Curse

Malice Black · Apr 19, 2008, 12:14 AM // 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

"let it rot".

wise words for the $200 i spent to play this game...

Everything has to end. You continue to play. I'm giving my gold stuff to that guy for his event, then I'll prob uninstall to make roon for AoC.

quickmonty · Apr 19, 2008, 12:19 AM // 00:19

PvP is broken. If it worked properly they wouldn't have to continually make adjustments to skills.

Although the people that I know who play PvE are a very small percentage of the GW population, none of them rely on Ursan, but this and all the other 'PvE only' skills were thrown in to appease the PvE crowd. Unfortunately there are still a lot of PvE'ers that don't rely on those skills to a great extent, hence the outcry when skills get 'nerfed'. I've always tried to take these update with a grain of salt, but it seems that ANET is pushing more and more PvE players into using Ursan. PvE is broken.

PvP broken + PvE broken = GW broken. Can they fix the problem in GW2? Time will tell.

Dr Strangelove · Apr 19, 2008, 12:28 AM // 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

PvP is broken. If it worked properly they wouldn't have to continually make adjustments to skills.

That makes no sense. In order to keep the game fresh and discourage single builds like IWAY dominating, skill changes are necessary. Sometimes a nerf is to fix something broken, other times it's to encourage alternate playstyles. For instance, bsurge wasn't particulary overpowered, especially considering the foul feast necros everywhere. However, it was boring as hell to play the same eles every time. The game is now skewed more towards water eles.

If both PvE and PvP are receiving no updates, that means the game is completely neglected, not that things are working.

Avarre · Apr 19, 2008, 12:29 AM // 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDL

So if you're saying that "ANET has NOW STARTED taking the policy of doing whatever it takes to not cause backlashes in the PvE community..etc etc", then it makes a little more sense, but is still woefully overreacting. As noted above: this is the FIRST example of this sort of thing being stated outright. It may indeed be the last (if the QQing from the vocal PvP community is sufficient, for instance), but either way, it's far far too small a representative sample of behaviour to base a DOOOOOOM-based polemic on.

It seems a pretty ridiculous thing to do (the reversion, that is) when the update it's planned for is so minor. I could understand it if they did a major overhaul targeting a lot of problematic skills/mechanics, but these are really just small tweaks.

There are going to be balance changes anyway, and if this week's are any judge, there will be complaints no matter how much actual effect they have on PvE. I'd not like to see ANet try to avoid the inevitable complaints from PvE players by making small, ineffective changes.

englitdaudelin · Apr 19, 2008, 01:00 AM // 01:00

Quoted:
The truth of the matter is that these skill balances, the lost of real rewards in pvp, and the ongoing problems in GvG/HA/TA/RA are real problems that need attention.

So, what ARE the ongoing problems in PvP arenas?

Is it this? We all know there have been major issues in PvP, and Anet has proclaimed the lost of real world rewards in PvP. There have been numerous problems concerning griefer builds in arenas, like escape rangers; class imbalances in PvP such as Ranger superiority in interrupting in comparison to Mesmers, who are dangling on to the metagame by the thin strands of diversion, shatter enchantment, and shame. The retardedness of Paragon leadership mechanics, Ritualists now getting booted out of the meta because of recent nerfs....

??

Or is there more?

One of the most incisive comments I read a few days ago ran something like this: SKILLS got nerfed so that BAD AI could remain...bad. Skills got nerfed because they did too much damage to NPCs. The implied solution: fix AI in PvP battles, and no nerf is needed. However Rits and Paras had skills nerfed so hard (because of faulty AI in NPCs) that they became, as Helmos suggested, marginal classes.

When I first heard about the nerfs, I was playing Ursan, in a Hard Mode Dungeon, on my ranger. As the night began, I was even thinking, "I'm a bit bored with Ursan. It's knocking out vanquishes, dungeons, and more...but it's...boring. I'd like to try some other builds."

Then the nerfs came out, and I heard first about them on ventrilo...without the knowledge of the "temporary" part. And I realized the truth:

Ursan's about the only thing left that works.

Certainly, I exaggerate. Please don't flame. But the Ancestor's Rage nerf makes it highly susceptible to interrupt by HM mobs with interrupters. Paragon nerfs across the board have sharply limited the para's ability to keep parties alive. Mesmer nerfs have weakened the capabilities of mesmers against the lvl 28 foes we encounter.

Nerf after nerf after nerf has served to make Hard Mode harder for SOME people (if you're leet, I assume you already stopped reading to start typing your post about my team builds blah blah blah), and there has remained one easy solution: Press 1, 1, 1, 2, 1 , 1, 2.... Ursan it is.

I do not intend to dismiss the concerns of PvP players; they kick my ass too frequently for anything but my respect. I play little enough PvP that I can't speak to AI issues and imbalanced skills: but the nerfs (to keep it "balanced") serve to imbalance the PvE world just a little more every day.

I'm glad the skill nerfs revert. But shouldn't this step make SOMEONE designing PvP, skill balances, and NPC AI, wake up and recognize the intertwined situation...and seek a solution that DOESN'T limit Hard Mode Builds? Seek a solution that CAN BE PERMANENT? Seek a solution that DOESN'T hurt the casual, or hardcore, or farmtastic, or nooberiffic, PvE player? Seek a solution that DOESN'T force PvP into more and more narrow roles (involving the same 5 classes or so?)?

Hope this was vaguely coherent.

quickmonty · Apr 19, 2008, 01:03 AM // 01:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

That makes no sense. In order to keep the game fresh and discourage single builds like IWAY dominating, skill changes are necessary. Sometimes a nerf is to fix something broken, other times it's to encourage alternate playstyles. For instance, bsurge wasn't particulary overpowered, especially considering the foul feast necros everywhere. However, it was boring as hell to play the same eles every time. The game is now skewed more towards water eles.

If both PvE and PvP are receiving no updates, that means the game is completely neglected, not that things are working.

Thanks for agreeing that the 'nerfs' are "to fix something broken".

If something is running properly it doesn't need to be 'fixed' every week or two. "Alternate playstyles" should come about by people experimenting with different skill combinations, not forced by reducing effectiveness of skills.

I'm seeing a parallel in the mindsets of those that use the FotM builds (IWAY comes to mind) for PvP and those that use Ursan in PvE. They take the easy path.

DDL · Apr 19, 2008, 01:04 AM // 01:04

Maybe they're testing the waters? See whether saying "S'ok, we'll change it back" gets a better reception that not saying so (irrespective of whether they'll actually change it back or not).

As for small tweaks, for the most part yeah, but the changes to the two rit rez skills are fairly major, given that their original advantages (speed/no recharge) have been lost, while their disadvantages (LOL U DIE I DIE/div by two health loss) have been retained.

(though yeah, ok: if you need rezes in PvE THAT much it's "lern 2 play" etc etc)

RotteN · Apr 19, 2008, 01:16 AM // 01:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

im sorry but you're just wildly incorrect here...

please enlighten me how someone's oppinion can be "wildly incorrect".

I still stand by my point : PvE does not need balancing like PvP does. Therefor i sure don't see any reason why they'd suddenly start including it in the balance policy.

Surely, you can counter that in PvE, every class should be just as effective. Effective at what might i ask ? The point of classes is that they all have something to excell at.
Sure, your mesmer might not be the most wanted party member. That's not because of flaws in class design, but because PvE's too easy to even have any need for shutdown (which is a mesmer's playground).
Mesmers will never nuke the hell out of stuff, nor pose a serious melee risk,... They're good for shutdown, it's what they do. Anet's "bigger harder faster stronger" approach on making PvE harder was the wrong approach. improving AI and setting up effective mobs with a viarity of professions (much like a GvG team) would've greatly encouraged diverse player parties, instead of the tank - nukers - monks stuff we've seen since day one.

Point remains : PvE doesn't belong in the balance equation

belladonna shylock · Apr 19, 2008, 01:29 AM // 01:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by RotteN

Point remains : PvE doesn't belong in the balance equation

This i agree with this, sorta. But, say you've been playing your ONE character for almost 3 years and something comes along (a nerf to a skil(s)/attribute). Sadly, you no longer enjoy playing said class. Is this the point you where you start looking into WoW?

I personally believe that half of anet's message "we don't want to infringe on pve" ( too lazy to go grab it) was a BAD idea to even put. they should have simply left it out and stated the changes were for the tourny and that skills would be replaced may 1st. or maybe not even announced any of this and just changed it back on may 1st.

Is it worth getting upset over? no. it's just a game. and it's called Guild Wars for a reason. so if you update bothers you, just remember the name of the game.

pah01 · Apr 19, 2008, 01:34 AM // 01:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yes this is the first example of them doing this, but I am not convinced people are overreacting. The statement in itself is a huge deal. They are basically doing 3 things at once:

1. Sacrificing PvP to prevent PvE backlash
2. Giving up the quest for PvP balance
3. Lying that they are doing it for PvE balance, because Ursan exists

I think my main point was that this update isn't about balance at all, but something else more sad that is disguised as a balance update.

This is so true

Crom The Pale · Apr 19, 2008, 01:37 AM // 01:37

Its very difficult to look at this from the correct perspective, when everyone has a unique take on what makes a great game or is fun for them to play.

How does GW look to somebody starting out today for the very first time?

How does it look to a player with only one chapter?

How does it look to someone thats been here for 3+ years?

How does it look to Anet?

From my perspective(3+ year player/PvE mostly) GW was an excelent testing groud for new ideas. They didn't all work but they did give us a game that out lasted many other games.

Perfection is something to be sought after, but it can never actually be achieved. The fact that Anet is still trying to adjust the game to keep things working is very impressive to me.

Is there a perfect integration of PvP and PvE? So far the answer is no.

Will they create the perfect ballance in GW2? We all hope so!

Carinae · Apr 19, 2008, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

I still think the worst idea in GW history was the PvE only skills. They broke the game.

Along with Heroes, yes, you are correct.

Crom The Pale · Apr 19, 2008, 04:39 AM // 04:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carinae Dragonblood

Along with Heroes, yes, you are correct.

The game was broken long before Heros or PvE skills.

One of the biggest flaws is that for a PvP game you need reasonable HP on players to keep it balanced, but in PvE you need a much higher standard to give you more room for dealing with massively unbalanced mobs and super powerfull bosses.

I am not saying PvE was too hard, or too easy, just that it plays much differently than PvP.

Another flaw I believe was the way they implimented Dual classes. They created situations where some skills were more powerfull/usefull on chars as a secondary class than as a primary class.

Instead of allowing one class to use another classes skills they should have created a new set of dual class skills. While this aproach would be much more complex and take much more thought on thier part it might have made a very large impact on how people play the game as well as creating a larger variety of choices for players.

Dr Strangelove · Apr 19, 2008, 04:52 AM // 04:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

Thanks for agreeing that the 'nerfs' are "to fix something broken".

If something is running properly it doesn't need to be 'fixed' every week or two. "Alternate playstyles" should come about by people experimenting with different skill combinations, not forced by reducing effectiveness of skills.

I'm seeing a parallel in the mindsets of those that use the FotM builds (IWAY comes to mind) for PvP and those that use Ursan in PvE. They take the easy path.

Guess who sucks at reading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

Sometimes a nerf is to fix something broken, other times it's to encourage alternate playstyles. For instance, bsurge wasn't particulary overpowered...

R.Shayne · Apr 19, 2008, 05:45 AM // 05:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

I'm seeing a parallel in the mindsets of those that use the FotM builds (IWAY comes to mind) for PvP and those that use Ursan in PvE. They take the easy path.

Yep, I am starting to see that too.

Did my monthly guessing for z-keys and looked through some of the skill charts and one thing I noticed, these people playing agianst duplicates of themselves. I don't know if it is the easy path or the path guranteed to win.

Fear Me! · Apr 19, 2008, 05:58 AM // 05:58

Wow, great post. It took a bit to read it all but strong points overall and very well versed. Unfortunately, as I recall reading that speech by Jeff Strain on how to make a successful mmorpg, everyone here who posted their issue clearly and with utter precision falls under the elite player category;not mere casual gamers. In short, unless you're on the dev team posting here, your points, no matter how strong or well versed, will simply not be held in consideration. Please read the final paragraph under the MMO Cookbook section; provided here http://www.guildwars.com/events/trad...7/gcspeech.php
As you can see, knowing the game so well to the point of precision marks you as an elite player, in short, a minority. You can always however, trick the casual player with cookies to sign a petition to make your dissatisfied population appear larger than what it actually is, forcing the belief that the large playerbase is dissatisfied and not a minority.

Dr Strangelove · Apr 19, 2008, 06:38 AM // 06:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Me!

Wow, great post. It took a bit to read it all but strong points overall and very well versed. Unfortunately, as I recall reading that speech by Jeff Strain on how to make a successful mmorpg, everyone here who posted their issue clearly and with utter precision falls under the elite player category;not mere casual gamers. In short, unless you're on the dev team posting here, your points, no matter how strong or well versed, will simply not be held in consideration. Please read the final paragraph under the MMO Cookbook section; provided here http://www.guildwars.com/events/trad...7/gcspeech.php
As you can see, knowing the game so well to the point of precision marks you as an elite player, in short, a minority. You can always however, trick the casual player with cookies to sign a petition to make your dissatisfied population appear larger than what it actually is, forcing the belief that the large playerbase is dissatisfied and not a minority.

That is a damn good article, but all the things I want to say about it would derail this thread even further. So, kudos to you for posting that.

manitoba1073 · Apr 19, 2008, 07:16 AM // 07:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

Oki - I PvE pretty much exclusively.
The only PvP I do is the PvP that doesn't matter.
Having said that - I can now continue by saying that PvE and PvP are two completely different games.
And - at this point in time - "balance" is a PvP EXCLUSIVE term. Or better yet - the search for balance is.
So - if PvE is to be considered in ANY way when it comes to balance - there are pretty much only two options:
1. the complete destruction and the subsequent rebuilding of PvE so that it fits the PvP rules
2. the end of the search for balance in PvP

And out of those two options - I feel that one is much more realistic then the other.

Or what my interpretation of the word "interesting" is ...

I aggree they have been completely different games for a long time now but once upon a time they werent. That is where all hell started to break loose.

Anet put themselves onto the precarious ledge they are on. They could still make balance for PvP and keep PvE untouched, but yet refuse to take the steps needed to do it. IS this a step in the right direction I'm not currently sure. Should it have happened long ago, YES.

Buzzer · Apr 19, 2008, 09:51 AM // 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWasp

Theres also long term loot-scaling, if you've had a character for over a year and play alot, forget about getting drops on him. This game remembers you entering a explorable from months ago.

Less misinformation please.

Kashrlyyk · Apr 19, 2008, 12:22 PM // 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you would be playing a game with an enormous skill system and free respecs, but never want to use it. Creating new bars and executing them, is, to me, the very core of the game. Everything else is just fancy graphics.

That is the difference between WANTING to change a bar and being FORCED to change a bar.