Curse

TimeCatalyst · Mar 21, 2006, 10:21 PM // 22:21

Siren, it's not about having control, it's about being controlled.

We shouldn't have to plan our PvE play times around what PvP is doing. I think global reactions to player actions are a neat thing to have, but they shouldn't constrict players from actually playing the game.

Right now PvE has to basically ride the "PvP Wind" until they see an opportunity. We don't want our own wind to affect PvP... we just prefer there was no wind at all. I know that sounds boring, but to us it's less aggrovating and more fun.

I'd post more to backup my point, but it's time to head home.

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 21, 2006, 10:38 PM // 22:38

Thanks for the reply mqstout - can't say it any better myself. Never in my posts did I say that I wanted PvE to have an effect on either Favor in C1 nor on Faction in C2. I, like many other PvEers, want our playable content to have no limitations based on a part of the game that 1) many have no desire to play at all or 2) many, like me, who don't see it as a major part of their playstyle.

The slot issue is being debated on another thread, but it all relates to how much content we can access. I'm not rehashing that here, but suffice it to say, without one slot per prime, we cannot play 100% of the content of either game. That's all the PvEers are asking for - to be able to play 100% of the content of the games we pay for without having to participate in a playstyle that either does not suit us, or is completely boring to us.

Again, I actually like what they have done for the PvP portion of Factions. I am anticipating watching the war with interest, as much as I enjoyed hearing about the now infamous Rebel/Empire battle that occurried in Galaxies not to long ago from some players who participated in it. That kind of player control and interaction is quite interesting to me. However, I do not want it to have any bearing whatsoever on what kind of content I can access in a game, nor when I am "permitted" to access it.

And in answer to one point. No, I do not always have a few minutes to log in to see who has favor - that's why I am classified as a casual player. Even if I did, it takes more than a few mintues to accomplish anything of value in the game. So I log on when I have enough time set aside to be able to do some serious playing.

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

PS: in reply to Mordy above,
I think the Faction war is an interesting way to participate in PvP. Like I said above, I got a kick out of how players in Galaxies (and in Eve Online) can affect territory and the game play with large scale wars. That's just me, I don't detest PvP, but it's not my favorite thing to do either. However, I would like to see a PvP option where players can create a character that would participate strictly in battles like these examples. The difference is, once that character is killed, he's dead - none of this meaningless DP kind of stuff. That's one of the things I miss in the new games. In the classic RPG's death tended to have more permanent penalties, including the complete loss of a character. Kinda made trying to stay alive a lot more important than it is now.

PPS:
A dynamic gaming enviroment is a good thing - as long as it has a basic structure. The Old Galaxies, and Eve Online are two examples of more openended games that appeal more to the hard core crowd than the casual crowd. I think a better way to have made GW more dynamic, rather than having to choose a Faction and having PvP decide what kind of content is accessable, is by having how an individual player explores the game impact the game world for that player. If I were to play the Frost Gate mission where Rurik is killed, I should be able to go back to Ascalon and see how his death affects that part of the game world. But that affect would only apply to me - other players who have not yet reached that mission would not see the change until they do.

Siren · Mar 21, 2006, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

Neither am I. I don't want PvE to have any bearing on it. I also don't want PvE to be affected by it. Pure neutrality in terms of that lame war I want no part of. As it is set to be, where I can play will be dependant on PvPers. Even WORSE than the current favor system.

Pure neutrality in general sucks. That's been proven throughout history, which is why neutrality is completely irrelevant when discussing anything relating to war.

Regarding Factions...how could you even say it'd be worse? See below. lol

Quote:

It does suck.

So then it's not as if I'm some cranky hardcore PvPer looking to screw the PvErs over in Factions, eh? And perhaps there's actually some logic behind what I'm saying? Perhaps there's logic to seeing Factions as an improved Favor system, where the likelihood of running into the present Favor problems is going to decrease dramatically, for the reasons I've listed previously?

Quote:

Not enough? There are too many. ANY are too many. Plus, it's more than just FOW/UW -- quests affected by it happen as early as the Sanitarium in Ascalon.

On the contrary. Your options are limited because there aren't enough content zones with varied enough accessibility conditions. From what I've read, I anticipate Factions to change that.

Quote:

PvEers don't want to BE controlled by PvPers. We care not to excert any control.

As the current favor system is? Yes, PvErs are entirely dependent on PvP. If America hasn't won HoH, you guys don't get FoW access. Or UW. Or dinky little incidental quests in Sardelac that net you a measly 500 xp.

In Factions, however, that PvP control is going to be diffused (I think diffused to the point of not being an issue, honestly); there are going to be multiple zones that will either be controlled by A or B. There's no longer A, B, C, D, or E. It's just A and B. You choose A or B, and I expect A and B to be pretty well balanced.

Quote:

Streamlined, perhaps. But it still depends on PvP play! I don't care to have to sit around in those "pvp training" missions on the islands or whatever just to be able to play missions, or have to wait until side XYZ controls a city so I can play there. It's rare enough that have time to log in to play, let alone have to worry whether or not I'll be able to play that night.

And like I've been saying time and time again, I think too many people here are trumping up this Factions system to be something far worse than it will turn out to be. You won't have to wait weeks on end for America to get favor. That's why I think that anti-Factions argument is so incredibly silly. It's based on a situation that is solely Prophecies-exclusive. It's based on a situation that involves A, B, C, D, and E, quite unlike the A and B of Factions.

I mean, just think about it. You already obviously see what I mean when I say Factions is streamlining the process. Just take that thought process a few steps further and realize that Factions' Favor system sounds a hell of a lot more varied than the Prophecies one. It's streamlined in the sense we only have A and B, but it's more varied in the sense that we have a lot more content that's dependent on many different variables.

I don't think people should be as worried about it, honestly, and if you really think about it, I think you'd come to the same conclusion, mate.

TimeCatalyst, same thing. These anti-Factions arguments I'm seeing are trying to make it a total black-and-white thing: "There is still Favor, therefore it sucks." But it isn't Favor like Prophecies. It may function in a similar manner, sure, but it's not a singular battle deciding everything (like HoH). In Factions, it's going to be a whole lot of battles deciding different things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok

The slot issue is being debated on another thread, but it all relates to how much content we can access. I'm not rehashing that here, but suffice it to say, without one slot per prime, we cannot play 100% of the content of either game. That's all the PvEers are asking for - to be able to play 100% of the content of the games we pay for without having to participate in a playstyle that either does not suit us, or is completely boring to us.

More character slots are not going to solve the problem of your playstyle limiting you, or PvP mildly determining what cities you can access at a given moment. Character slots and favor are completely unrelated. And provided my earlier reply didn't get deleted (lol), you can see that for an explanation of how the current number of character slots is all you'd ever need if you play things intelligently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok

And in answer to one point. No, I do not always have a few minutes to log in to see who has favor - that's why I am classified as a casual player. Even if I did, it takes more than a few mintues to accomplish anything of value in the game. So I log on when I have enough time set aside to be able to do some serious playing.

It takes me all of three minutes to log-in and check who currently as favor. Just because I'm able to do that doesn't mean I'm not a casual player. I'm very much a casual player. I don't consider myself "hardcore." I don't view logging in at night every so often as "hardcore." Most times, if there's nothing going on (and I don't plan my activities in-game ahead of time, by the way), I log off.

I play this game in my spare time. I don't devote hours to it when hours aren't necessary. I don't even map out my week to insert a few hours of GW into my schedule.

If you only log-in when you set aside enough time to do some "serious playing," that's your problem right there. You don't treat it like a casual thing. You plan time for it. You set a schedule for it. I log-in whenever I feel like it (and when I don't have pressing matters to attend to, obviously). But does a casual player block out time to play?

I don't define casual and hardcore in terms of hours played, because I think that's a complete joke of a definition. I definte casual and hardcore by how people play, and you don't sound like a casual player, no offense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok

is by having how an individual player explores the game impact the game world for that player. If I were to play the Frost Gate mission where Rurik is killed, I should be able to go back to Ascalon and see how his death affects that part of the game world. But that affect would only apply to me - other players who have not yet reached that mission would not see the change until they do.

And that is a logistical nightmare best left for console RPGs. In fact, I can't even think of how that'd work in a MMORPG (or COORPG), even with your last sentence there. I mean, hell, this game doesn't even function in a linear fashion to begin with. Plus, it would effectively ruin the gaming experience. You could never ever help guildies with previous missions. And I don't think people would like that.

mqstout · Mar 21, 2006, 11:36 PM // 23:36

Quote:

As the current favor system is? Yes, PvErs are entirely dependent on PvP. If America hasn't won HoH, you guys don't get FoW access. Or UW. Or dinky little incidental quests in Sardelac that net you a measly 500 xp.

In Factions, however, that PvP control is going to be diffused (I think diffused to the point of not being an issue, honestly); there are going to be multiple zones that will either be controlled by A or B. There's no longer A, B, C, D, or E. It's just A and B. You choose A or B, and I expect A and B to be pretty well balanced.

That dinky little quest that happens to be fun and have a really cool story behind and during it, you mean.

Things read as if the extra missions are available based on ALLIANCE and not which of the two factions are around. There will be uncountable alliances around, and most PvE players will be in none of them, thus making the high end content completely not available to the people it's designed for.

Siren · Mar 21, 2006, 11:46 PM // 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

That dinky little quest that happens to be fun and have a really cool story behind and during it, you mean.

I've done that quest before. It's dinky and little, and nothing more than an escort mission for two NPCs.

Quote:

Things read as if the extra missions are available based on ALLIANCE and not which of the two factions are around. There will be uncountable alliances around, and most PvE players will be in none of them, thus making the high end content completely not available to the people it's designed for.

Check the map screenshots. I'm seeing two lines, one red, the other blue. Outposts are colored red or blue, correct? Seems to me to indicate that players of different alliances won't be locked out of elite missions and whathaveyou, provided they're of the same Faction. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and countless PvErs are going to leave because they can't stay locked into one gameplay type, lol. If I'm right, though, Factions is going to be a lot easier than some are saying, eh?

mqstout · Mar 21, 2006, 11:47 PM // 23:47

"I've done that quest before. It's dinky and little, and nothing more than an escort mission for two NPCs."

Did you even read the moving dialog between the children and their parents?

Thom · Mar 21, 2006, 11:50 PM // 23:50

People are really stretching for arguments here and I really am holding back the flames.

Factions solves many of the shortcomings of prophecy. There will be more difficult areas (20 elite missions) which is 5 times what the game currently has. That alone should be enough for any PvEer to pick up the game. If you want to experience new and challenging areas and AIs, this may be the game for you. Quests will be denser, things generally will be denser and you'll have new henchies if you totally hate the real people (some non-human models). Each of your existing characters will have access to 50+ more skills and you can replay prophecies with two new character types.

Prophecies PvPers have suffered with the same game types and a general lack of reward mechanic beyond a ladder, HoH winner posts and rank. Guild Wars is fulfilling more of its potential with competitve missions and world altering mechanics. With more arenas and indirect competition, some faction PvP will be less intense. The pace will be different and the objectives will be different. I suggest trying it before you tear it apart.

The RPG structure in guild wars wasn't ever meant to be a strictly PvE structure. Sure you have a hero, but your hero was never "the one" as in other games, he was a loyal soldier fighting with comrades. Factions will bring this to a new level. As well as you changing the world, you are fight for a common cause with other role-players. Roleplayers as crying because they can't enter an enemy city (anyone see the irony here). Sure you can choose neutrality or jump from side to side, but some restrictions add to interesting roleplaying, they don't subtract from it. Uncertainty is interesting, scarcity is interesting, decisions with consequences are interesting. What is boring is not having anything to look forward to tomorrow except farming or HoH.

This game is for the casual player, more interesting areas, more open feeling (not that blank feeling you get after "beating the game"), pvp which is less "leet" and more varied. More mission types that you can jump in and have fun for a short spurt OR day long objectives.

Shanaeri Rynale · Mar 22, 2006, 01:14 AM // 01:14

I dont feel many people are stretching for arguments tbh, they read many many interviews that say the same thing, reach a conclusion which may or may not be correct and yet hear nothing from an official source to correct those conclusions.

Lots of people are concerned, as rightly or wrongly they face the prospect of having to leave friends and Guilds they care about behind just to stand a chance of accessing missions in which the most money/prestige are to be made.

It's these issues that are I believe at the heart of peoples posts, and it's the lack of clarity in them that is at it's root. Wait and see is easy to say when you know what mechanics are, but is a lot harder in the real world of the 5 person Guild of friends..

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 22, 2006, 02:37 AM // 02:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

More character slots are not going to solve the problem of your playstyle limiting you, or PvP mildly determining what cities you can access at a given moment. Character slots and favor are completely unrelated. And provided my earlier reply didn't get deleted (lol), you can see that for an explanation of how the current number of character slots is all you'd ever need if you play things intelligently.

Trying to avoid getting into another flame war with you, but I never said that the character slot issue has anything to do with the subject in this thread. It does have something to do with the amount of overall profession specific content we can access in either game - whether merged or not. I am not going to rehash the arguments here. If you want to debate this topic post in the slot limitation thread, and we can go from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

It takes me all of three minutes to log-in and check who currently as favor. Just because I'm able to do that doesn't mean I'm not a casual player. I'm very much a casual player. I don't consider myself "hardcore." I don't view logging in at night every so often as "hardcore." Most times, if there's nothing going on (and I don't plan my activities in-game ahead of time, by the way), I log off.

I play this game in my spare time. I don't devote hours to it when hours aren't necessary. I don't even map out my week to insert a few hours of GW into my schedule.

If you only log-in when you set aside enough time to do some "serious playing," that's your problem right there. You don't treat it like a casual thing. You plan time for it. You set a schedule for it. I log-in whenever I feel like it (and when I don't have pressing matters to attend to, obviously). But does a casual player block out time to play?

I don't define casual and hardcore in terms of hours played, because I think that's a complete joke of a definition. I definte casual and hardcore by how people play, and you don't sound like a casual player, no offense.

First of all, I'm glad that you have a real world life that lets you log on whenever you feel like it. Unfortunately, my real world responsibilities only allow me to log on only during certain points of the week in my spare time. So I certainly do look forward to getting some gaming action in during those times. Upon checking my total game time in over the last 10 months, I at most have an opportunity to play about 12 hours a week, which turns out to be about 4 hours over the course of the 3 days I have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

And that is a logistical nightmare best left for console RPGs. In fact, I can't even think of how that'd work in a MMORPG (or COORPG), even with your last sentence there. I mean, hell, this game doesn't even function in a linear fashion to begin with. Plus, it would effectively ruin the gaming experience. You could never ever help guildies with previous missions. And I don't think people would like that.

Not necessarily. We already have a small snippit of something like this in regards to Gwen in Pre-Searing. If you party with someone who has already given her the cape and flute, even if you have not, she will always appear with the cape and flute in hand. At least that was the way it was the last time I visited Pre-Sear. Games like Eve Online have already accomplished much with openended and dynamic worlds. Oblivion and Gothic 3 promise to raise the bar on more human like AI which can be fully applied to online games as well. At the very least, we can begin by having the GW monsters react to all their dead allies as we go through the world and missions instead of not having any interaction at all, as we have now aside from some "heal other" abilities.

I imagine that the type of dynamic I am talking about can be handled similar to the district and instancing system we have now. Upon reaching certain milestones in the game, such as going from Ascalon to the Shiverpeaks, and from the Shiverpeaks to Kryta, New districts open up that contain updated instances relating to the quests and missions that presumably have been completed with the character in question. This would also affect only the character who has travelled to those areas on the map, therefore using another character, you can still aid friends and guildies with the "older" areas. After all, even if you have one character on an account complete the game, a new character on your account doesn't automatically have access to all areas, nor has a cleared map.

Actually, GW is a very linear game if you play it as such - the storyline never changes no matter where you go or when, you just don't have to follow it in the order the devs made it. The good thing about it is that it was designed with a lot of freedom in mind allowing for any type of playstyle without too many restrictions (aside from the favor). By making the storyline more dynamic, it would actually reduce the staticness of the game. You still wouldn't have to complete the storyline in chrono order, and by not doing so, create an entirely new playing experience for yourself. You conceivably could actually play four different versions of the game just by taking your four characters through the world by doing completely different things. After all, who here hasn't wondered what kind of play experience we would have if killing all the Charr in the Northlands in Pre-Searing would actually have an effect on the Searing and Post-Searing world itself?

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

WasAGuest · Mar 22, 2006, 02:48 AM // 02:48

I love this thread; here's why:

Pure PvEer's really hate PvP games to a point of quiting when forced into it. I've seen several online games fail because of this (Asheron's Call 2 anyone?).
Stating an opinion about PvP or the PvP mini games is a wonderful way to have others see your point of view - but lets face it. Pure PvE and pure PvP are way to different to be forced into either's play style. Now those that enjoy both types of play will absolutely love Factions. Pure PvP may also love it as there is more for them to do. Pure PvE though are really getting the shaft... seriously we are. And that's cool with me, cause hopefully, Anet will put as much effort into PvE as they did into PvP with Factions.
How are PvEers getting the shaft? Just look at the content. It's either held or gained by PvP. It's unlocked by PvP. PvP mini games give the points required to open the end game missions. PvP simply gains the most out of Factions.
All one needs to do is listen to the interview that is online now and haer from themselves. Factions is a PvP stand alone game with really lite PvE content thrown on top in an effort to make more sales. After the Faction version of Ascention, the interview tells that players will then be placed into the competitive missions (PvP) and begin working on their faction points. The interview also says becoming ascended in Factions will take considerable (the ratio is given in the interview) less time. So what PvE content there is, it's rushed and pushed through to get the players into the conflict.
PvEers wishing to play elite content with their current level 20's will find themselves not able to do the new elite missions prior to spending time in the PvP mini games.
So again, Factions is PvP based.
I'm a pure PvE player and I'm passing on purchasing Factions. I'll still be playing Chapter one as I still find it fun. In November I'll check out Chapter 3 (interview states Chapter 3 is on schedule for Nov release). If it actually has some real PvE content (not the silly ladder and points based content) then I'll be grabbing it up. I suggest pure PvEers all do the same so that Anet will know it will lose some sales due to such a game mechanic. I would also (I have) emailed Anet and let them know why I am passing up Factions. I have not quit out of rage, I have just opted out of the game as it is not enough content for me to enjoy for $50.

A ray of hope for Chapter 3: In the interview, Jeff S says that each chapter will have a different game mechanic to it. So, again, I hope we see some real PvE content come our way. If Anet puts the same genious behind the build of factions, we'll have a real treat come Chapter 3. Till then, those that play Factions can wield their uber ladder point of sundering sword. - ladders in PvE still cracks me up -

Siren · Mar 22, 2006, 03:49 AM // 03:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

Trying to avoid getting into another flame war with you, but I never said that the character slot issue has anything to do with the subject in this thread. It does have something to do with the amount of overall profession specific content we can access in either game - whether merged or not. I am not going to rehash the arguments here. If you want to debate this topic post in the slot limitation thread, and we can go from there.

Flame war? Please. I say a few things without trying to be mind-numbingly polite and it's suddenly called a flame war? As far as I'm concerned, people are too sensitive. Political correctness is quickly becoming social paralysis. Everyone's afraid of offending somebody. That is no way to live. I think it's much better to call a spade a spade than to pretend to be all nicey-nicey, to explain that Special Ed students are in Special Ed for a reason and not try to dance around it. Don't you agree? Society doesn't get anywhere when people are afraid to speak their minds.

By the way, you never mentioned anything about profession specific content:

Quote:

The slot issue is being debated on another thread, but it all relates to how much content we can access. I'm not rehashing that here, but suffice it to say, without one slot per prime, we cannot play 100% of the content of either game. That's all the PvEers are asking for - to be able to play 100% of the content of the games we pay for without having to participate in a playstyle that either does not suit us, or is completely boring to us.

I think it's about time to stop trying to re-define your posts after the fact, don't you? There was no reason at all to bring up character slots. It has and had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, simple as that. Elite missions in Factions do not change depending on if you play a Ritualist or a Mesmer, a Warrior or an Assassin. The availability of those Elite missions doesn't change if you, a PvEr, decide to play your Necro over your Monk.

Come on. Don't try to convince me that character slots is relevant at all. Your rantings and ramblings about "content accessibility" here have always been focused on some perceived inequality when it comes to the PvP/PvE dichotomy...not having to choose between 4 or 6 character slots.

Quote:

First of all, I'm glad that you have a real world life that lets you log on whenever you feel like it. Unfortunately, my real world responsibilities only allow me to log on only during certain points of the week in my spare time. So I certainly do look forward to getting some gaming action in during those times. Upon checking my total game time in over the last 10 months, I at most have an opportunity to play about 12 hours a week, which turns out to be about 4 hours over the course of the 3 days I have.

Logging-in isn't the same as playing. I can log-in virtually at any time of the day when I'm not working or in class. But just logging-in doesn't mean I'm going to devote a few hours to game-time. It could be something as simple as keeping up with who's logged in lately in my guild. Or checking favor.

I still don't see how someone is completely unable to even type in a password, hit Enter, then select one of their characters when they have a few minutes to themselves. You've posted throughout the day, correct? That indicates to me you have time on your hands during the day, correct? How is it completely out of your control, then, to take a few spare minutes of your day to just log-in? Not even to do anything major. Just to log-in.

Finally, regarding the "I can't get on frequently enough while we have Favor" argument, *quotes one of his own previous posts*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren, earlier in the thread

And like I've been saying time and time again, I think too many people here are trumping up this Factions system to be something far worse than it will turn out to be. You won't have to wait weeks on end for America to get favor. That's why I think that anti-Factions argument is so incredibly silly. It's based on a situation that is solely Prophecies-exclusive. It's based on a situation that involves A, B, C, D, and E, quite unlike the A and B of Factions.

I mean, just think about it. You already obviously see what I mean when I say Factions is streamlining the process. Just take that thought process a few steps further and realize that Factions' Favor system sounds a hell of a lot more varied than the Prophecies one. It's streamlined in the sense we only have A and B, but it's more varied in the sense that we have a lot more content that's dependent on many different variables.

Again, I keep repeating myself, but it seems like it just isn't getting through...people need to think about what they're saying, because they'll find that what they're saying is completely asinine in the context of Factions, because most of their concerns is focusing on what will become a completely outdated Favor system--the Favor system of Prophecies.

Quote:

Not necessarily. We already have a small snippit of something like this in regards to Gwen in Pre-Searing. If you party with someone who has already given her the cape and flute, even if you have not, she will always appear with the cape and flute in hand. At least that was the way it was the last time I visited Pre-Sear. Games like Eve Online have already accomplished much with openended and dynamic worlds. Oblivion and Gothic 3 promise to raise the bar on more human like AI which can be fully applied to online games as well. At the very least, we can begin by having the GW monsters react to all their dead allies as we go through the world and missions instead of not having any interaction at all, as we have now aside from some "heal other" abilities.

One tiny bit from the tiniest bit in the game. You don't have as strong a case as you think you do. I don't know what you're trying to get at with "monsters [reacting] to all their dead allies," but I don't think those monsters would ever give two shits about their dead allies in an emotional sense. Pack-strength, yeah, because we see Resurrect and such, but even then, those monsters are just programmed to do that, so...I don't think we're really going to see "emotive" Charr in GW, and I certainly don't think it's a worthwhile pursuit.

Quote:

I imagine that the type of dynamic I am talking about can be handled similar to the district and instancing system we have now. Upon reaching certain milestones in the game, such as going from Ascalon to the Shiverpeaks, and from the Shiverpeaks to Kryta, New districts open up that contain updated instances relating to the quests and missions that presumably have been completed with the character in question. This would also affect only the character who has travelled to those areas on the map, therefore using another character, you can still aid friends and guildies with the "older" areas. After all, even if you have one character on an account complete the game, a new character on your account doesn't automatically have access to all areas, nor has a cleared map.

Again, mild "special" instancing already occurs, but there's one instance like that in Pre-Searing, then another Post-Sear, a little outside Piken Square. That's it. There's nothing else. And really, I think that's all there needs to be of that. Two little tiny bits of the game don't exactly set any type of precedent of "Hey, that's possible game-wide!"

Quote:

Actually, GW is a very linear game if you play it as such - the storyline never changes no matter where you go or when, you just don't have to follow it in the order the devs made it. The good thing about it is that it was designed with a lot of freedom in mind allowing for any type of playstyle without too many restrictions (aside from the favor). By making the storyline more dynamic, it would actually reduce the staticness of the game. You still wouldn't have to complete the storyline in chrono order, and by not doing so, create an entirely new playing experience for yourself. You conceivably could actually play four different versions of the game just by taking your four characters through the world by doing completely different things.

Storyline is linear, yeah, but who follows the storyline, except on their first playthrough?

And as much as your idea sounds interesting, I can tell you right now it'd be a trainwreck. The work involved in doing that would be absurd. Every single scenario would have to be worked out. Everything. Every possible mission combination. Every possible plot point combination. The problem with your idea is...grouping with people would be impossible. It hurts my brain to even consider the consequences of a group of people trying to play D'Alessio Seaboard, for example, and some of them being able to target friendlies, while others aren't able to target the Undead. It'd be complete chaos. A complete trainwreck of a game.

In console RPGs, it's possible. Stuff like KotOR, Fable, etc. Not here.

Quote:

After all, who here hasn't wondered what kind of play experience we would have if killing all the Charr in the Northlands in Pre-Searing would actually have an effect on the Searing and Post-Searing world itself?

I'm going to let Christopher Lloyd field this one.

Pharalon · Mar 22, 2006, 04:51 AM // 04:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasAGuest

How are PvEers getting the shaft? Just look at the content. It's either held or gained by PvP. It's unlocked by PvP. PvP mini games give the points required to open the end game missions. PvP simply gains the most out of Factions.

PvP is almost totally unrelated to gaining access to Elite missions. If you listen to Jeff's interview, he makes it clear that the Aliiance Battles (3x4v4 PvP, only available to PvE toonz) will set the borders, which determine how many cities are available for your faction to control. Control of those cities (and subsequent access to Elite Missions) is entirely determined by both Challenge Missions (pure PvE), and Competition Missions, which is touted as being a hybrid but learning heavily towards being PvE orientated. If you want access to Elite Missions, you never have to touch PvP. You don't even need a single PvPer in your entire alliance.

Competitive != PvP. Saying that factions is PvP based is a rediculous statement. They're introducting one new pure PvP gametype (which is accesable to only PvE toonz anyway), while they're introducting a bunch of new PvE focussed stuff (Competition Missions, Challenge Missions, Elite Missions, Outpost Control), as well as an entirely new campaign. What's PvP getting? A few new guild halls from what I've heard, Alliance Battles, and that's about the sum of it. That's all I've seen announced anyway (in no way complaining about this, new skills and classes is more than enough to keep PvP fresh for a while).

The entire Faction system is a PvE reward system, gained by playing a lot of PvE maps better than other PvEers.

Complaining that you can't access a reward solely due to self imposed limitations seems highly illogical. Saying you can't acces Elite missions because you don't like guilding, and therefore the system sucks, is equivalent to saying you can't get to the Forgemaster for FoW armor because you don't like making groups of 8, therefore you're unfairly being locked out of content. The best rewards are exclusive, and the better a reward is, the more people want it, the more they'll play to try and get it, and the more satisfaction they'll feel when they actually get it. That's going to get more people into those areas and missions. It'll keep them fresh. It'll make the game a great deal of fun for those who choose to get involved. It keeps both the game world and the community at large vibrant and dynamic. That's the whole point.

Currently there is no reward system in place for PvE guilds. Nothing. You can go out an farm together, but that's about it. There's a lack on incentive for those people to log on each and every day. It's being introduced for the same reasons that the HoH and cash Tournaments are there for PvPers. So they've put in a PvE reward system that gives PvEers what they want: extremely difficult missions, gameworld RP recognition and power, and big loot. Seems perfect to me. The only issue I could see is if 10-20 alliances dominate control, but I'm sure they'll put in mechanisms to makes even smaller guilds have some, if somewhat less regular, access to those rewards. As long as it doesn't become a zerg-fest, i can't see anything wrong.

Thom · Mar 22, 2006, 07:42 AM // 07:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasAGuest

I love this thread; here's why:

Pure PvEer's really hate PvP games to a point of quiting when forced into it. I've seen several online games fail because of this (Asheron's Call 2 anyone?).
Stating an opinion about PvP or the PvP mini games is a wonderful way to have others see your point of view - but lets face it. Pure PvE and pure PvP are way to different to be forced into either's play style. Now those that enjoy both types of play will absolutely love Factions. Pure PvP may also love it as there is more for them to do. Pure PvE though are really getting the shaft... seriously we are. And that's cool with me, cause hopefully, Anet will put as much effort into PvE as they did into PvP with Factions.
How are PvEers getting the shaft? Just look at the content. It's either held or gained by PvP. It's unlocked by PvP. PvP mini games give the points required to open the end game missions. PvP simply gains the most out of Factions.
All one needs to do is listen to the interview that is online now and haer from themselves. Factions is a PvP stand alone game with really lite PvE content thrown on top in an effort to make more sales. After the Faction version of Ascention, the interview tells that players will then be placed into the competitive missions (PvP) and begin working on their faction points. The interview also says becoming ascended in Factions will take considerable (the ratio is given in the interview) less time. So what PvE content there is, it's rushed and pushed through to get the players into the conflict.
PvEers wishing to play elite content with their current level 20's will find themselves not able to do the new elite missions prior to spending time in the PvP mini games.
So again, Factions is PvP based.
I'm a pure PvE player and I'm passing on purchasing Factions. I'll still be playing Chapter one as I still find it fun. In November I'll check out Chapter 3 (interview states Chapter 3 is on schedule for Nov release). If it actually has some real PvE content (not the silly ladder and points based content) then I'll be grabbing it up. I suggest pure PvEers all do the same so that Anet will know it will lose some sales due to such a game mechanic. I would also (I have) emailed Anet and let them know why I am passing up Factions. I have not quit out of rage, I have just opted out of the game as it is not enough content for me to enjoy for $50.

A ray of hope for Chapter 3: In the interview, Jeff S says that each chapter will have a different game mechanic to it. So, again, I hope we see some real PvE content come our way. If Anet puts the same genious behind the build of factions, we'll have a real treat come Chapter 3. Till then, those that play Factions can wield their uber ladder point of sundering sword. - ladders in PvE still cracks me up -

Our friend here is ignoring the fact that PvE may be more interesting in Factions. Guest's argument is that since the game is more enjoyable for PvP and mixed players, then it MUST be less enjoyable for the PvE crowd. This doesn't follow logically.

The other thing Guest alludes to is that all games that force PvP have failed. Two reasons this is plain silly. Guild Wars doesn't force PvP and there are no negative consequences of in game PvP. FPS are incredibly popular online and they are exclusively PvP oriented. There is clearly a market for a game like guild wars and factions will be a game like guild wars with some richer cross genre content included as well as more top level PvP areas.

Based on this lack of information and logic, Guest claims he won't buy the game. People who value intellegence over baseless passion should really go try out the event this weekend.

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 22, 2006, 10:59 AM // 10:59

All right Siren, here we go again. First, please reread the quote you inclued in your own post. I myself said that the slot issue has no bearing on the topic on hand in this thread. I never said that the lack of character slots has anyting to do with being able to access the Factions specific content on Chapter 2. It seems to me that your the one trying to redefine my points after the fact. If you want to debate character slots, lets take it to that thread, I'm done with the issue here.

In regards to time, that is again OT here, but I'll answer just so we can let it die. Sure, I have time to log in right now, while I am typing this post (AMoF I frequently am playing the game while perusing this forum - saves a lot of time), 15 mintues before I have to leave for work. But please tell me what can I do in the UW in the next 15 minutes (if America has favor, and I am able to get a group together to go there?). The time problem is a factor when there is a favor/Faction locked mission I want to do when I have enough time to dedicate to doing it. Being able to log in 5, 10, or even 20 minutes a day does not change the fact that I cannot complete a 30 minute quest or hour long mission in that time. So yes, it is true that I can log on every day America has favor, but that doesn't mean I can do anything with it.

And as I have said in previous posts, I look forward to seeing how the Faction war plays out. Whether it is better or worse than this aggravating Favor still remains to be seen. For all we know, it could end up being worse - a lot of ideas look great on paper, but suck when actually applied. We'll know a lot better after this weekend. So, yes, those who are bashing the system here are doing it without just cause, but so are you when by defending it. I certainly hope I am wrong and the Faction elements will have no bearing on one's time to play it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

One tiny bit from the tiniest bit in the game. You don't have as strong a case as you think you do. I don't know what you're trying to get at with "monsters [reacting] to all their dead allies," but I don't think those monsters would ever give two shits about their dead allies in an emotional sense. Pack-strength, yeah, because we see Resurrect and such, but even then, those monsters are just programmed to do that, so...I don't think we're really going to see "emotive" Charr in GW, and I certainly don't think it's a worthwhile pursuit.

So you think its useless effort to make AI and NPC characters more dynamic? Isn't that a part of advancing the gaming genre? Or are the developers of Elder Scrolls and Gothic just wasting their time because no one really appreciates an NPC that you can truly interact with and that acts as a human does. To me, improving AI is just as great an improvment in the technology as is increasing the graphics rendering of games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Again, mild "special" instancing already occurs, but there's one instance like that in Pre-Searing, then another Post-Sear, a little outside Piken Square. That's it. There's nothing else. And really, I think that's all there needs to be of that. Two little tiny bits of the game don't exactly set any type of precedent of "Hey, that's possible game-wide!"

Storyline is linear, yeah, but who follows the storyline, except on their first playthrough?

You answer yourself with that last sentence here. Certainly, to change the dynamics of GW at this point is slightly beyond impossible, but that's not to say that it cannot be built into a game from the ground up. You said that those two instances is all there needs to be, but then who wants to follow the storyline more than once? Well, with a dynamic gaming enviroment, you wouldn't have to. And not only that, by not doing so you get an entirely different experience, than you would with GW now. It doesn't matter what you do in the game or when, the storyline never changes, Rurik still dies in Frost Gate. A dynamic gaming environment allows the player to replay the game and get an entirely new experience by doing so. I don't know of one developer that created a game saying, "I hope people only play this game once" or "I hope they only find enough interest in the plot to follow it once." The simple fact is that players want a more dynamic environment in their game - that's why there is a whole modding industry devoted to just that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

And as much as your idea sounds interesting, I can tell you right now it'd be a trainwreck. The work involved in doing that would be absurd. Every single scenario would have to be worked out. Everything. Every possible mission combination. Every possible plot point combination. The problem with your idea is...grouping with people would be impossible. It hurts my brain to even consider the consequences of a group of people trying to play D'Alessio Seaboard, for example, and some of them being able to target friendlies, while others aren't able to target the Undead. It'd be complete chaos. A complete trainwreck of a game.

Well, I don't think you are the one thinking this through completely, and just jumping to conclusions. Again, the majority of the modding community would have to disagree with you. Certainly, it cannot be done in GW at this point in time, but there is no reason why it can't be done in a game being built from the ground up. The technology is already in place to do, it just needs a team of dedicated individuals to put the time in to code it. Fortunately those individuals do exist and thank God they don't see challenges such as this as a trainwreck, otherwise we would still be playing green lined dungeon crawlers.

But in the end, this is an off topic persuit that was just thrown out there in response to another poster, therefore I will leave this subject for another thread and actually get back to the topic at hand.

I think Anet has done a good job at increasing the PvP portion of the game, but trying to mix two completely different play styles is like trying to mix oil and water - it just ain't gonna happen. I think the problem that most people are concerned with here is the fact that Factions looks like it might not have the freedom of play that Prophecies offered. The first game was ingenious in that aside from the Favor issue, players had complete freedom to play the game as they saw fit, aside from having PvP slightly dependant on PvE. This of course was corrected by introducing the arena faction, making PvP less dependant on unlocking items through PvE. The beauty of it is that PvPers never have to touch the PvE portion to be successful and PvEers never have to PvP to enjoy the game (we can even log out before the PvP portion of the Pre-Sear mission begins, and log back in to skip over it and just do the PvE portion of the mission). However, it looks like Factions will actually force players to participate in one or the other in order to access specific content. While that may not be a big issue for those of us who don't detest one or the other, the pure PvPers probably don't like that they will have to PvE to accomplish some of their goals, just as the pure PvEers will have to PvP for the same reason.

While I admire Anet for trying to introduce each side to the joys of the other, in the end, the hard core of each prefers their playstyle for a reason, and not matter how its done, neither will like the other. That's why pure PvP games like Linage II and Eve Online while not complete commercial successes still have a strong following and are successful in their own ways. This is also why Prophecies and Diablo II have been such great successes.

At any rate, I am looking forward to the upcoming weekend to see just how this will play out. I hope that the fears of most people here will be unfounded, and Anet's genious will shine through once again.

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

mqstout · Mar 22, 2006, 02:30 PM // 14:30

"PvP is almost totally unrelated to gaining access to Elite missions. If you listen to Jeff's interview, he makes it clear that the Aliiance Battles (3x4v4 PvP, only available to PvE toonz) will set the borders, which determine how many cities are available for your faction to control."
Alliance sets borders. Alliance is PvP. PvP determines borders. Borders determine where we can play.

"The entire Faction system is a PvE reward system, gained by playing a lot of PvE maps better than other PvEers."

We don't need/want a PvE reward system. We don't want to be judged "plays better than other PvE players". We don't want to play competitively at all. We just want to be able to play and enjoy the game. PvE play is intrinsically non-competitive and independent.

Mordakai · Mar 22, 2006, 03:19 PM // 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

We don't need/want a PvE reward system. We don't want to be judged "plays better than other PvE players". We don't want to play competitively at all. We just want to be able to play and enjoy the game. PvE play is intrinsically non-competitive and independent.

Who is "We"? I know not all PvE players share your views, in fact, there was a thread started here awhile a go actually asking for PvE rewards...

Who was most against it? PvPers.

I'm primarily a PvE player, and I'm really excited about these new missions and dynamics.

dreamhunk · Mar 22, 2006, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Who is "We"? I know not all PvE players share your views, in fact, there was a thread started here awhile a go actually asking for PvE rewards...

Who was most against it? PvPers.

I'm primarily a PvE player, and I'm really excited about these new missions and dynamics.

RPg's are not competive by nature, it is not about proving who si better. Once you start to compete it no longer becomes a rpg but a pvp

Siren · Mar 22, 2006, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

All right Siren, here we go again. First, please reread the quote you inclued in your own post. I myself said that the slot issue has no bearing on the topic on hand in this thread. I never said that the lack of character slots has anyting to do with being able to access the Factions specific content on Chapter 2. It seems to me that your the one trying to redefine my points after the fact. If you want to debate character slots, lets take it to that thread, I'm done with the issue here.

Content accessibility never had anything to do with character slots, correct? So why ever bring it up in the first place? You never answered that question.

Quote:

In regards to time, that is again OT here, but I'll answer just so we can let it die. Sure, I have time to log in right now, while I am typing this post (AMoF I frequently am playing the game while perusing this forum - saves a lot of time), 15 mintues before I have to leave for work. But please tell me what can I do in the UW in the next 15 minutes (if America has favor, and I am able to get a group together to go there?). The time problem is a factor when there is a favor/Faction locked mission I want to do when I have enough time to dedicate to doing it. Being able to log in 5, 10, or even 20 minutes a day does not change the fact that I cannot complete a 30 minute quest or hour long mission in that time. So yes, it is true that I can log on every day America has favor, but that doesn't mean I can do anything with it.

Simple: so you can get an idea for the time pattern when America has favor, so you can plan for it better.

Quote:

And as I have said in previous posts, I look forward to seeing how the Faction war plays out. Whether it is better or worse than this aggravating Favor still remains to be seen. For all we know, it could end up being worse - a lot of ideas look great on paper, but suck when actually applied. We'll know a lot better after this weekend. So, yes, those who are bashing the system here are doing it without just cause, but so are you when by defending it. I certainly hope I am wrong and the Faction elements will have no bearing on one's time to play it.

I'm defending the system because it makes a hell of a lot more sense than some people here are saying. Maybe it's me just playing Devil's Advocate. Or maybe I see the logic in such a system, even when it's just a description on paper. See, that's why I'm able to defend it. Because I've taken the time to actually read the information provided, think about it, figure out how it'll work. What I'm not doing is seeing a few minor similarities to the current Favor system and throwing my arms up in disgust.

Quote:

So you think its useless effort to make AI and NPC characters more dynamic? Isn't that a part of advancing the gaming genre? Or are the developers of Elder Scrolls and Gothic just wasting their time because no one really appreciates an NPC that you can truly interact with and that acts as a human does. To me, improving AI is just as great an improvment in the technology as is increasing the graphics rendering of games.

You answer yourself with that last sentence here. Certainly, to change the dynamics of GW at this point is slightly beyond impossible, but that's not to say that it cannot be built into a game from the ground up. You said that those two instances is all there needs to be, but then who wants to follow the storyline more than once? Well, with a dynamic gaming enviroment, you wouldn't have to. And not only that, by not doing so you get an entirely different experience, than you would with GW now. It doesn't matter what you do in the game or when, the storyline never changes, Rurik still dies in Frost Gate. A dynamic gaming environment allows the player to replay the game and get an entirely new experience by doing so. I don't know of one developer that created a game saying, "I hope people only play this game once" or "I hope they only find enough interest in the plot to follow it once." The simple fact is that players want a more dynamic environment in their game - that's why there is a whole modding industry devoted to just that.

Well, I don't think you are the one thinking this through completely, and just jumping to conclusions. Again, the majority of the modding community would have to disagree with you. Certainly, it cannot be done in GW at this point in time, but there is no reason why it can't be done in a game being built from the ground up. The technology is already in place to do, it just needs a team of dedicated individuals to put the time in to code it. Fortunately those individuals do exist and thank God they don't see challenges such as this as a trainwreck, otherwise we would still be playing green lined dungeon crawlers.

But in the end, this is an off topic persuit that was just thrown out there in response to another poster, therefore I will leave this subject for another thread and actually get back to the topic at hand.

Did you see me re-iterating how this is an idea best left to...oh, I don't know...console RPGs like KotOR or Fable?

And it would be a trainwreck. You're just not thinking it through. For an online game where people are interacting with each other, those people need to interact on the same stage of action. The game needs to be the same for everyone--from a structural point of view--for the game to work.

Your idea runs counter to that reality. The minute you have an online game being altered by the player experiences--alterations that change the plot of the game, even just for the player--you run the risk of making Christopher Lloyd angry. What I mean by that is, say in a plot similar to GW's, but in an online MMORPG built from scratch, you have a few plot twists. MMORPGs thrive on player-to-player interaction.

But how can you have player-to-player interaction when everyone can't do the same thing, because they've done the plot order differently? This brings me back to my example about D'Alessio Seaboard. It'd be complete and utter chaos, and no mission would ever be possible with a group, ever again. If the changes are visible only to the inviduals, well, then what's even the point of playing online?

That's why I've been repeating that the dynamic plot design you're talking about is best left to console RPGs. There is nothing more to it than that.

Quote:

I think Anet has done a good job at increasing the PvP portion of the game, but trying to mix two completely different play styles is like trying to mix oil and water - it just ain't gonna happen. I think the problem that most people are concerned with here is the fact that Factions looks like it might not have the freedom of play that Prophecies offered. The first game was ingenious in that aside from the Favor issue, players had complete freedom to play the game as they saw fit, aside from having PvP slightly dependant on PvE. This of course was corrected by introducing the arena faction, making PvP less dependant on unlocking items through PvE. The beauty of it is that PvPers never have to touch the PvE portion to be successful and PvEers never have to PvP to enjoy the game (we can even log out before the PvP portion of the Pre-Sear mission begins, and log back in to skip over it and just do the PvE portion of the mission). However, it looks like Factions will actually force players to participate in one or the other in order to access specific content. While that may not be a big issue for those of us who don't detest one or the other, the pure PvPers probably don't like that they will have to PvE to accomplish some of their goals, just as the pure PvEers will have to PvP for the same reason.

While I admire Anet for trying to introduce each side to the joys of the other, in the end, the hard core of each prefers their playstyle for a reason, and not matter how its done, neither will like the other. That's why pure PvP games like Linage II and Eve Online while not complete commercial successes still have a strong following and are successful in their own ways. This is also why Prophecies and Diablo II have been such great successes.

Yes, and that's why the total hardcore "I am SOOOO PvP" or "I am SOOOOO PvE" people suck. Because they're never satisfied it seems. Which is why I really don't give two shats about whatever it is that's gotten their panties in a twist this week.

Quote:

At any rate, I am looking forward to the upcoming weekend to see just how this will play out. I hope that the fears of most people here will be unfounded, and Anet's genious will shine through once again.

Once people actually get their hands on Factions, I think a lot of them are going to see a need to make a few retractions, honestly. We may have to wait till full retail, depending on what we are able to do this weekend, but even then, people are going to find out that their fears have been completely irrational, because they haven't been thinking about things logically. They've been seeing a Favor system and automatically thinking "It's Prophecies all over again." And that, while a logical thought process, is absolutely absurd.

Mordakai · Mar 22, 2006, 03:49 PM // 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

RPg's are not competive by nature, it is not about proving who si better. Once you start to compete it no longer becomes a rpg but a pvp

I see your point, but come on.

What do you think FoW armor is? Is that not a type of competition?

If all PUGs are created equal, then how come some are better than others?

There's obviously some inherent competition in all computer games, whether you recognize it or not. Else, the level grind persistant in other games would not exist, as people wouldn't care what level they are, because everyone is equal, right?

In any case, unless the PvE ranking has more effect on the game than what armor you're wearing, it shouldn't make a difference to you.

dreamhunk · Mar 22, 2006, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

I see your point, but come on.

What do you think FoW armor is? Is that not a type of competition?

If all PUGs are created equal, then how come some are better than others?

There's obviously some inherent competition in all computer games, whether you recognize it or not. Else, the level grind persistant in other games would not exist, as people wouldn't care what level they are, because everyone is equal, right?

In any case, unless the PvE ranking has more effect on the game than what armor you're wearing, it shouldn't make a difference to you.

I think fow armor replaces or tries to replace the lendary armors of rpg. In midevil rpg there has to be armors to buy. In must rpg's not all there is some type markets or trading going on like selling weapons and armor.

In Rpg's it about making a world, it is about adventure. First things that come to mind is lord of the rings, the hobbit. People want to go questing and explore. This means you have to have a real world of some type.

You really can't have a lendary weapon or armor for pvp, Pvp needs to be balance.

I also think that rpg can work as group game just not consoles, In fact must paper and pen need large groups of people to play. I think it can be done. You just need to have someone who is good at writing rpgs for a group setting.

As rpg player I would have say I do love the fow and UW idea. I am such rpg player that I have to play every quest and mossion that anet puts out. Heck I have even done the titain quest. I can honestly say I don't like farming. Making armors have different cost makes the game fun. I can see why some people don't like the idea of having quest locked out,but at the same time I really don't know faction is going to work. what dispoints me is pvp players trying to change the rpg of game. I would like o see depth in the game. Why should rpg be about fighting another player? Take just takes the magic out of rpg. It becomes a fight with another player. Where is the snice of adventure. In the real wordl your not going to meet tuff bossies all the time. It sould be mixed. you not always going to be stronger even have a weapon to beat you fow in the real world.

There is other ways on beating your foe other than picking up a weapon and beat him. Not only do you fight but you out smart your the fow. That is the rpg way.

In Rpg it is not just about mindless killing, but also using your skills to out smart your fow. It is about making the right choices to get to the place you want to be. It is like being one with your charactor in a different world. It is bout seeing other views not just your own.

the pvp mind set is kill, kill, kill

make monsters harder kill, kill, kill

more skills kill, kill, kill

Rpg players have a term for that it is called hank and slash. Rpg player you can say detest that. they want things to have meaning. They like to use their minds in an adenture.
where is the adventure in that