, but also the myriad choices that might be. For nearly every game ever invented, the designer selects the difficulty (or difficulties) for the players. If you give the players that choice, then they are not playing the game any more -- they're playing a metagame.

Playing a game and playing a metagame aren't mutually exclusive. A lot of games have difficulty settings (heck, GW has one). Most console RPGs have built-in difficulty settings in the sense that you can underlevel or overlevel your characters, and take on user-created challenges like "no items", "solo party", etc. In short, you haven't answered the question, and you haven't shown the question to be irrelevant. So the question stands - why shouldn't you let the players choose their difficulty?

Quote:

Take a game like Oblivion, which does give the player that choice. The majority of the game is only fun at the hardest difficulty setting, but there is the occasional encounter that is just stupid to play at that setting. Seasoned players have developed heuristics for when to push the difficulty slider to the left or right in order to maximize their fun. However, they ruin any form of immersion in the game, role-playing or otherwise. The game just feels like a tedious mechanic with nice graphics.

Fun for who? And stupid for who? I haven't played Oblivion, but are you really saying that nobody has fun at any difficulty except the highest one? Or that nobody can do those particular encounters at the highest difficulty? As for immersion - some people care, some people don't. I've always been a mechanics person, myself. I play games like Disgaea that are, at their core, just a mechanics engine for minmaxing. I find it incredibly fun without even touching the story.

Quote:

Because, using your own metric, winning always is not sustainably fun. Aggroing a roomfull of cacodemons and killing them with your fists in godmode is fun the first, possibly the second, time. Then it gets awfully boring.

Strawman. I give you the option of a win button. It's up to you whether you want to use it. If it's not fun, don't use it.

There's also the issue that there were plenty of people who played Doom, Starcraft, etc. for months and years with cheat codes. I know people who wouldn't even touch an FPS without all cheats enabled, and they had lots of fun for what would certainly qualify as "sustainable" periods. Similarly, many SC games on B.net were BGH with people doing nothing but massing battlecruisers and similar nonsense. This kind of thing went on for years and years. So while you or I might not be having fun after the "first, possible second, time", I submit that there are plenty of people that do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

Few people actually know what they want - they tend to think if they can see it in their head it will work in real life. In the GW world look at locked gates - Factions is *exactly* what the online community wanted for a long time. Once they got it turned out it wasn't so hot. In real world examples look at sub-prime mortgage loans - didn't work out as people had envisioned did they? No different here - most people want something that doesn't exist and are angry when it doesn't happen.

Really? Some people were happy with the locked gates because people could no longer 'cheat' by running - in short, people who wanted to control how other people played the game. The sub-prime issue is a case of everyone on all sides being greedy, and the end result of an economy quite comfortable with debt that was irresponsibly deregulated.

But even assuming, arguendo, that people really didn't know what they wanted in those cases, can you state with any credibility that people don't know what they want here? How can you say a priori whether people know what they want or not? The examples you gave above were chosen in hindsight - you explicitly picked cases where people said they wanted 'A', were given 'A', and then, allegedly, decided they didn't want 'A' anymore. I could give examples of cases where people got exactly what they wanted and were happy about it. Can you predict ahead of time which situation it will be? And if so, how? Just because you know better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

There is a named logical fallacy there but I'm too lazy to look it up. However I'll give an example (for an active male):

1: 250 calories per day == death
2: 1000 calories per day == not healthy
3: 1500 calories per day == more healthy
4: 2000 calories per day == even more healthy

Therefore since we see increasing calories is healthy we will consume 100,000 calories per day and be the healthiest person on the planet. Obviously that line of logic is flawed as it is not a linear relationship. Power vs fun isn't a linear relationship in gaming either.

Your argument is begging the question. You assume a priori that power v. fun isn't a linear relationship, when that's exactly a critical piece of the question (see above). Even assuming, arguendo, that you're right and it's not a linear relationship, we still have two problems: 1) at what point is more power no longer fun (more importantly, how can you tell?) and 2) why shouldn't we give each person the ability to pick their own power threshold?

Quote:

There is a point where power becomes too much. Players like walking around feeling like gods - however they also like playing the game. Any skill or button that violates the latter sucks. See Ursan - it allows them to wipe any area yet they can also play the game. An instant win, or your example, violates this. If you don't understand this concept any one who has a remote idea of those concepts will dismiss you as a hack - you aren't doing your side any favors by saying obviously foolish ideas. Most reading understand this even if they do not have the information to express why you are full of crap.

I think you're confused as to what 'my side' is - it's important to be able to separate an argument from your own personal thoughts and opinions. And it is, in fact, irrelevant what I really think as long as I present a cogent argument. I have still not received satisfactory answers to the questions I'm posing.

Furthermore, the second half of your argument is irrelevant ad hominem. It doesn't matter if anyone would "dismiss me as a hack", or whether you think I'm full of crap or that "my ideas" are "obviously foolish"; neither of those is a logical argument.

Again, a "win" button is entirely optional. Similarly, a Chimera of Intensity blessing would also be optional. You can use it if it makes the game more fun for you. Don't use it if it doesn't. And while your "you can't even play the game" argument might apply to the win button, it certainly doesn't apply to the Chimera. So where do we draw the line? Anything overpowered is okay as long as you can still "play the game"? If that's your line, we also have to define exactly what "play the game" means. Some people would argue that loading Ursan means you aren't even "playing the game" anymore. What do you think, and how do you justify it?

Quote:

The problem with an Appeal to Authority in this case is the the authority obviously decided you were incorrect in the end. Whatever quotes you have from Izzy the split is happening on the 22'nd (supposedly). If what Izzy does is correct then the split is correct as he (along with Anet) is doing it. You are in a catch 22 - either Izzy is someone to listen too and the split happened or Izzy isn't someone to listen too and the split is wrong. It is silly to say Izzy, only an that day, knew what he was talking about.

There's no catch-22 in my argument. The argument takes the position that Izzy knew what he was talking about, and the split is correct. That is, PvEers like to be as overpowered and epic as possible, and therefore the split allows Anet to overpower PvE without worrying about PvP.

SerenitySilverstar · May 23, 2008, 03:37 AM // 03:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

LoL. That quote is the exact reason PvP is dead, Ursan rules the land, balance is down the toilet, and this update with all its numerous flaws and hilarious skill changes has happened to begin with. I'm glad everybody is happy.

C'mon guys. Quit hanging your elitism on a peg, you're making it too easy.

The more you do it, the less the game makers will pay attention.

Tyla · May 23, 2008, 03:38 AM // 03:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

ahhahahah now pvpers QQ about changes.

hey! adapt.

Yeah, because a PvP'er is really going to be bothered about PvE.

I think what you are looking for is "PvX". Someone who plays both gametypes.

And find me a PvP'er who hasn't played PvE.

C2K · May 23, 2008, 05:35 AM // 05:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Missed the point. Why don't cheats belong in MMOs?

Why do you need to cheat in order to be good at or have fun with a game?

IMO, if you have to cheat to find fulfillment in a game, you probably don't enjoy playing it.

Quote:

The rest of your argument is completely irrelevant because 1) it doesn't matter what people think of you

If you need to cheat to get further in a game, it must be a peer problem. People will always be at differing levels of skill no matter what game it is. Its the old Chess rule: There is always an opponent out there that will beat you. If you have to cheat to be as efficient as they are, then it must be a self esteem issue and what others think of you does matter.

Quote:

and 2) Doom and SC are competitive settings, whereas GW PvE is not.

I can't find the topic, but there was a thread where guilds were comparing their elite area completion times. There are also challenge missions in the game. Guild Wars originated as a competative game where guilds were always competing against each other.

So, Guild Wars WAS a competative setting, but then the Carebears came and Tyria turned into Care-a-Lot.

Esan · May 23, 2008, 05:46 AM // 05:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyla

And find me a PvP'er who hasn't played PvE.

I will, just as soon as you find me a PvPer who likes PvE.

fenix · May 23, 2008, 08:26 AM // 08:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

I will, just as soon as you find me a PvPer who likes PvE.

Hi.

I knew this would fail, but lol. tbh, I was expecting something more ridiculous, like some dumb PvE buffs...but at least that didn't happen. It would be nice to have a GOOD (big) PvP balance though.

manitoba1073 · May 23, 2008, 08:50 AM // 08:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyla

And find me a PvP'er who hasn't played PvE.

All the ones that bought the PvP only editions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

Hi.

I knew this would fail, but lol. tbh, I was expecting something more ridiculous, like some dumb PvE buffs...but at least that didn't happen. It would be nice to have a GOOD (big) PvP balance though.

Sometimes you can be funny.

DarkNecrid · May 23, 2008, 08:53 AM // 08:53

Quote:

All the ones that bought the PvP only editions.

Which is very few, probably like 100.

And that's not counting the ones who already have another account.

They aren't advertised.

Quote:

I will, just as soon as you find me a PvPer who likes PvE.

90%+ of us like PvE, but hate hardcore PvErs who say "learn to adapt" and then bitch and moan about Splinter Weapon/SR/Paras getting nerfed because they can't adapt....

Longasc · May 23, 2008, 09:06 AM // 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

linkie on that

http://www.guildwars.com/events/trad...7/gcspeech.php

You are talking about people that do no care about forums, do not read them, fine, fine...

But why must every casual player be an outright idiot that wants imba skills and does not care for a good game at all?

If they dumb down the game even more, not even the dumbest idiots will enjoy it for long.

Longasc · May 23, 2008, 09:40 AM // 09:40

Quote from Isaiah Cartwright's Wiki page:
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_...iah_Cartwright

Sense it seems like a lot of people are posting about this I'll clear a few things up real quick.

1. I did this article few months ago back when we didn't know if we where gonna do the PvE PvP split.
2. I think a lot of people are missing my point with this statement " PvE players tend to want extremely overpowered things and feel epic while killing lots of things." I'm not saying that PvE players don't want a challenge, I'm saying they want to be powerful, feel epic, and overcome challenges, shooting out a fireball that kills 1 rat, vs a fireball that kills a cave full of trolls has two very different feels. I also never liked the term "PvE player" as so many different people enjoy different things both casual and hardcore, it's just always been my impression that going on an adventure to slay a dragon feels way cooler then going on an adventure to clear rats from a farmers house. Yet mechanically they are the same thing. In any case sorry if I came across offensive, was just trying to explain some of the challenges in designing a single game for multiple people with multiple goals for their playing experience. Izzy @-'---- 00:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Still does not explain why a specialized farming skill needed a buff and why there is this major difference of 1/4 second activation time between the pve and pvp variantes of eremite's attack and mystic sweep.

And as people already mentioned on the webpage, as long as Ursan is fine, I do not believe him that he did not mean what he said. He is just covering from the flames of the angry dragon. :P

Akimb0 · May 23, 2008, 09:47 AM // 09:47

Well Anet have done it again. How do they make such poor decisions? How can they nerf anything from the Paragon .... Especially spear skills. They already think it's ok to have 3 second use times on some spear skills, then they nerf harriers toss as well -_- maybe they should stop repeatedly nerfing the popular pvp skills, and look at why the rest of the skills are basically never used. Also why not do something about Ursan? I mean it's the single most dominating skill in PvE.

around · May 23, 2008, 11:20 AM // 11:20

Quote:

And yet they are still PvPers that dont play PvE at all. Though I did chuckle alittle when you hinted that they didnt really count.

Press b. Count how many obsidian armours you see, how many tormented items, etc etc.

How do you think they got them?

Also, don't you dare say reward points, because even before they were introduced, I would venture that the average player in every top100 guild had items beyond the dreams of most GW players.

NB: Fenix is god at PvE.

Akaraxle · May 23, 2008, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

Press b. Count how many obsidian armours you see, how many tormented items, etc etc.

How do you think they got them?

Also, don't you dare say reward points, because even before they were introduced, I would venture that the average player in every top100 guild had items beyond the dreams of most GW players.

NB: Fenix is god at PvE.

Ever heard about tombs and the first price reset? Most people that weren't there just farmed ectos. And there's the thing with selling invites and guilds.
Though many PvPers are just nerds with too much time in their hands, I don't think they actually PvEd that much.