Curse

RMThompson · Jul 01, 2005, 04:58 PM // 16:58

I couldn't agree with Siren more.

The long and the short of it is that unfortunatly for some, it IS two games. The PvE part of the game obviously got the most attention and promotion, so therefore it's the most developed. It is also more deep, but that is just based on the type (pve vs pvp)

PvP is secondary, like it or not. They sold the game based on PvE 75% and PvP 25%. How much time do you think they will spend on NEW PvE content for the next chapter? My guess is 75% more than they will on PvP.

As far as analogies are concerned, the ONLY game you can compare this to is Magic:the Gathering.

Just like in MtG the more/better cards you have the MORE you are going to win. The skill only comes in play when the draw is equal.

Too many people believe they were sold a game based 100% on skill, when what was promoted was skill OVER grinding, which can be the case.

The game is INCOMPARABLE to chess or even peek-a-boo because those are ONLY skill games, because each player has the same tools to start with.

Malchiel · Jul 01, 2005, 05:00 PM // 17:00

PvP is just as important. You're an ignorant fool to think it isn't.

The class balance has been intricately worked out.

I don't even bother to read the rest of your post, coz even the first sentence sounds idiotic.

RMThompson · Jul 01, 2005, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Malchiel, considering the fact that my first sentence had nothing to do with whether or not PvP was as important, I have to assume that you read past the first sentence... In fact my second sentence wasn't either, so I know as a fact you read at least three of my sentences, and I would have to assume, the rest of the post as well!

So, I would have to say your post is the one who sounds idiotic.

Thanks for trying to add to the discussion. Next time try and add your own opinion, thoughts or ideas to the forum so that we may all discuss.

Remember the point here is to share, not to say one person is right or wrong!

*Disclaimer - I am not one to flame, but come on, that was ridiculous!

arredondo · Jul 01, 2005, 07:41 PM // 19:41

Amazing. How anyone can deny an obvious truth is beyond me. OK, in the interest of logical charity, I'll try again to say the exact same thing in a different way. Every single activity I have listed involve participation from individuals, and in a serious competitive environment, each individual has two major forces that determines what his ceiling is when it comes to how prepared he is towards beating his opponents.

The first major force is the person himself. Whether its abilities, income, eye-hand coordination, determination level, experience learned, commitment to practice, teamwork attitude, tactics used, skills developed, strategy prepared.... you get the idea. These are all related to each other because the primary influence on how they all improve, stagnate or get worse is on the back of the person who is involved. Yes, other things can affect it, but none moreso than the person himself.

The second major force is the competitive system under which he performs his craft, and the rules that govern everyone involved. It is here where Arena.net's system differs from 99.999% of competitive activities. While limits and maximum allowed levels of equipment/gear quality are often set within the rules to keep competition fair for all.... the rules of the system itself does NOT prevent an individual from participating with the best gear/equipment available that others are allowed to use.

Here is where all of those counter-points to my analogies consistently fall apart. In serious competition, what is preventing a player from making use of the top gear needed to succeed in all my examples? The current state of affairs with the participant (Force A), or the rigid rules of the governing system (Force B - i.e Arena.net, NBA, WTA, etc)? You can go back and read any of our previous posts... mine's or others. I have been arguing from this perspective all along. Arena.net is doing a disservice to skillful competition by imposing rules that staggers the players' ability to win by limiting access to important gear.

It is the RULES that keep a skillful player from succeeding who needs a Superior Swordsmanship, Superior Vigor, Superior Absorption, and a dozen elites just to have a fair chance against a team all maxed out. These are items and gear... wits, skill, strategy and talent alone ARE NOT ENOUGH. The winner, unlike all the other examples mentioned, is determined by the person who jumped through more acquisition hoops imposed by the RULES, instead of other competitive activities where you acquire what you need based on YOUR personal situation.

Whether its practice, income, experience, physical development, or what have you, the rules of any competitive system does not prevent one from getting what they need to equally compete with those who are already stocked full:

- In tennis, the rules don't prevent one from getting needed gear before first winning 500 matches. Arena.net's system unfortunately does this. The ability to have the gear from the start lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

- In chess, the rules don't prevent one from getting needed pieces before first winning 500 matches. Arena.net's system unfortunately does this. The ability to have the gear from the start lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

- In basketball, the rules don't prevent one from getting needed gear unless he first makes 10,000 three point shots. Arena.net's system unfortunately does this. The ability to have the gear from the start lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

- In Peek-a-Boo, the rules don't prevent one from getting one from using their eyes and hands unless she first goes through 5 hours of drool free playtime. Arena.net's system unfortunately does. The ability to do or not do so lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

THIS has been the only context under which I've made my analogies. In competitive activities, the system only hurts skillful contests when they step in and impose rules that prevent the pure, skillful talents of the individuals from being enough to succeed. You can't possibly ignore that this is the case here, even if you think it is a good thing. PvE play mechanics of earning things is anti-skillful competition in any PvP activity, and it shouldn't be that way.

Now, before anyone attempts to rebutt the unrebuttable, do NOT try to change the premise of the point I made and then proceed to argue against what you make up. Any comparison I made between GW and a sport or activity has been placed in its proper and specific context. I've shown what these competitive contests have in common ONLY as it relates to participants' access to what they need to succeed:

Is the lack of access to what gear/equipment others are succeeding with the fault of the individual player's choice/status? Or is the lack of access the fault of the system's imposed rules?

In serious competition, it should NEVER be the latter. The rules should never force one to put in hundreds of hours to come into a competitive activity with the gear you need to succeed. "The game is designed to reward player skill and teamwork, not time spent playing..." Where did I come up with this last quote? FROM ARENA.NET'S OWN WEBSITE. Ahh, if only it were completely true.

Lane · Jul 01, 2005, 08:02 PM // 20:02

What better thread to put this in than here...

It hasn't been on purpose, but since the patch I haven't taken the time to come here and read what the 'community as a whole' has to say about the recent changes to PvP. Instead, I've tested it out myself, talked to friends in-game, and seen how people are handling the faction points while actually getting used to this change. I heard one negative remark after talking and listening to everyone I came in contact with in-game over the last couple of days, and the vast majority of people who actually knew what the faction system is there for said they were extremely pleased with the change.

I come here to this forum to see what is said, and I'm amazed to see that there are various threads and posts saying that the changes make it worse than what it was before, and of course various other complaints much like what are constantly mentioned by a select group of people.

I guess this is the nature of some community forums though... the loudest ones tend to get the most attention. But remember that the community is huge, and your narrow elitist view of how this game has to be in order to be even remotely enjoyable is not the only way of looking at this game. This isn't directed at any one person, just something to think about for those who are trying to have fun in this game and want to be a welcome addition to this community. Nobody likes someone who only has negative things to say, and it is beyond me why some of you would continue to play the game and make posts here when you feel the way you do... immaturity and high levels of boredom are the only reasons I see for it.

RMThompson · Jul 01, 2005, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

In serious competition, it should NEVER be the latter. The rules should never force one to put in hundreds of hours to come into a competitive activity with the gear you need to succeed. "The game is designed to reward player skill and teamwork, not time spent playing..." Where did I come up with this last quote? FROM ARENA.NET'S OWN WEBSITE. Ahh, if only it were completely true.

Ok now I see your argument. I think your missing something here though. In chess/checkers/tennis, it's up to the PLAYER to sit down with the required equipment to play. Certainly the player with the better gear has the better edge....

But why does that person have better gear? Because for whatever reason they bought it. It wasn't the rules of the system that gave it to them after they played 100 games.

Same thing happens here... If you want to get the best gear you have to buy it. It's NOT A GRIND, because you can get those skills/runes faster with better abilities. If you are able to strategize and plan better... youll get there faster.. therefore it's NOT a grind.

Not once have they said you can only get Equipment A, but spending X amout of time in game... it's ALL skill based. I've seen lvl 14 warriors take out things that lvl 20 ones get stuck on... the better player wins.

Besides, if you dont like the system dont play. it's not up to Anet to come up with a system that corresponds with tennis/chess/peek-a-boo.

QTFsniper · Jul 01, 2005, 08:48 PM // 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

You guys know why PvP-focused players are ticked off at this kind of system? It's because the mindset of "fun" for them is completely different from the PvE-focused players. PvE players see the gaining of things as a goal to be fought hard towards, but PvP players think the real goal is outwitting your opponent using the tools available to all. Arena.net insists on putting an elaborate PvE system in PvP where it doesn't fit.

Hundreds (and I mean HUNDREDS) of gameplay hours just to get the same tools as the grinding experts out there is no fun in the long run. Fun for PvP-focused players begins when they can actually begin fully implementing 100% of their strats, builds and ideas.

These weekly bandaids to not having UAS and UAR only stretch out an endured and unwanted process. It will never solve the problem, and is disappointing to see PvP players with waning interest post their concerns because they simply want to play PvP the same way as all other serious PvP activities and games. Guild Wars' PvP system is the only one that makes you significantly grind before being able to equally match up with your teammates and opponents for battle.

Guild Wars' PvP players, like any other competitive title or sport, want to gather their fully armed friends together to battle OTHER fully armed opponents... outwitting and outplaying them into submission. Hours played doesn't matter, remmber? That is our source of fun, and plodding through some hyperextended unlocking system adds boredom and disinterest to a facet of the game that doesn't need it.

You don't ask chess players to "earn" their access to a Bishop. You don't expect a 3-man basketball team to make 1,000 outside shots just to have permission to bring on players 4 and 5. You don't ask players of the mega-successful Counterstrike to get 500 headshots before you award them a Desert Eagle pistol. If Arena.net wants people to flock to and support their excellent PvP engine, why make a pyramid scheme that only awards hours played from the already-top guilds? Gaining items should not be an extended means to an end when it comes to PvP. That's what PvE is for by rewarding time played with tangibles. We just want to play unhindered.

It's not a matter of PvE or PvP being better or worse than the other. It's just that they have two vastly different needs. Let PvE players play to explore, unlock and buy - add content that expands on that. Let PvP players play to build, strategize and win - remove barriers that prevent that. You keep adding PvE play mechanics to PvP, and PvP players don't like it.

The less you mix up the core needs of these two areas (both of which I like on their own BTW), the less complaint threads these sites will be bombarded with. Get rid of attruibute refund points outside of battle. Allow full UAS and UAR. Then add any content and features you want to PvE.

You see more negative comments on the boards because everyone who likes the patch is too busy playing and having their fun to argue with the people who dont like the patch.

Lane · Jul 01, 2005, 08:59 PM // 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by QTFsniper

You see more negative comments on the boards because everyone who likes the patch is too busy playing and having their fun to argue with the people who dont like the patch.

Hmm... thinking of the forums as a place where mainly the fed-up hardline elitist gamer fundamentalist comes to gripe about how the world isn't exactly how they want it to be... could be true. These people have a very narrow viewpoint of how the world should be and think that everyone else should agree with them or go to hell. But would you say they are "in their last throws"? I'm not that optimistic about the situation... I think it will be a long time before we are finally rid of them for good. I see progress though

.

JasonJLore · Jul 01, 2005, 09:13 PM // 21:13

Quote:

I think it will be a long time before we are finally rid of them for good. I see progress though

Agreed, any person who thinks that skill is the most important thing in a competitive situation has issues. Team-based sports/games - which Guild Wars is - is fundamentally a cooperative event where each member regardless of his or her skill is part of the whole. True, basic, fundamental skills are essential for each member but without coordination, communication, and trust, no team can succeed. The sports pages are filled daily with stories of teams like the San Antonio Spurs, the New England Patriots, and the Boston Red Sox, who don't avow to the theory that the most skillfull athletes win championships.

arredondo · Jul 01, 2005, 09:22 PM // 21:22

What does that have to do with the fact that the rules of the system didn't force those teams to play with lesser quality gear than other teams? They won their championships based on their skills, strategies and tactics. League-imposed restrictions that keep you from playing with gear of competitive quality than the competition does not exist anywhere except Guild Wars PvP. I explained:

Quote:

In serious competition, what is preventing a player from making use of the top gear needed to succeed in all my examples? The current state of affairs with the participant (Force A), or the rigid rules of the governing system (Force B - i.e Arena.net, NBA, WTA, etc)? You can go back and read any of our previous posts... mine's or others. I have been arguing from this perspective all along. Arena.net is doing a disservice to skillful competition by imposing rules that staggers the players' ability to win by limiting access to important gear.

All those teams won because of excelling in 'Force A', which they control. Any team that lost did NOT lose due to unnecessary influence by 'Force B', which the powers-that-be control. So should it be with GW PvP; let the PLAYERS determine how they win. Clear?

PieXags · Jul 01, 2005, 09:37 PM // 21:37

"The game is designed to reward player skill and teamwork, not time spent playing"

So you're telling me that this new system doesn't make you do EXACTLY what this says? You get REWARDED for using your SKILL and TEAMWORK to win using what they give you at the beginning.

To me, this is new system fits in with that quote from Anet to the dot.

Arredondo I've just got to say this. All your sports comparisons are in no way related to GW. And don't even THINK about comparing Half-Life 2, an FPS game, to GW. If you want an FPS game, go play something else.

I mean how the hell can you even think tennis is in any way related to GW? Tennis is one on one, or two vs two in some cases. GW is at least 4vs4, there are many more factors to take into account while playing than in "tennis". One is a sport---which I'll add, takes time and practice to get good at. The other is an online PC game. Just forget about your comparisons because even when they might somehow be reasonable you always phrase it incorrectly. As we've had pointed out by several members here.

And people quit talking about "sides" here, like it's ONLY pure PvP and pure PvE people playing the game. Most of us enjoy BOTH every now and then. And the ONLY way a UAS/R would work in any sense then would be to implement Quintus' suggestion. Otherwise, UAS/R just won't work.

JasonJLore · Jul 01, 2005, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Quote:

They won their championships based on their skills, strategies and tactics. League-imposed restrictions that keep you from playing with gear of competitive quality than the competition does not exist anywhere except Guild Wars PvP.

Either you have never played a team sport or are just arguing a senseless issue for the sake of argument. Generally speaking (yes, there are exceptions) all athletes who enter the pro environment are equal in skill. It is their ability to execute well as a team that makes the difference in critical situations. I'm assuming (maybe I shouldn't after seeing these inane posts) that most people who play GW have fundamental skills like eye-sight coordination, intelligence, and a strategic sense. I have seen as have many that the basic skill/equipment/rune set is "fair enough". I have been beaten in the arena and tombs often enough by this "basic" set. Obviously, most people want better. So to them Anet has offered a very reasonable awards system - not that it was ever needed. So what is the problem? Is it one of insecurity? We all have access to the "equal" equipment/skills/runes that you are forever mentioning. Please ask Peyton Manning (you do know who he is, right?) how much skill and/or proper equipment he needs to win a championship. Get it?

Pitdragon · Jul 01, 2005, 10:17 PM // 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonJLore

We all have access to the "equal" equipment/skills/runes that you are forever mentioning.

We don't have access to the equal equipment/skills/runes, and I don't see how you could even argue that. People with more time will have more runes and items, casual players are at a disadvantage in the current system. I don't see why implementing a grind is even necessary in a game without a monthly fee, what does ANET stand to gain by making it so casual players won't be able to have access to all the game has to offer in anywhere near the same time a hardcore player does?

I'd like to step back from arredondo's argument about skill and leave skill entirely out of the equation for a moment. Right now, unlocking every skill in the game requires a massive time investment that some people just cannot make, and casual players will probably still be unlocking skills by the time the expansion comes out. Do you think that they deserve to have less choice when it comes to playing their PvP characters because they can't invest the same time into the game someone with a ton of free time can?

Right now advancement is painfully slow for myself and probably many others. Sure, I may have a fairly wide selection of skills for my primary character's classes, but if I want to play classes other than my primary two and try out a new build, I'm out of luck. Sure, I could play through the game two more times or respec my secondary class and grind for skill points, but both of those are extremely tedious methods of unlocking skills. I just can't see why there isn't an option of unlocking things faster, considering that it ANET gets no benefits from having such slow progress.

arredondo · Jul 01, 2005, 10:30 PM // 22:30

The confusion that the recent responders have is in the use of the word "skill". In Guild Wars, skill has two meanings when in every other contest skill has one meaning. Guild Wars:

Skill (1) - a special action that you can put on your skill bar (Energy Tap, Obsidian Flesh, Malaise, etc.)

Skill (2) - the individually developed abilities that allows one player to excel in game play (eye-hand coordination, strategic planning, dominatiting tactics, etc.)

In nearly all, if not all, of my references to skill, I am talking ONLY of a player's skill #2 as it relates to his ability to beat his opponents. Skill #1 is GEAR, an item needed for battle and nothing more. I can't bring all my gear in, but I should have a choice of WHAT gear I can bring without system imposed rules that allow all choices for some (based on hours invested), but not all. Guild Wars is the only serious competitive activity with this imposed restriction.

Siran Dunmorgan · Jul 01, 2005, 10:34 PM // 22:34

As I understand it, Arredondo is pointing out two things:

First, that he is not comfortable with—or, possibly, does not understand— the concept of explicit n-tier metagaming.

Second, that he believes that ArenaNet has in some sense abandoned its stated principles by implementing a game in which time spent is more important—more of a determining factor, if you will—than skill.

I'm going to try to analyze that a bit more, so that we can be certain that we know whereof we speak:

From the perspective of the character involved in a PvP match, there are three games: the present game in the sense of PvP battle. The first-tier metagame, representing the acquisition of the skills and equipment by means of which the battle is carried out, and the second-tier metagame, containing the environment in which the player functions, i.e. the real world.

As far as I can determine, Arredondo does not believe that what I refer to as the second-tier metagame is part of the game at all, because it lies outside the scope of the defined rules of the game.

For example, I believe that he would claim that the engineering differences between Formula One race cars are irrelevant to his argument because the rules of conduct of a Grand Prix race do not address matters of engineering, i.e., a driver is not required to perform a certain action or number of actions in order to have better wheels added to his car.

That this does in fact hold true for the engineering team responsible for building and maintaining the car is irrelevant, Arredondo would argue, because it is not a factor involved in the conduct of the race itself, or in the rules of the Formula One commission.

By defining the first-tier metagame—with respect to PvP battle—to take place in the virtual world rather than the real world, ArenaNet has placed the first-tier metagame in scope of 'the rules', just as if the F1 racing commission were to begin mandating distinctions between engineering teams. That the commission might only be recognizing distinctions that already exist is, again, irrelevant; the question is whether or not they were in scope of the explicit rules.

He has consistently shrugged off the assertion that, essentially, all games involve preparatory grind with the counterassertion that they do not explicitly codify this fact in their rules.

Well, I agree: they don't.

Welcome to the new world, where functions that once were a part of the real world have moved into the virtual. Expect to see more of this, as the scope of online environments continues to expand and interpenetrate the real world.

Now, with respect to his second point, the question of whether ArenaNet has been deceitful in asserting that 'skill > time spent', I don't actually believe there is any doubt: a PUG of unskilled players with who have been playing the game continuously since release will still fall before a team of n0 or Fianna armed only with 'template' characters.

The issue that Arredondo actually means to address is that, given a series of matches between two top guilds—I select n0 and the Fianna for this example—who are otherwise of equivalent skill, the team with the better equipment will prove victorious somewhat more often than the team with less, where completely even levels of skill and equipment would tend to produce a 1:1 win:loss ratio.

For myself, I would assert that skill is still the determining factor—but I'm willing to work with Arredondo's assumptions.

However, I refer again to the metagame: I believe that ArenaNet's assertion that 'skill > time spent' is inclusive of the first-tier metagame, as well as of PvP battle.

Arredondo and those like him are not willing to accept the first-tier meta-game as part of the game, and so believe that a means of removing the first-tier metagame entirely, i.e., an 'unlock all' button, is the correct solution to the game's woes, and believe that by implementing an explicit first-tier meta-game—as opposed to leaving the meta-game entirely in the real world, as is the case with most competitive games—ArenaNet has done a disservice to adherents of Guild Wars competitive play.

For myself, I would rather that Guild Wars included even higher order meta-games, such as a more fully realized campaign system whereby it were possible to actually wage war—as opposed to a series of stylized skirmishes—between Guilds within the explicit rules of the game.

—Siran Dunmorgan

P.S. Incidentally, I don't believe that Arredondo is an idiot, nor well-described by any of perjoratives that have been applied to him in this thread. Indeed, I would suggest that he has been remarkably patient with his detractors.

Loviatar · Jul 01, 2005, 10:37 PM // 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitdragon

casual players are at a disadvantage in the current system.
.

casual players dont figure into this arguement at all to begin with as they will never be top guild competitors no matter how well equipped.

THEY DONT HAVE THE PRACTICE TIME TO BE COMPETITIVE

LEAVE THE TRULY CASUAL PLAYER OUT

Pitdragon · Jul 01, 2005, 10:43 PM // 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

casual players dont figure into this arguement at all to begin with as they will never be top guild competitors no matter how well equipped.

THEY DONT HAVE THE PRACTICE TIME TO BE COMPETITIVE

LEAVE THE TRULY CASUAL PLAYER OUT

So what you are saying is basically "SCREW THE CASUAL PLAYERS THEY DON'T MATTER"?

arredondo · Jul 01, 2005, 11:53 PM // 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siran Dunmorgan

-snipped-

As well thought out as that post was, I'm amazed at how far it misses the mark. Your summary of my stated (and repeated ) position is incorrect. The rules of any cometition should not force activity or time spent as a condition towards acquiring any gear, simple and plain.

I say again, that I draw from YEARS of competitive experience in sports, videogames, and other activities to make my main point: Arena.net's system in PvP goes against the goal of pure skillful competition. Their rules impose acquisition standards on someone before he has access to desired gear that other competitiors have access to.

The outcome is influenced (NOT determined) by forces outside the scope of the player involved and is instead in the hands of the system he participates in. One may overcome that influence and be victorious. The influence may be great or slight. But nowhere but Guild Wars PvP does that influence from the competitive system exist.

That is not how serious competition works anywhere except Arena.net. Just being different is nowhere near an excuse for just being wrong. The competitive system is always set up to allow all participants to come to the starting line with whatever is legal for that activity. If somnething is legal, it is up to you to get the best out of it withOUT influence from arbitrary acquisition rules imposed by the competitive system in place.

Let's look at specifics of where you went wrong:

Quote:

From the perspective of the character involved in a PvP match, there are three games: the present game in the sense of PvP battle. The first-tier metagame, representing the acquisition of the skills and equipment by means of which the battle is carried out, and the second-tier metagame, containing the environment in which the player functions, i.e. the real world.

Ok, incomplete, but I'll go along with this perspective for now.

Quote:

He has consistently shrugged off the assertion that, essentially, all games involve preparatory grind with the counterassertion that they do not explicitly codify this fact in their rules.

Wrong. I've consistently said that any activity (or grind as you put it) should be SELF-imposed, not league mandated as a qualifier, to access the gear that your competitiors have. BIG difference.

In this 'first-tier' metagame you describe, we both can agree that in all contests, the competitors must come to the field, track, game, whatever... well-prepared, right? OK, what keeps one from being as prepared as their opponents? No matter what you name, I've been saying that if you aren't prepared for what comes at you, it should be YOUR fault alone, with no influence from rules that inherently forces those that are allowed to have and those that are not allowed to have to compete together.

If I know that my opponent is going to come with an all Air Ele/Monk team, I should be at fault for not stocking up on anti-elemental armor or the Mantra of Lightning stance for my Mesmer (or any other gear for a strat that I decide will work). It should not be determined by the rules of the system that we all participate in, which keeps me from accessing this gear because I haven't jumped through enough hoops for the "league". Everyone should start with all options, and may the best team win from there. That's the only time that 100% pure skill takes over, when the "league" doesn't influence the match before it starts.

If your pit crew is made up of 2nd grade Catholic school girls who can't even remove a tire, that is YOUR fault. The league doesn't make you start weak and drive 10,000 laps to improve your crew. Guild Wars does this. The tiers you describe are part of real-world competition in all other activities when made a bit clearer:

Quote:

The first-tier metagame, representing the acquisition of the skills and equipment by means of which the battle is carried out

Yes, and in this first-tier, you should be in 100% control with no influence from the "league's" mandated hoop jumping (of any kind) as to what you are allowed to access coming in to the field of play. That is the specific point I'm making. Of all the variables involved in a win, nothing is absolute in determining victory (addressing your final paragraphs). However, the one thing that all serious competitive contests share is that those variables are dealt with directly by the players, with NO influence from the game system, when detemining what you feel you need to bring to the activity... except in GW PvP.

Celes Tial · Jul 02, 2005, 12:08 AM // 00:08

Uh, I see a lot more happy than disgruntled players, actually.

About 8:1.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that most people dont like it.

Siren · Jul 02, 2005, 12:09 AM // 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

Amazing. How anyone can deny an obvious truth is beyond me.

This "obvious truth" being...? That everything else in the competitive world is fair, balanced, nice, loving, caring, compassionate, kind, good, honest, decent? That's basically what you've been trying to say, arredondo.

Quote:

OK, in the interest of logical charity, I'll try again to say the exact same thing in a different way. Every single activity I have listed involve participation from individuals, and in a serious competitive environment, each individual has two major forces that determines what his ceiling is when it comes to how prepared he is towards beating his opponents.

The first major force is the person himself. Whether its abilities, income, eye-hand coordination, determination level, experience learned, commitment to practice, teamwork attitude, tactics used, skills developed, strategy prepared.... you get the idea. These are all related to each other because the primary influence on how they all improve, stagnate or get worse is on the back of the person who is involved. Yes, other things can affect it, but none moreso than the person himself.

The second major force is the competitive system under which he performs his craft, and the rules that govern everyone involved. It is here where Arena.net's system differs from 99.999% of competitive activities. While limits and maximum allowed levels of equipment/gear quality are often set within the rules to keep competition fair for all.... the rules of the system itself does NOT prevent an individual from participating with the best gear/equipment available that others are allowed to use.

Here is where all of those counter-points to my analogies consistently fall apart. In serious competition, what is preventing a player from making use of the top gear needed to succeed in all my examples? The current state of affairs with the participant (Force A), or the rigid rules of the governing system (Force B - i.e Arena.net, NBA, WTA, etc)? You can go back and read any of our previous posts... mine's or others. I have been arguing from this perspective all along. Arena.net is doing a disservice to skillful competition by imposing rules that staggers the players' ability to win by limiting access to important gear.

It is the RULES that keep a skillful player from succeeding who needs a Superior Swordsmanship, Superior Vigor, Superior Absorption, and a dozen elites just to have a fair chance against a team all maxed out. These are items and gear... wits, skill, strategy and talent alone ARE NOT ENOUGH. The winner, unlike all the other examples mentioned, is determined by the person who jumped through more acquisition hoops imposed by the RULES, instead of other competitive activities where you acquire what you need based on YOUR personal situation.

Whether its practice, income, experience, physical development, or what have you, the rules of any competitive system does not prevent one from getting what they need to equally compete with those who are already stocked full:

- In tennis, the rules don't prevent one from getting needed gear before first winning 500 matches. Arena.net's system unfortunately does this. The ability to have the gear from the start lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

- In chess, the rules don't prevent one from getting needed pieces before first winning 500 matches. Arena.net's system unfortunately does this. The ability to have the gear from the start lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

- In basketball, the rules don't prevent one from getting needed gear unless he first makes 10,000 three point shots. Arena.net's system unfortunately does this. The ability to have the gear from the start lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

- In Peek-a-Boo, the rules don't prevent one from using their eyes and hands unless she first goes through 5 hours of drool free playtime. Arena.net's system unfortunately does. The ability to do or not do so lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

THIS has been the only context under which I've made my analogies. In competitive activities, the system only hurts skillful contests when they step in and impose rules that prevent the pure, skillful talents of the individuals from being enough to succeed. You can't possibly ignore that this is the case here, even if you think it is a good thing. PvE play mechanics of earning things is anti-skillful competition in any PvP activity, and it shouldn't be that way.

Now, before anyone attempts to rebutt the unrebuttable, do NOT try to change the premise of the point I made and then proceed to argue against what you make up. Any comparison I made between GW and a sport or activity has been placed in its proper and specific context. I've shown what these competitive contests have in common ONLY as it relates to participants' access to what they need to succeed:

Is the lack of access to what gear/equipment others are succeeding with the fault of the individual player's choice/status? Or is the lack of access the fault of the system's imposed rules?

In serious competition, it should NEVER be the latter. The rules should never force one to put in hundreds of hours to come into a competitive activity with the gear you need to succeed. "The game is designed to reward player skill and teamwork, not time spent playing..." Where did I come up with this last quote? FROM ARENA.NET'S OWN WEBSITE. Ahh, if only it were completely true.

You're still missing the point. You're referencing outside, real-life sports--many of which are incredibly stressful and demand rigorous emotional and physical conditioning--and claiming them to be so much more fair and balanced than a video game. You're still making weak analogies, even in the "context."

You get all your pieces in Chess because that's the game. Because Chess ISN'T a role-playing game or stat-builder (and neither is Tennis or Basketball in the gaming sense). Players have all their pieces because that's how the game is played. Because everything is set down in front of them so those pieces can be captured. The name of the game in Chess if full-blown elimination. That is not the case in Guild Wars, because the "piece" death in GW is only temporary. You lose a Queen in Chess, it's very, very, very unlikely you're going to get it back. You lose a Monk in GW, a Rez Signet/Spell will fix that pretty easily.

And I'd think that the relative ease and relative repetition of players rezzing each other on the battlefield in GW is testament to just how radically different the design approaches are between GW and Chess/Tennis/Basketball.

You talk about these rules of sports...but you're still not acknowledging that the rules of Chess (not requiring players to "earn" their pieces) are set that way because of the game's design purpose...and the respective design purposes of Chess/Tennis/Basketball are different than the design purposes of GW/MtG.

The sports analogies you're using suck because you're largely ignoring why those games are designed the way they are.

Guild Wars and MtG are based on entirely different concepts than Chess, and also, largely different concepts than Tennis and Basketball. The "rules" in those real-life sports are different because GW and MtG aren't like those real-life sports. That's the key point here. You're referencing totally unrelated ideas, concepts, designs, etc.

Use other role-playing games as your support instead of real-life sports. At least role-playing games have similar concepts.

I don't point to an orange and say "Look! That's how this apple should be!" You shouldn't either. Complain and whine in your reply all you want, about how you're speaking in such a specific context that your analogies aren't faulty, about how I'm "missing the point," but fact of the matter is, arredondo, no matter how you've been phrasing, re-phrasing, repeating, disguising your posts, you've still been doing the same thing: pointing to an orange and whining about how that's what this apple should be like.