Curse

Lonesamurai · Apr 08, 2007, 01:07 PM // 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird71

Also, if I understand you correctly, you seem to agree that Anet does not seem to have a clear goal for what their ultimate "balance" is to be. Frankly, this just adds more weight to my argument. They don't know where they're going, but they'll keep trying to get there, try to create that "balance" by constantly tweaking the game. When that happens without a clear goal, you get the exact situation I outlined in my other posts (see links above).

You continually mention "Magic," which is a fine game, and I think a great example. Yes, it does have a wide diversity of ways to play, and does have a relative balance. This balance does not exist because all the cards are equal, or even similar, but rather because every player has an equal chance of access to all available cards. It's up to the player to create his/her deck, some combinations are strong, others are weak. An individual card may be incredibly powerful, but what matters is how it is used by the player. If a player manages to create a combination of cards that overwhelms the competition and simply can't be beat, what happens? Do the manufacturers instantly recall all copies of the cards that make up that combination? Do they immediately change the text and functionality of those cards? No, of course not, because the game is still balanced, as any other player has the same opportunity to use the same tactics. Even then, if the combination does persist and becomes a real problem, they'll change it with the next edition, they won't alter the current game. I think Guild Wars can learn a lot about what makes a game "balanced" from Magic.

So yes, balance can be achieved, if it is made clear what that balance is, and take into account the fact that every change to balance one part of the game tips the scales in another part. The big picture must be kept at the forefront, and all changes must take it into heavy consideration. However, if GW continues in it's current path, seeking the undefined, it may well go the way of games that have fallen before it.

In short, I'll agree with you that it can be done, but I disagree that GW is currently moving toward it. You can't move toward something that has no defined position.

Ok, this is where i'm gonna jump in... And everyone knows I'm the total ANet fanboi, even going as far as creating a radio show for the game...

OK, you have to remember that MTG was a big, and I mean huge, idea as a basis for the skill system in GW from the very beginning...

Oh and as for ANet not knowing where they want to go? thats attrocious crap, especially as they are actually now CHANGING thier business model to accomodate the players... Remember, the Pve campaigns where originally only supposed to be a UAX aquisition system for PvP play and PvP was the original eng game for the game... This is why I and a lot of other players found Prophecies to be very lacking in the PvE department, however, since i switched to being a Hybrid (PvE and PvP) player, i can now appreciate all that ANet have done, far more than a Sole PvP'er or PvE'er can possibly appreciate, due to playing all parts of the game instead of limiting myself to one aspect to of the game

this is the problem that guru and the other (and dare I say it, extremely elitest) forum, TGH has, compared to other games... each has only one side of the playerbase chatting and if they came together, well, there truely would be hell on earth...

Although on that note, i have just reformed my guild as a community guild, instead of just a Guild Wars guild, especially as at the end of spring, beginning of summer last year, it nearly died from lack of player attendance... I'm hoping that won't happen this year, but as the guild poll on my forum has stated, my entire guild is in for GW:EM and GW2

Anyway, thats my rant about it over, I and my guild are looking forward to both the new expansion and the new game, but we're also looking forward to other things, like the new chapter in EvE Online aswell, so there we go

Keithark · Apr 08, 2007, 02:34 PM // 14:34

I would buy GW:EN but I probably will not get GW2 at least until it has been out a while and friends have played it. I have put lots of hours into GW and am not too happy about having to start all over in GW2. If the Hall of monuments thing gives me all my $ and weapons back then I will probably get it. I have ecto, shards, $, and well over 100 greens and don't want to just give them up so I will keep playing GW1 until I have done everything I want to do in there and then if GW2 gets good reviews I may buy it..the release of GW2 is too far away so I doubt GW1 will be able to hold my interest long enough for it anywaya nd I will likely start playing LOtR anyway

Lonesamurai · Apr 08, 2007, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keithark

I would buy GW:EN but I probably will not get GW2 at least until it has been out a while and friends have played it. I have put lots of hours into GW and am not too happy about having to start all over in GW2. If the Hall of monuments thing gives me all my $ and weapons back then I will probably get it. I have ecto, shards, $, and well over 100 greens and don't want to just give them up so I will keep playing GW1 until I have done everything I want to do in there and then if GW2 gets good reviews I may buy it..the release of GW2 is too far away so I doubt GW1 will be able to hold my interest long enough for it anywaya nd I will likely start playing LOtR anyway

Question:

Whats the difference in starting a new character in a new chapter of GW to starting a new character in GW2?

Winstar · Apr 08, 2007, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird71

Before you complain about PvP players paying for PvE content which they don't want (presumably), maybe you should remember that the GW online store offers PvP editions of each campaign, giving you all the PvP skills without the need to purchase the PvE content or unlock any of it through the PvE game. As for the holidays, special weekend events, and "lip movement" (sorry, I had to laugh at that one), while that stuff may be nice, it's fluff, and has absolutely nothing to do with gameplay mechanics, which is what I'm concerned with. You can hold all the special events in the world, but if the mechanics of the game have been torn to pieces, it won't do a bit of good.

You're welcome by the way, a slippery slope is a valid argument as long as it is a true possibility FYI. Am I against having some level of balance withing PvP? Not necessarily. What I am against is the seeking of balance as the driving force behind the majority of changes being made to a game, and such changes being frequently made without concern or regard to how it affects the rest of the game. I have seen this path literally destroy other games, so I'm not just making this up. I wouldn't be so adamant about it if I didn't feel it was a real danger that I had seen others fall to before.

On thing I will give you, you're the first person I've seen on your side of the argument who has admitted that most support for the game comes from PvE players. That's a little detail that most PvP balance proponents usually like to ignore or contest.

Also, if I understand you correctly, you seem to agree that Anet does not seem to have a clear goal for what their ultimate "balance" is to be. Frankly, this just adds more weight to my argument. They don't know where they're going, but they'll keep trying to get there, try to create that "balance" by constantly tweaking the game. When that happens without a clear goal, you get the exact situation I outlined in my other posts (see links above).

You continually mention "Magic," which is a fine game, and I think a great example. Yes, it does have a wide diversity of ways to play, and does have a relative balance. This balance does not exist because all the cards are equal, or even similar, but rather because every player has an equal chance of access to all available cards. It's up to the player to create his/her deck, some combinations are strong, others are weak. An individual card may be incredibly powerful, but what matters is how it is used by the player. If a player manages to create a combination of cards that overwhelms the competition and simply can't be beat, what happens? Do the manufacturers instantly recall all copies of the cards that make up that combination? Do they immediately change the text and functionality of those cards? No, of course not, because the game is still balanced, as any other player has the same opportunity to use the same tactics. Even then, if the combination does persist and becomes a real problem, they'll change it with the next edition, they won't alter the current game. I think Guild Wars can learn a lot about what makes a game "balanced" from Magic.

So yes, balance can be achieved, if it is made clear what that balance is, and take into account the fact that every change to balance one part of the game tips the scales in another part. The big picture must be kept at the forefront, and all changes must take it into heavy consideration. However, if GW continues in it's current path, seeking the undefined, it may well go the way of games that have fallen before it.

In short, I'll agree with you that it can be done, but I disagree that GW is currently moving toward it. You can't move toward something that has no defined position.

P.S. You've obviously put some thought into your arguments, and I admire that. A word of advice: leave out the personal insults and attacks if you really want anyone to take your arguments seriously.

(1) The online store is irrelevant. The point was to illustrate what you get when you walk into the store and pickup the game off the shelf and purchase it. It still stands BY FAR, that the content is weighted in favor of PvE. Whether I have different ways of accessing game content is beside the point. Weekend events are part of it, canthan new years etc etc are aimed at the PvE/causual population. Smaller updates like lip syncing, added content (sorrows, tombs, new bosses, new weapon skins, new greens and so on) are a legitimate part of it. Perhaps the double drop weekends and the double fame weekends and such cancel themselves out in the end, but in GW history by _Far_ the sum of the content is greatly weighted in PvE's favor.

(2) Yes its true I admit that the majority of the player base is PvE oriented to some extent. It not really possible to draw the line between PvE and PvP player across the board because a lot of people do both including myself. But its foolish to think that the dedicated PvP'ers make up the majority of the fan base. As mentioned this is something Anet realizes and of course as a result caters toward pve and casual players.

(3) A slippery slope isn't a valid argument in all cases where the conclusion is a possiblity. The conclusion of almost any slipperly slope argument is a possiblity, the problem is the steps along the way. In order for this game to become ruined by game balance, there would have to be a far more steps on the way that are not likely to all occur. TBH there hasn't been a serious balance of skills for PvP reasons that has had ANY serious effect on the PvE aspect of this game and its playability. You may find some pet build does is a little less effective, but there are likely a billion other ways you can still go and do the same things you always did to succeed. The biggest changes in updates that affected PvE were not balance updates, but changes to monster AI.

(4) For quite some time the design of this game was problematic (see introduction of broken classes into the game in factions and nightfall along with skills for existing classes and the interaction between old and new mechanics). _Now_ there seems to be a more coherant vision about what balance should be and Anet is taking steps to correct problems as they arise. The idea that any of this will lead to the demise of the game is complete BS. Again you can have a more balanced game (again...no one is asking for chess here) and maintain diversity. It is widely agreed that prophecies PvP was pretty freaking great. Everyone was generally happy with the balance the environment ultimately achieved. Shock and surprise PvE was still pretty damn good then as well. OMG balance and fun PvE is possible.

(5) In Magic there is a body called the DCI. The job of the DCI is to oversee the game and the balance issues in it. They don't have to recall cards in Magic they simply Ban or restrict the use of certain cards in various environments. So even though your "card x" might have a certain text on it because of the changes for balance issues which are enforced at tournament events your card doesn't act in the way in which it says on the printed card. In the history of that game when they printed cards that were too strong they were banned from play (see tolarian academy, memory jar and many others). The game became unbalanced and they were forced to do something about. Eventually, the goal of a game like magic (and what should be the goal of a game like GW) is to better understand the mechanics of your game overtime and begin to release sets that aren't broken and foster an environment where different strategies can flourish and where playskill matters more than gimmicks. So actually, the history of magic has been filled with changed card text and bannings and restrictions because they were worried about balance. Which is all something GW should be doing. When magic began they didn't realize that a 0 casting cost artifact that produced 3 mana was nuts, or that a 1 blue cost instant speed unconditional draw of 3 cards was nuts. But as the game developed they learned and made changes.

(6) I apologize for the insult. Thanks for being civil. After page after page and post after post of crap it all gets really frustrating to hear "zmog MY GAME IS RUINED, ANET HATES PVE RAH RAH" from so many people everytime Anet finally does something to help balance the skills in this game. Just because Anet is paying some attention now to PvP to get things fixed doesn't mean that they care more about it than PvP. When auto tournaments are finally in place, and hard mode is realeased and when GWEN comes out and all the wonderful PvE and casual player evernts start being churned out all of this hype, and thats all it is, about Anet biasing itself towards PvP is going to disappear. In the end, PvP needs skill adjustements, and its one of the only things it needs. The changes _up up to and including this weekend_ do nothing to ruin PvE in any meaningful sense of the word "ruin", nor does the search for competative balance preclude diversity and PvE fun.

Darko_UK · Apr 08, 2007, 04:23 PM // 16:23

Winsar your counter argument fails

Lonesamurai · Apr 08, 2007, 04:25 PM // 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darko_UK

Winsar your counter argument fails

how so, some of it makes sense to me

Winstar · Apr 08, 2007, 04:28 PM // 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darko_UK

Winsar your counter argument fails

Actually you are wrong. But please elaborate...

BTW that kind of post is utter BS. If you actually read the post and have anything useful to say other than a grunt that just about equates to "I don't like what u said" from all I can tell then do it. otherwise RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO off.

Tazaki · Apr 08, 2007, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Considering I already have it preordered, I believe that would be a yes. The lack of tons of info doesnt bother me, I have faith in Anet that they'll pull through with a good expansion.

stamenflicker · Apr 09, 2007, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cracko

Would you, or would you wait for more information to come out?

Looking forward to your answers!

I think DOA killed my interest in another chapter. If I get it, I certainly won't be buying two accounts like I did for NF. If I wanted to play a game where I needed to kite enemies, I'd be playing checkers.

Guild Wars was fun when you could run in and smash things. Or when monks could heal without a 40% more energy cost penalty. All the Map Effect Areas in the Realm of Torment, and DOA just made the game stupid. It forced people out of doing the things they loved to do, or the way they loved to play the game. It made people use skills and techniques they might not use otherwise. It was frustrating to me.

I have a warrior, a monk, and an assassin left to finish out all 10 professions in NF. I barely play anymore. So why would I go get a new chapter when I've got more to do in the frustrating experience that is NF? It's not that NF was hard. I beat it five times in the first few months. It's just that NF was stupid.

Mighty Warrior · Apr 09, 2007, 03:19 AM // 03:19

i would buy it now, without a word of what its about.

Firestone · Apr 09, 2007, 03:47 AM // 03:47

Nope... I would not.

I was (and still am) disgusted by the sloppy presentation given by GW:Factions. It's the only pre-order that I've ever made in my whole life, and I got penalised by 2 months before receiving the shipment.

I decided not to do the same for GW:Nightfall, instead relying on the good old method of buying from a motar shop. NF was released in Oct. I bought the game only towards the end of Dec (Read 25th Dec 2006). To be honest, the game is much better than Factions, but still pales in compare to GW:Prophecies.

Somehow, along the way, I've gotten bored of the game. I'm a predominant PVE guy with a minor touch of PVP mindset. Anet keeps saying that this game is all about skill balance. But when you look deeper, how can it be balanced?! There are not even the same numbers of skills for each classes.

Example:
In terms of total number elite skills,
W > N, R, Mo, E > Me > Rt, A > D, P

This game is already off balanced from the start. And trust the fanatics to keep echoing about skill balances.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This brings me to another point. Whenever Anet finds a skill as "over-powered", instead of finding an elegant solution to the problem, what they did is using brute force to solve the problem. Somehow, I figured that would happened when they decided to give Warrior classes 2 extra elite skills compared to Mesmer classes.

Example:
1. Energy Surge keeps getting the nerf stick because players keep using them again and again compared to other elites. In order to promote the usage of other skills, they decided to nerf it.

2. Paraway was a problem in HA, due to spamming of chants, shouts etc. Instead of using a solution like limiting all chants etc to work once only for the entire duration of the skill, they decided to nerf the skills so that no one will ever use it again. Does Incoming comes to mind?

Example:
Incoming.. last for 10 sec (out of 20 sec). When the chant ends, and another paragon cast Incoming, it will not be taken into effect, since the duration (20sec) is not up yet.

I find that this is a better solution compared to the approach that Anet is using. Even comments like paragon not affecting another paragon is not an elegant approach. After all, warrior shouts affect each other too.

3. Same problem with Necro HA. They deemed Soul Reaping to be too powerful, and nerfed it to every 5 seconds. IMO, they should just change it to an attribute linking like that of a paragon.

Example:
For every two points of Soul Reaping, you gain 1 Energy whenever a creature near you dies. You gain half that amount for Spirits.

This way, it will still work well in PVE and not over-powered in PVP. After all, assuming that they do put in 14 to soul reap (in PVP), that only will yield 7 energy per death, and only 3 energy per spirit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For PVE, people do get bored of games if there are not enough variety in the game itself. For GW, everything is the same. Eg. same type of damage per weapon, same type of defence for armor, same type of stats for gears, etc... and u will get the idea.

Segregating PVP and PVE is important. People do not like to be forced feed something that do not interest them. After all, why should I change myself to suit the game, when I can change the game to suit myself? Factions tried to merge PVP and PVE together... and I think you guys get the idea of how that goes.

PVE items do not need to be max, perfect everytime. It should be hard. This will create a trading market. Now in the game, everyone is selling sell 15^50 sword, +30 life blah blah... only the skin is different. In this kind of setting, its easy to get bored after a while. GW: Prophecies set the style as being a ground-breaking, innovative game when it first came out. But the series of campaigns after that seems to be the same old boring system after a while.

Probably, it's due to this reason that they decided to cancel the campaign series. Selling 3 million copies sounds like a big deal. But when you factor in 3 campaigns + people having 2 accounts of more, the actual number of people playing the game drops to about 800k - 900k. And this doesn't even include the number of inactive accounts.

Grinding for PVP is not OK. Grinding for PVE is. Titles is a form of grinding. Even people who claims that they DO NOT like to grind are trying to get titles. Talk about mindless parrots.

Btw: For people who keep signing petition aimlessly, do you guys really think of the big picture? Like the petition for an Auction House. With the current stagnant way PVE items are (e.g. all the same stats), would it not cause the items price to plunge when people try to outsell each other? Won't this cause the market to by itself collaspe? I've never played a game with an Auction House, but I *think* the items that are being auction by players have stats on the item that are not easy to get.

Eg. In diablo2, the items have a lot of stats in itself, that is randomly given

Armor: 20 fast hit recover, 40 - 60 life or mana, 20 - 40% resists in different elements.

In GW, the items have the same stats, that is given all the time

Could this be one of the reason why Anet refuses to give an Auction House despite the request for one since 2005?

Let PVP items be perfect, but let PVE have an economy too... that's what I'm saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somehow, nowadays, I keep wondering will Anet be known later as a One-Hit wonder aka GW2:Failed. My guild comprises of about 80 members. So far, only 1 to 2 people have expressed interest in getting GW2 when it comes out. The rest are unsure, with some adament no with GW1 characters not able to port over.

After all, if Shiro is able to come back to life after 200 years, why not our characters? After all this is a fantasy game.

Even when you buy other consoles like gameboy, playstation... the company main concern is backward compatability to ensure that the customers do not jump ship to other companies.

One last note:
Anet, could you please in the future write down a disclaimer?

PVP will always have an advantage over PVE people. Skills will be always adjusted accordingly to PVP (except when it comes to farming issues).

This way, it will help consumers make a better choice.

blackbird71 · Apr 09, 2007, 06:17 AM // 06:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

...Oh and as for ANet not knowing where they want to go? thats attrocious crap, especially as they are actually now CHANGING thier business model to accomodate the players... Remember, the Pve campaigns where originally only supposed to be a UAX aquisition system for PvP play and PvP was the original eng game for the game... This is why I and a lot of other players found Prophecies to be very lacking in the PvE department, however, since i switched to being a Hybrid (PvE and PvP) player, i can now appreciate all that ANet have done, far more than a Sole PvP'er or PvE'er can possibly appreciate, due to playing all parts of the game instead of limiting myself to one aspect to of the game

...

Okay, before you fly off the handle here (or is it too late?), let me refer you back to Winstar's post which I was responding to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

Thanks for the wonderful slippery slope argument. If we start trying to balance things, eventually we'll just quit GW and download a freeware version of chesstmaster 3000 or go play WOW. Game balance is possible, but its up to the designers to impliment and develop the vision they have for they game, with of course the consideration of the community. The problem is that there has never been a strong sense of what that direction is supposed to be. The problem isn't striving to achieve some kind of game balance, its not knowing what that is supposed to be. Again, Magic seems to be a terribly successful competative game with at least an equal degree of diveristy as GW which has acheived a degree of balance. So...it can be done and we're starting to move towards it. Sorry.

(boldface added for emphasis)

I was accepting his premise for the sake of the argument, so before you go and jump all over me for that statement, please read thouroughly and understand the conversation instead of just jumping in the middle and assuming you know what's going on.

Winstar, you and I are probably not going to come to complete agreement on this topic, but I think after all this we at least have a decent understanding of each other's position and reasoning. Parts of our arguments are based in fact, others are based in our own opinions and experiences, and I think this is more of where we differ. With that in mind, I would like to address a few more of your points:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

(1) The online store is irrelevant. The point was to illustrate what you get when you walk into the store and pickup the game off the shelf and purchase it. It still stands BY FAR, that the content is weighted in favor of PvE. Whether I have different ways of accessing game content is beside the point. Weekend events are part of it, canthan new years etc etc are aimed at the PvE/causual population. Smaller updates like lip syncing, added content (sorrows, tombs, new bosses, new weapon skins, new greens and so on) are a legitimate part of it. Perhaps the double drop weekends and the double fame weekends and such cancel themselves out in the end, but in GW history by _Far_ the sum of the content is greatly weighted in PvE's favor.

I fail to see how the online store is irrelevant. It is a method of purchasing the game, and through it PvP content can be bought without paying for or having access to PvE content. When you say that PvP players can't play the game without paying to support PvE content, I find this very relevant. Also, once again, while all the PvE content you cite is nice stuff, it really has little to no bearing on whether the game is any good. You need a solid foundation or it's all worthless. I'm concerned with the game mechanics in PvE, not the window dressings. By the same token, I could say that PvP gets attention because with the expansions, there have been new guild halls with new effects for GvG, and they provide great visual environments. There have been changes to several of the arenas. Would you care? Probably not, because while this stuff might be fun or interesting, it doesn't really affect the mechanics of how the PvP game is played. Saying that balancing skills in PvP is equal to adding eye candy in PvE is comparing apples to oranges, it doesn't work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

(3) A slippery slope isn't a valid argument in all cases where the conclusion is a possiblity. The conclusion of almost any slipperly slope argument is a possiblity, the problem is the steps along the way. In order for this game to become ruined by game balance, there would have to be a far more steps on the way that are not likely to all occur. TBH there hasn't been a serious balance of skills for PvP reasons that has had ANY serious effect on the PvE aspect of this game and its playability. You may find some pet build does is a little less effective, but there are likely a billion other ways you can still go and do the same things you always did to succeed. The biggest changes in updates that affected PvE were not balance updates, but changes to monster AI.

I'll admit that my statement about the validity of the slippery slope was at best incomplete. I should have stated that it is a valid argument when the outcome is feasible or likely. I'm just too used to people discarding a slippery slope argument out of hand simply on the grounds that it is a slippery slope argument. Never mind the fact that it is a real argument that can be perfectly valid. So the question comes down to whether or not the argument is a likely outcome. This would seem to be where we disagree, because personally, I believe it is the probable outcome at this point. You're probably right, there hasn't been a single skill balance that in and of itself has had a serious effect on the PvE gameplay. I've stated in some of my other posts that I don't believe a single change can be game-breaking. I'm concerned with the sum total of the changes. What I see in the total evolution of skill changes thus far is an increase in raw damage, and a lessening of the useability of more complex techniques such as the mesmer class in general, energy management, damage mitigation, etc. This amounts to simplification of the game, which in my experience leads to the destruction of what originally made the game fun, for both PvE and PvP. It is the exact pattern SOE followed when they self-destructed SWG and alienated their player base. I've seen enough of the same mentality behind overall skill changes to believe that this is the current direction of GW. Do I think that any of the changes to date have "broken" the PvE game? No. Do I believe that Anet "cares more" about the PvP game than the PvE game? Of course not. I do believe that they have focused so much on trying to achieve their PvP balance that they have lost sight of the net effect of their actions on the overall game, both PvE and PvP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

(5) In Magic there is a body called the DCI. The job of the DCI is to oversee the game and the balance issues in it. They don't have to recall cards in Magic they simply Ban or restrict the use of certain cards in various environments. So even though your "card x" might have a certain text on it because of the changes for balance issues which are enforced at tournament events your card doesn't act in the way in which it says on the printed card. In the history of that game when they printed cards that were too strong they were banned from play (see tolarian academy, memory jar and many others). The game became unbalanced and they were forced to do something about. Eventually, the goal of a game like magic (and what should be the goal of a game like GW) is to better understand the mechanics of your game overtime and begin to release sets that aren't broken and foster an environment where different strategies can flourish and where playskill matters more than gimmicks. So actually, the history of magic has been filled with changed card text and bannings and restrictions because they were worried about balance. Which is all something GW should be doing. When magic began they didn't realize that a 0 casting cost artifact that produced 3 mana was nuts, or that a 1 blue cost instant speed unconditional draw of 3 cards was nuts. But as the game developed they learned and made changes.

Yes, I know of the DCI, and their responsibility in overseeing tournament rules. You're right, there have been times they have found it necessary to ban certain cards for the sake of balance. Just remember, when they make such a decision, it usually involves only a single card. They fix that one fluke and leave it at that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe they ever went so far as to remove an entire game mechanic. For example, if they were to find that one or even multiple cards were made with a Rampage value disproportionate to their mana cost, making for a very overpowered card, they would not ban or remove the Rampage mechanic from the entire game, they'd just handle the problem with the individual cards. By the same token, I can understand the occasional need to tweak a skill now and then, but it bothers me to see entire game mechanics changed or scrapped. I can think of three times off the top of my head when this has happened: the recent changes to Soul Reaping, the removal of Death Penalty from HA, and the changes to the evade mechanic several months back. I know there have been other such changes, but these are what first come to my mind. What it comes down to is that there are several methods for trying to balance a game. You can make large sweeping changes to how a game works, or you can make small changes here and there to cautiously and gradually adjust the game. When a company opts for the faster and easier method, it tells me they have a mentality of "let's get it done cheap and worry about it later" rather than "let's to this carefully and make sure it's done right." I may be wrong as I am not all-knowing, but just judging from what I've seen in the changes Anet has made in the past year or so, I've seen more of the "quick-fix" thought process and I feel less like they've really thought through their options. It is this attitude that worries me most about the future of the game rather than any set of changes.

Am I honestly worried that these things are going to hurt or destroy the viability of GW? Yes and no. I don't think GW has much life left in it as it is now, they've already announced the final expansion, and when GW2 rolls around they'll probably try to phase out GW1. I doubt that they could change things so seriously in that time that GW1 could be completely destroyed (although SOE did a lot of damage in about two weeks, so I should be careful what I say). What I worry more about is the fact that the developers who are now making the changes to GW1 will most likely be the same ones who design GWEN and GW2, and they will be using the same tactics in those projects as they have been using with the GW1 updates. I'm concerned that "balance through simplification" is becoming the mantra of the GW team, and I've seen where that leads. This is why I'm apprehensive about purchasing any future GW products, I don't want to invest my time or money into a product if the developers might not be willing to put in the effort needed to think it through and do it right.

free_fall · Apr 10, 2007, 03:16 AM // 03:16

I was really stoked about GW:EN and planned to be among the 1st in line to plunk down my hard-earned cash for 2 CEs.

That was before this last update and the SR nerf.

If the nerf stands, then, no, Anet will never see another nickel from me.

B/P_Ranger · Apr 10, 2007, 03:17 AM // 03:17

To answer the OP
NO
NO
NO

Grasping Darkness · Apr 10, 2007, 04:23 AM // 04:23

*emo squealzzz noooooooo*
ya my reply was wierd but i feel it awnsered your title

LifeInfusion · Apr 10, 2007, 04:26 AM // 04:26

I would buy GW:EN without hesitation. GW2 on the other hand... the level cap and casual-player unfriendly sounding attributes steer me clear til more info about mechanics are out.

big papi · Apr 10, 2007, 04:43 AM // 04:43

would not buy it now....factions and NF were both a waste of money imo

ill prob see how the community reacts to it after its out for a few months and then mybe ill pick it up or just hold off until gw2

Arduin · Apr 10, 2007, 08:37 AM // 08:37

I'll wait untill some news about a CE is officialy released (or a preorder, ofcourse). Definately going to buy it, anyway.

Shadow_7 · Apr 10, 2007, 10:04 AM // 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arduinna

I'll wait untill some news about a CE is officialy released (or a preorder, ofcourse). Definately going to buy it, anyway.

My same exact thoughts.

cthulhu reborn · Apr 10, 2007, 11:33 AM // 11:33

Dunno atm...my fave class has always been the necro and the new change on soul reaping has messed me up to the point I might actually look around for another game. And since I only will play one online game at a time I may end up going away from GW altogethere...provided I find a game I like better. The funny thing is that I don't even care if they have monthly fees anymore.