Curse

Kuldebar Valiturus · Feb 27, 2007, 02:10 AM // 02:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanM

Mending is possibly the most expensive heal in the game - casting time, efficiency, and wasting a potential skillslot. He certainly did say it was fairly cheap, when it is not.

Mending is used in PvE by people playing PvE. You can debate that if you want, but people use Mending. Whether you like it or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanM

You can not read.

Learn to read.

There is absolutely no tanking in PvE in Guildwars outside of the conditions I mentioned. Learn to learn.

Also read.

Oh, I can read AND comprehend just fine.

We are speaking of PvP. He referred to low damage warrior builds...I gave his quote right in the same section.... "opponents merely ignore defensive Warriors "

Tanking in Guild Wars PvE is different, no doubt. But a Warrior is still a TANK because he is ideal for soaking up damage.

Depending on the game, what class can absorb damage/tank will vary. In Guild Wars there is less pigeonholing of classes but the archetypes of the Holy Trinity are still present:

-Tank

-Heals

-DPS

They are just shared across all the different builds and professions.

Quote:

Guys, I always wanted to punch this Adam fellow in the face since the first time I saw him.

So, learn to be more civil and stop picking fights over minutiae.Being all prepared to "punch" Adam in the face might be an indication that reason isn't your strong suit.

Alfrond · Feb 27, 2007, 02:14 AM // 02:14

I'm generally a PvE player (although I do play plenty of AB), and I really didn't find the article insulting. Its a good introduction to pvp, and while the information may seem condescending to some, to newer players they may genuinely not know some of this stuff. Also, we should look at the author. He straight up says "the beautiful PvP system which, to my mind, is the shining feature of the game". He's a pvp player, so he's bound to have a bit of bias toward his favorite part of the game, along with maybe a deficit of knowledge when it comes to some of the details of PvE. I'm sure he didn't mean to put down all of the loyal PvE players.

BryanM · Feb 27, 2007, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

I don't know if you know what tanking means.

You see, during World War 1 there was this weapon called the semi-automatic rifle. It is extremely good at killing someone at a very good range.

In open land warfare, this results in a massive inability for for someone to approach an entrenched position, especially when that position has machine gun support.

So the majority of the war was fought by sitting in long trenches, and getting trench foot.

Toward the end of it, heavy armored vehicles were developed under the cover-name of "water tanks" in order to break trenches.

World War 2 involved much less sitting in a hole.

So in conclusion, the enemy AI prioritizes targets based on armor and health and runs right past warriors unless they're body blocked. The end.

Kakumei · Feb 27, 2007, 02:18 AM // 02:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanM

words

Analogies are pretty and all, but they don't apply. The word "tank" as it's commonly used in GW (and other online games of this type) refers to a character designed to soak up damage so that his allies don't have to.

Quote:

So in conclusion, the enemy AI prioritizes targets based on armor and health and runs right past warriors unless they're body blocked. The end.

Look, I'm sorry you're bad at tanking (or have partied with people who don't know the aggro system) but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Hell Raiser · Feb 27, 2007, 02:22 AM // 02:22

lol, BryanM you obviously have never farmed SF/UW/FoW etc etc, or you have never played a warrior in those situations. Do you know how people are so good at destroying mass groups of monsters without a single death? Because the tank holds the damn aggro and the Casters destroy them, while monks bond the tank and heal someone who is being chased by that ever so annoying enemy who losses tanks aggro.

Tanks hold aggro, taking all the damage. The End.

dgb · Feb 27, 2007, 02:23 AM // 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichPowers

Exactly! By publishing this piece does Anet also acknowledge that? So instead of having people write articles, why doesn't Anet reduce or outright eliminate the hurdles in-game?

Probably because the hurdles are self-built by the PVE mentality - everynow and then when I'm feeling charitable in randoms, I'll spend some time talking to the average mending tank and explaining to them why their build is bad, how to improve it and what PVP is about.

The resistance alwlays comes from them, they don't accept advice, they certainly don't want to listen and for the most they are rude about it. What people need to realise, when you step from a PVE only background into a PVP arena is that you know nothing about how Guild Wars is played in PVP and that there is only minimal crossover knowledge that you can take with you. Does that sound arrogant? Maybe it is, but it's true.

Should A-Net try to lessen this? I don't think they should or will, as much as I would like it, improving the AI and skill-sets of PVE would cause a large number of PVE only players to struggle with the game which isn't what A-Net wants. The whole PVE game is designed so you can get through with well below average builds, intentionally - to minimise the crossover between PVE and PVP you'd have to re-write PVE such that you can't get through it with average builds, you need good well performing builds. That wouldn't be good for the playerbase.

I MP I · Feb 27, 2007, 02:26 AM // 02:26

I didn't get that horrid article and I'm getting ADD from reading this thread.

Too much off topic and flame bait.

Kuldebar Valiturus · Feb 27, 2007, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanM

You see, during World War 1 there was this weapon called the semi-automatic rifle. It is extremely good at killing someone at a very good range.

In open land warfare, this results in a massive inability for for someone to approach an entrenched position, especially when that position has machine gun support.

So the majority of the war was fought by sitting in long trenches, and getting trench foot.

Toward the end of it, heavy armored vehicles were developed under the cover-name of "water tanks" in order to break trenches.

World War 2 involved much less sitting in a hole.

So in conclusion, the enemy AI prioritizes targets based on armor and health and runs right past warriors unless they're body blocked. The end.

Well, duh.

ANet coded PvE to behave somewhat like a PvP encounter.

But, as I said before, despite all that you still have the Holy Trinity: Damage Absorber, Damage Mitigator, and Damage Dealer.

Specifically in PvE in Guild Wars, Warriors will go for defensive builds over offensive builds when they have a balanced party.

Again it's all about the CONTEXT of what Adam S. was discussing:

Quote:

A PvP Warrior needs to focus on dealing damage, because opponents merely ignore defensive Warriors and go after softer targets. If you do enough damage, you accomplish two goals: 1) you force the opposition to pay attention to you, drawing fire away from weaker allies; and, 2) you kill enemies before they kill your allies. A Healing Signet or Signet of Malice to lighten the load of your Monks isn't a bad thing, but don't try to be a tank. Alone against several skilled opponents, you won't accomplish anything. As a Warrior, your ability to keep your teammates from dying is very limited. Focus on killing opponents before your teammates die and let Monks, Paragons, and Ritualists handle defense.

You are getting all hot and bothered over the title of a bullet statement:

Quote:

2) There is no tanking against players

Terra Xin · Feb 27, 2007, 02:33 AM // 02:33

You know I'm not surprised by the reaction that the community has given. A person has written an article sharing his Own opinion, and a couple of you people trash him like he was wrong for saying anything in the first place. Can you people get a life please. Yes, the article was crap, that's all you need to say. But low and I mean LOW insults like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bloodrose

Adam Sunstrom some village is missing its idiot. You are the weakest link. Anet needs to let you go for that poorly composed and horrible article. Again my threads about PvPers getting more love then PvEers. Well theres more fans for the flames.

and this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanM

Guys, I always wanted to punch this Adam fellow in the face since the first time I saw him. I asked in a forum dedicated to Dinosaur Comics, and they confirmed it wasn't just me. Look at it:

...The articles themselves are nothing more than a source of amusement - I do not care about Some Guy's ideas when we already have a ton of people who know the game better writing about it.

Is totally uncalled for. (btw if it's a form of amusement and you dont care, don't post in here, because your retribution is just as meaningless.)

If you do not like the article, say so. Do not harrass the person who wrote it because it was in his right to write the article, and the community should be looking at its flaws in a constructive way (like what this thread is doing). Demeaning another person achieves nothing.

Calen The Civl · Feb 27, 2007, 02:36 AM // 02:36

I am primarily a pve player. I just do not care for head to head competition. I do resent being pushed a bit toward pvp by the game as well. Ok enough background:

From these experiences, I have been turned off of pvp except for an occassional aspenwood game. It is likely many players who have tried to get into pvp have been turned off by the pvp community like I have. While I do realize there are many nice players out there, I do not have hours for the painful work of searching for a team that just wants to play around and have some fun.

I do agree that the style of play in pvp is a large hurdle that Anet needs to wean players into. A handful of articles such as this one will not do this as well as some type of in game tutorial where the player's hand is held through the basics. Few pve players seem to shake up their builds.

I do enjoy festival pvp like dragon's arena and snowball arena, however.

BryanM · Feb 27, 2007, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Raiser

lol, BryanM you obviously have never farmed SF/UW/FoW etc etc, or you have never played a warrior in those situations. Do you know how people are so good at destroying mass groups of monsters without a single death? Because the tank holds the damn aggro and the Casters destroy them, while monks bond the tank and heal someone who is being chased by that ever so annoying enemy who losses tanks aggro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

"tanking works against AI opponents" - Only when you're by yourself

Or the other characters are out of the threat circle. Or there's a choke point that can be body blocked. Everyone in the universe knows this.

Bringing a warrior in a PUG to "absorb damage" when the party just blasts away at a mission is the worst PUG misconception and why I do not waste time with this PUG guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regarding punchage

Is totally uncalled for.

That you think the picture of him smirking in derisive triumph, after having possibly stomped another guild in fierce combat, is completely tasteful - I disagree. I do agree with those who feel the article had a condescending tone, and is silly this late in the game's life cycle.

Alfrond · Feb 27, 2007, 02:46 AM // 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terra Xin

You know I'm not surprised by the reaction that the community has given. A person has written an article sharing his Own opinion, and a couple of you people trash him like he was wrong for saying anything in the first place. Can you people get a life please. Yes, the article was crap, that's all you need to say. But low and I mean LOW insults like this:

and this:

Is totally uncalled for. (btw if it's a form of amusement and you dont care, don't post in here, because your retribution is just as meaningless.)

If you do not like the article, say so. Do not harrass the person who wrote it because it was in his right to write the article, and the community should be looking at its flaws in a constructive way (like what this thread is doing). Demeaning another person achieves nothing.

I agree. The personal attacks are really uncalled for.

The Ernada · Feb 27, 2007, 02:46 AM // 02:46

I hate the occasional trash talking 12 year old PVP players as much as the next guy but some of you talk as though PVP is the only format filled with these degenerates. Heck, I'd say that most serious PVP players don't act like that. You mostly find these trash talking nobodies in RA, HvH, and other lesser forms of PVP. I dont see this kind of crap often in GvG where for the most part it's pretty civil.

Anyway, some of you are getting worked up over nothing and taking the article a bit personally and making it personal as well. By the way you're acting, you're no better than the people you bash and label as PVP elitists.

aB- · Feb 27, 2007, 02:48 AM // 02:48

While I don't find the article offensive, I find it pointless. Only the very bad players are going to be using some of the PvE tactics he talked about in his article, and those that do are probably not reading the State of the Game articles. If PvP is the ultimate destination for the game then ANet needs to get players involved somehow. I admit, it's going to be tough and I have no good ideas for it, but an Aspenwood type idea would be great. Unfortunately, Aspenwood was plagued by AFK players and such but...

Kook~NBK~ · Feb 27, 2007, 03:00 AM // 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgb

Probably because the hurdles are self-built by the PVE mentality

Gotta call BS on this. First of all, the hurdles of going from PvE to PvP are the direct result of the difference in game dynamics, not by the "PvE mentality." To go from fighting AIs who are limited by their programming to playing against real people who aren't limited by what code is written for them is what makes the hurdle.

Quote:

- every now and then when I'm feeling charitable in randoms...

And there's nothing about the PvPer's attitude that keeps PvEers from jumping into PvP?

I didn't detect much of the condescention towards PvEers in the article (other than equating all PvEers with "newbies"), but here it is in all its splendor!

I found that the article itself was not very helpful. All he did was list a few skills that aren't good for use in PvP. Didn't say anything about skills that are useful. Granted, he had limited space, but that space could've been better used giving tips for people new to PvP in what to expect and encourage them to check out fan site forums to study up on different PvP builds for each profession. If I do ever decide to jump into the PvP side of things, that's what I'm going to do. (Sitting around watching Guild Battles is quite boring to me)

BryanM · Feb 27, 2007, 03:01 AM // 03:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by aB-

and those that do are probably not reading the State of the Game articles.

Truth beyond truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aB-

but an Aspenwood type idea would be great.

The truth, also.

If they want casual players to play PvP, they have to offer areas without constructed teams.

Kuldebar Valiturus · Feb 27, 2007, 03:07 AM // 03:07

It's a one page article meant to be a primer for people who might want to give PvP a try.

Anything is "easy" if you know how to do it.

Knowledge advances via a building block approach, at least at first. The leap frogging and "Eurekas!" come later after the simple concepts are understood.

PvP does need more integration with PvE in Guild Wars. People balked at ANet's attempt to do that in Factions, although I think a lot of the criticism was really aimed at the very restricted maps.

In DAoC, PvP was intertwined well with the PvE world. The back and forth struggle impacted, positively or negatively, Realm Bonuses for all the players in that realm.

Also, it was exciting to be defending a Tower Keep as its walls got blown apart around you as the enemy made their final push through the breach...

...good times...

Swift Thief · Feb 27, 2007, 03:15 AM // 03:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by aB-

While I don't find the article offensive, I find it pointless. Only the very bad players are going to be using some of the PvE tactics he talked about in his article

Not bad players, but people who are new to PvP.-_-

Redfeather1975 · Feb 27, 2007, 03:25 AM // 03:25

Since there is an urge that what we prefer, and how we do things, has to be proven as better, we do this over analyzing and bashing/trivializing/down grading of what other people prefer and how they do things.

It happens all the time, everywhere....especially on the internet.
It won't change.

I even did what I'm talking about in my own post.

WasAGuest · Feb 27, 2007, 03:42 AM // 03:42

What I got from this is simple: Anet still is desperate to get people to play the PvP game. It apparently is a conversation topic at Anet... hence the write up.

Some people, like myself do not like the game play of the PvP game in GW. It's the pace of the game and the "tag-like" mechanics of it. I find it very boring and ugh... Other people love it and that's great, but Anet really needs to stop wasting time on this "push". I never see any PvP to PvE pushing going on, and in fact I recall something that completely works around PvE (PvP only edition). Maybe Anet should release a PvE only edition?

Anet as stated even in the article and in many other places knows by now, many players have no interest in PvP. Move on already, work on improving the game's PvE and PvP play and let the merge attempts stop. This is like beating a dead horse that has already been turned into dog food.