Curse

Phades · Jul 07, 2005, 12:37 PM // 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

The basis for your questions here is faulty, though, because in order for your question to have merit, we'd have to accept the premise as being true, that there are "perfect" skill teams out there, that there is no margin of human error at all...and that's not the case. So, again, you're using an example that holds little bearing here, because the premise on which you're basing your question is still pure theory to an extremely large extent. There is no such thing as absolute perfect skill. Mistakes will be made, regardless of the tier position.

Speaking in terms of pure theory, the margin for error would balance out across players. The game's learning curve is relativly flat as far as the mechanics go and has a little bit more of a slope with what combines together, but for the most part its rather simple. There is very little act/reaction style intracacies within the game and most of it falls to having a compotent person behind the board and having the right setup. Its the same in most strategy games that are turn based not clicks per second. Also in applying the skills there is no real human element in it, as none of the skills are directed and only when to push the button becomes slightly more relavent.

This being the case, you would have a more solid argument revolving hardware involved in playing the game, in terms of both on the client and via the ISP employed, as both would hold as much say over when the button is pressed issue as much as anything else would in theory.

In either case, the only real conflict is that if you allow something to be fully unlocked, like the pvp equipment, for a pvp character then you essentially segregate the average pvp player character further form the average pve player character that may choose to participate within pvp. If they were to be unlocked for convience, then the two worlds would basically have to become completely seperate in order to maintain balance between them. Otherwise all assumtions are made against the eliete pve character against the average pvp character, which is not a very valid comparison. Under the current system however, both still have to earn what they will use, with the exception of basic equipment for the pvp character and any template skills, while the pve character must earn everything. Given the dual nature of the game both characters are basically needed to run through the pve experience to round out the pvp options that are required after the months of farming and tuning that has already taken place in order to compete. In the end, the argument is circular, mostly by the people who have what they want already versus the people who dont have what they want already. Once both sides realize this and begin presenting solutions instead of direction, then this might actually get somewhere.

JoDiamonds · Jul 07, 2005, 03:17 PM // 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by PieXags

And in response to Jo's post here. I'll tell you why they haven't done PvE only arenas and things like that. It's because PvE and PvP are supposed to be intertwined, and they don't want to go and seperate the two into halves, because that isn't the way it was meant to be.

OK. I've heard the argument before, and while Arena Net is god here, they are also fallible. Saying that something is one way because "that is the way it was meant to be" isn't much of an argument. However, I'll give you a pass on explaining why intertwining PvP and PvE is a good idea (which is what you should be arguing), since other people have tried it.

The level of intertwining is a gray scale that can move around a bit. Arena Net clearly doesn't want them bound together as tightly as possible; you can actually play either one without the other to an enormous extent (despite all the complaints). It's not a question of, "Should PvE and PvP be intertwined at all?", but rather rather a question of How Much. Obviously, everyone has their own opinions.

JoDiamonds · Jul 07, 2005, 03:22 PM // 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sythion

The answer to this question is simple. Consider yourself in an RPGers shoes.

This is easy enough. I am an RPGer. I've played pen-and-paper RPGs for years, and countless computer RPGs. It's certainly one of my favorite types of games.

Quote:

You want to play this game. You can spend hours slowly unlocking skills, or you could just have them at the click of a finger. Which would you choose? As a PvPer, the answer is obvious. The problem is PvE players will feel the same. Essentially they will have no incentive to playing the RPG part of the game they love.

I guess I just disagree with your premise. When I want to play competitive PvP, if the option existed, I would just build a new character. When I want to play an RPG, I'd play a PvE character. Which is exactly what I do right now. For me, my PvE experience simply does not change if PvP is fully unlocked.

I guess I understand the point you are making. I just don't see how having all the skills in one format affects the other format. PvE doesn't change at all if PvP changes. I still go through and develop my character(s). Just because another character that's essentially in another game world (PvP being a tiny, restricted little world) exists doesn't mean there's no fun to be had in developing a PvE character.

Example: There's tons of cheats in most single-player RPGs; you could automatically twink your character out to be super powerful before you reach the first fight in many such games. But most people don't do that. (At least, until they've played through the game once.) Most people would rather play through the challenges and story, rather than plow through like superman. I see this as being pretty much identical to Guild Wars PvE.

Quote:

A-Net knows that we as humans, are hard wired to getting pleasure from getting rewarded. Because the reward was already something we had access to, suddenly there is no pleasure in having obtained it. Would you drive 100 miles to get ice cream when the same ice cream is right across the street? And the journey is not the fun part. Being rewarded for succeeding is.

Yeah, this is pretty much what convinced me you were in a totally different mindset than I was. You obviously play games for different reasons than I do. I'm not going to even try to say which of us more people are like, far less try to dictate what most humans are like.

And the two ice creams you describe just aren't the same. PvP flavored ice cream tastes nothing at all like PvE flavored ice cream. So who cares if PvP ice cream is free and you have you pay for PvE ice cream? They just aren't that similar. To me, it feels like you are saying that if Arena Net gave people free ice cream, then playing Morrowind would become less fun. (To be clearer, it would destroy PvE and almost everyone would stop playing Guild Wars).

If you want rewards for grinding, presumably Guild Wars is not the game you want. =)

Quote:

I disagree strongly with this, but I wouldn't stop playing the game PvE had it's own rewards and PvP was all skills unlocked.

So... it wouldn't kill it for you? Or maybe there's an important word missing from that sentence. I'm not being snarky, I might geniunely be confused. A good sign, at any rate.

Quote:

What all the people arguing for UAX seem to not understand is that there will be no rewards for PvE play if all skills are unlocked for PvPers. RPGs revolve around their rewards structure, not around the story, and not around the repetitive combat.

For what it's worth, I'm not in favor of UAX. But I totally disagree with your premise (which is fine; we can have different premises, then it's up to ArenaNet to decide what their premise is if they wanted to listen to any of us). The story is important to me, and the combat is fun too (though obviously it can get repetitive, but I don't think most of it is).

Maybe for you, it's all about rewards, but it's definitely not true for all players. Arena Net can do their own polls to figure out what most people care about, if they want.

If I just wanted rewards, I'd go play slot machines. That's the ultimate game that panders to the part of human nature that just wants rewards.

Calimar · Jul 07, 2005, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Uhm. I'm an obsessive PvP player, as much as an obsessive PvE player.

What this last update has done is tilt the balance towards more skilled players. The more skilled you are in the beginning of your PvP experience (if you're not PvEing), the more skills you'll have and the more stuff you'll unlock. Here's your incentive to be skilled, pvper.

You don't like PvP and PvE being bound together? Sorry for you. But you see, aside from the "a.net is god" argument, there's another that is very very effective, even it is dead simple: "that is the way it was meant to be." - not assuming a role of authority here, just stating the simple fact that THIS IS WHY GW is DIFFERENT.

GW is unique. Why? For many reasons, one of them is that PvP and PvE are not separated completely, but they're separated _enough_. You won't have jerks ripping you of drops or kills or lvl20 chars killing a newbie (as in low-level pg) for the fun of it.

You know what? PvP in GW is not perfectly balanced. That's right. People that have played PvE are at an advantage (much easier to unlock stuff in PvE). PvE players that never play PvP are at a disadvantage and won't be part of the REAL guild WAR.

Get it right: this is the game that arena.net wanted. Not a perfect PvP arena, not a PvE only RPG. A PvP/PvE mixture. They gave us the option to privilege one or the other... but don't get it wrong. If you want to play one OR the other, you're in the wrong game. Does this mean you should go away? no. But to say that GW is "broken" or that A.Net "failed" because the 2 are linked... is missing the point.

GW is less of a PvE game than most other mmoRPG. GW is less of a PvP game than most other mmoRTS or whatever. But GW, in its own right, is the best game in its category - because it is UNIQUE! And there is beauty in that fact.

Disclaimer: caps to highlight, not to shout or be aggressive. it is all in my opinion and you're all morons. Won't listen to you, nyanya. I'm not listening, serious!

Calimar.

Ben Reed · Jul 07, 2005, 07:09 PM // 19:09

Personally, I don't care much for PvE, and I agree with much of what arredondo has said about the difference between PvP and PvE. PvP and PvE in ANY game are completely different beasts. If you want to encourage serious PvP play, forcing PvE mechanics on PvP players to unlock stuff is just begging for trouble. I like the intense segregation between GW's PvE and PvP systems, because as a big fan of fighting games and other one-on-one games, I believe that PvP should be a completely standalone experience, something that you can jump into and out of at will, but is still deep enough for you to get totally immersed in the intense mind games and grueling pace of the match itself. All the same tools should be available to you and your opponent, with the only real difference between both players being skill.

That being said, I believe the new PvP rewards system is a much bigger improvement than some give it credit for. I believe the skills should be somewhat cheaper for the benefit of less skilled teams, or players without the benefit of a guild to play for, but this new system has much further seperated the need for PvE grind from PvP skill-building and practice, and that to me is a pretty damn big improvement.

I may need 1K faction to get a minor rune, but I'll take 3 hours in random arena when all my guildmates are offline over three hours in Fissure staggering my way into the tower at -60% and really wanting to take a break and watch TV any day of the week.

My main suggestions for improvement to the system would be:

- Make normal skills cheaper to buy. Like, 250 or 500 or so. That's only about 3 hours' worth of random arena right there, assuming you win at least 10% of the times you go in. When you're a PvP newbie working on your first char build, nothing talks louder more immediately than skills, even more so than runes.

- Might want to cheapen weapon upgrades, too. The minor ones, anyway.

- Add Priests of Balthazar in the arena lobbies, because I'm too lazy to log on my PvE chars to cash in my faction.

P.S. What fighting games have you played, arredondo? I iwsh more people played 'em, if you play 'em at a decent level they really teach you a lot about recognizing opportunities and adapting on the fly to changes in an opponent's strategy. That kinda skill is, of course, essential in Guild Wars.

arredondo · Jul 07, 2005, 10:04 PM // 22:04

Here we've come to it. The central point of this thread. I put the nail in your coffin right in front of you, and you run away from it like a frightened school girl. In my thread that I created I make my point that if you please the league by "hoop jumping" for a few hundred extra hours, you gain advantages. If you refuse to address this single, important point head on (the questions again are below), why waste our time by openly trying to avoid it?

This system in GW is anti-competition and devalues skillful play, and a greater difference becomes more pronounced between the teams who put in less grinding time as a group and those that have. I illustrated this with my multiple choice questions to you, and penned up against the corner with absolutely no easy escape, you refused to answer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

The basis for your questions here is faulty, though, because in order for your question to have merit, we'd have to accept the premise as being true, that there are "perfect" skill teams out there, that there is no margin of human error at all...and that's not the case. So, again, you're using an example that holds little bearing here, because the premise on which you're basing your question is still pure theory to an extremely large extent. There is no such thing as absolute perfect skill. Mistakes will be made, regardless of the tier position.

I'm not saying teams are perfect. I'm not saying there's no room for error. I'm not saying one team will defeat the other team 100% of the time. I'm saying that when you match up teams with similar abilities, there is an advantage/disadvantage effect between those who grinded out more gear to strategize with than those who didn't. Slight or great, IT EXISTS.

People say Kobe Bryant and TMac are close in skills and abilities. Certain difference in their game exist, but they're close enough for what we are discussing. If they played each other 1v1 on a full court that's half as long as a normal court, who has the advantage... the one who shoots at an abnormal hoop with a smaller circle in size and a non-standard 15 feet high (because of his lack of grinding for the league), or the one whose basket is normal NBA circle size and is a normal 10 feet high (who grinded 300 hours for the league)? Allow both sides to have equal access to all gear and equipment allowed, then let it be skillful play vs. skillful play.

Yes, there are variable things that affect the outcome of a match that is in control of the player/team, but this ENTIRE THREAD was created because there should be no outside influence that gives any advantage (slight or great) to those who grind enough for the league. With that in mind, I'll make it even easier for you by using real life examples so you aren't confused by factors other than gear.

The War Machine guild in Korea currently has enough great players to fill three teams on the first page of the official ladder rankings (#5, #8, #12 respectively). Their ratings are 1688, 1640, and 1625. For purposes of these questions, Let's call them WM A, B, and C. Being from the same guild, having strategized together for all this time, you can't deny that all three are very strong teams.

Now, back to the exact same questions you tried to dodge. Show some intellectual courage this time and DIRECTLY answer please:

------------------------------------------------------------
All things being about equal, with skillful teammates and top level tactics shared by all... which team has the obvious advantage based on hours spent "jumping through hoops" for the league?

WM A) Has 10% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM B) Has 50% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM C) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from

Take your time.

*** BONUS QUESTION! ***

All things being about equal, with skillful teammates and top level tactics shared by all... which team has the obvious advantage?

WM A) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM B) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM C) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
-- or --
D) We find out on the field of battle.
---------------------------------------------------------

So for questions 1 & 2, what are your answers?

Siren · Jul 07, 2005, 10:29 PM // 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

Here we've come to it. The central point of this thread. I put the nail in your coffin right in front of you, and you run away from it like a frightened school girl.

You mistake criticizing a faulty example for running away from a point, arredondo. Keep that in mind.

Quote:

In my thread that I created I make my point that if you please the league by "hoop jumping" for a few hundred extra hours, you gain advantages. If you refuse to address this single, important point head on (the questions again are below), why waste our time by openly trying to avoid it?

This system in GW is anti-competition and devalues skillful play, and a greater difference becomes more pronounced between the teams who put in less grinding time as a group and those that have. I illustrated this with my multiple choice questions to you, and penned up against the corner with absolutely no easy escape, you refused to answer:

I'm not saying teams are perfect. I'm not saying there's no room for error. I'm not saying one team will defeat the other team 100% of the time. I'm saying that when you match up teams with similar abilities, there is an advantage/disadvantage effect between those who grinded out more gear to strategize with than those who didn't. Slight or great, IT EXISTS.

People say Kobe Bryant and TMac are close in skills and abilities. Certain difference in their game exist, but they're close enough for what we are discussing. If they played each other 1v1 on a full court that's half as long as a normal court, who has the advantage... the one who shoots at a normal hoop that's NBA size and 10 feet high (because of his lack of grinding for the league), or the one whose basket is twice as wide and is only six feet high (who grinded 300 hours for the league)? Allow both sides to have equal access to all gear and equipment allowed, then let it be skillful play vs. skillful play.

Yes, there are variable things that affect the outcome of a match that is in control of the player/team, but this ENTIRE THREAD was created because there should be no outside influence that gives any advantage (slight or great) to those who grind enough for the league. With that in mind, I'll make it even easier for you by using real life examples so you aren't confused by factors other than gear.

The War Machine guild in Korea currently has enough great players to fill three teams on the first page of the official ladder rankings (#5, #8, #12 respectively). Their ratings are 1688, 1640, and 1625. For purposes of these questions, Let's call them WM A, B, and C. Being from the same guild, having strategized together for all this time, you can't deny that all three are very strong teams.

Now, back to the exact same questions you tried to dodge. Show some intellectual courage this time and DIRECTLY answer please:

------------------------------------------------------------
All things being about equal, with skillful teammates and top level tactics shared by all... which team has the obvious advantage based on hours spent "jumping through hoops" for the league?

WM A) Has 10% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM B) Has 50% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM C) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from

Take your time.

*** BONUS QUESTION! ***

All things being about equal, with skillful teammates and top level tactics shared by all... which team has the obvious advantage?

WM A) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM B) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM C) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
-- or --
D) We find out on the field of battle.
---------------------------------------------------------

So for questions 1 & 2, what are your answers?

And again, I'm saying that the premises of your questions are not what the current state of Guild Wars is. There isn't such a black and white in the game as in your questions, arredondo, so your questions, while entertaining, are irrelevant in this context. But for the sake of argument, I'll entertain you.

Nobody in their right mind would say that given everything equal, with totally similar skills and abilities, that a better equipped team wouldn't have an advantage.

But your question holds little bearing here, because even The War Machine has trained ungodly amounts of time, and through their extended amount of time with the game, whether that's unlocking or not, they've become far more skilled than most others. Even during the unlocking process, you're still playing the game, and still using skill, still adapting to new situations.

Your questions are relevant only if the state of the game is totally reflected by them, and from what I've read, seen, heard, played, etc., it's not. Teams and guilds are not all on equal footing, even the top-tier ones. There are still variables in play that inhibit or enhance performances. There is no pure skill in the game, regardless of what's going on, and there is no absolute benchmark measuring tool that you've been trying to use here.

Pure and simple, everything is not equal, everyone does not possess similar personal skills and personal abilities (hell, even playstyle approach). Some may come close to each other, but there will always be some gradation, which is why a question based on the idea of an equal skill and similar abilities premise is ultimately irrelevant, because very, very few players will ever be on totally equal skill levels.

The answer to your question is above in bold face, but it's only an answer to your question, and not an answer to Guild Wars.

You're viewing things in black and white, but it's really a lot of shades of gray.

The Human Torch · Jul 07, 2005, 10:44 PM // 22:44

So you're saying that because Kobe is so much better than me at basketball, he gets to wear shoes while I must play barefoot? It's a gear problem, not a "who is more skilled than the other guy" problem. Just because WM is made up of a bunch of koreans who are renowned for their skill doesn't mean they should have gear while I'm denied it because I'm not as skilled. The gear should be equal for everyone no matter how much they've played, and the thing that decides whether a team wins or loses should be how skilled they are at the game. That brings us back to the fundamental core of all things competitive, which has been discussed to death already, so I'll leave it at that.

Siren · Jul 07, 2005, 11:02 PM // 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Human Torch

So you're saying that because Kobe is so much better than me at basketball, he gets to wear shoes while I must play barefoot? It's a gear problem, not a "who is more skilled than the other guy" problem. Just because WM is made up of a bunch of koreans who are renowned for their skill doesn't mean they should have gear while I'm denied it because I'm not as skilled. The gear should be equal for everyone no matter how much they've played, and the thing that decides whether a team wins or loses should be how skilled they are at the game. That brings us back to the fundamental core of all things competitive, which has been discussed to death already, so I'll leave it at that.

But UAX isn't the answer. There are much, much better solutions that would benefit everyone and not just the ungrateful little shits. lol

Phades · Jul 07, 2005, 11:17 PM // 23:17

You have yet to present any other than trying to derail the idea that everyone should be equal walking into the arena.

Siren · Jul 07, 2005, 11:22 PM // 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phades

You have yet to present any other than trying to derail the idea that everyone should be equal walking into the arena.

You mean I haven't been re-iterating that the recent PvP unlock system is a step in the right direction, and that I'm completely supportive of tweaking it so that less time is required to unlock the skills and so forth? I see no problem at all with adjusting the faction points requirements/payout so that a more comfortable medium is achieved. UAX, like I've said before, is the nuclear option at the complete opposite extreme of the current system in play.

It's like this:

Why are people so pissed about the unlocking system? Because in its current state, it's a bit too much of a time investment for some.

How is that corrected? Not by scrapping the entire system, but through revision of the system.

JasonJLore · Jul 07, 2005, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Quote:

Nobody in their right mind would say that given everything equal, with totally similar skills and abilities, that a better equipped team wouldn't have an advantage.

Actually, that's not true. There are alot of ppl in this thread (like PieXags) who are simply incoherent when making an argument. Example:

Quote:

I'm just pointing it out that having all the skills isn't necessary for a level playing field because everyone starts off at a level playing field and has to work their way up, just like everyone else.

It's apparent that this person is not living on the same planet. Perhaps we should abandon the comparison of sports to GW and reflect on everyday events in our lives. How about this? A film course at my university requires all students to create a full-length film by the end of the semester, at which time the best as selected by a committe will be submitted to a prestigious film festival. Here are some of the "rules". All students will be given access to a state-of-the-art digital camcorder, a fully equipped laptop to edit their film on, and the most recent graphic and animation software. They need not use this equipment to produce their film and may use other means if they so choose. but the equipment will be available to them. Without exception all in this particular class chose to use the equipment. This had not always been the case. In the past students were not furnished with equipment and had to either borrow or spend their own money (few did) to take this course. Film submissions were unusually low and academically the course suffered. When the new regulations were implemented, film submissions soared and there are now waiting lists to get in the class. Furthermore, a recent college survey found that students felt more confident and motivated to do well because of the "level playing field" provided by the University. The ppl who are against a UAX button in this game don't seem to realize that while equipment alone is not the determining factor in a competition, the RIGHT to have the same equipment is the fairest way in determining who succeeds. ANET will never institute a UAX button(s) because of economical concerns but the very fact that they established an unlocking system for PvP proves that their initial plans for the competitive arenas were wrong.

Siran Dunmorgan · Jul 07, 2005, 11:31 PM // 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Human Torch

So you're saying that because Kobe is so much better than me at basketball, he gets to wear shoes while I must play barefoot?

No, he's saying that because Germany was so much better at mining and manufacturing than France in 1940, Germany gets Panzers and Stukas while France must defend itself with the Maginot Line.

The game makes a lot more sense when you remember that it's Guild Wars, and let go of the notion that it's somehow about sports.

—Siran Dunmorgan

The Human Torch · Jul 07, 2005, 11:40 PM // 23:40

You're saying sports aren't a good comparison but countries are? And what does it matter that they're sports? How about if I bring up the popular analogy of guild wars to chess, in that both players have the same pieces but skill determines the winner. I'm comparing GW to a competitive game, not necessarily a sport.

arredondo · Jul 07, 2005, 11:51 PM // 23:51

It's about fair competition, which is why GW is comparable to any competitive activity, including sports, when we discuss this topic. The fundamental question is, in competitive activity 'X', does it diminish skillful play when the "league" allowed one side to start an advantage over the other based on hundreds of "hoops jumped through"? Fill in X with what ever you wish, and the answer for the supporters of fair competitive play is NO.

I have to respectfully tip my hat to Siren... I really thought it would be a 10-round fight to get him to admit to the fact that I've emphasized since the beginning. The current system DOES influence the outcome of every single match based on how much time one has spent 'unlocking' gear to the league's satisfaction. Sometimes slight, sometimes great, sometimes unnoticiable, but it is indeed there. This is fact, no one can continue to argue against it.

Now we have a question of is it a good thing for Guild Wars? It is here where opinions obviously vary. For serious PvP'ers who want to win or lose 100% on their own abilities, planning and preparation, the obvious answer is no. They don't want help from the league, they don't want to be limited by the league... just like every other competitive activity 'X'.

If you are NOT into serious PvP, I can see how you may not care, or are fine with the current system. Some actually think (erroneously) that they are a special Level 9 player because they can easily gank newbies in the early arenas because they have on max armor that they got from guild mates or Droknar rushes.

Tell me please, those who are in the middle, whether you have better equipment from this allowed exploit or better equipment (and skills/runes) from 100s of hours of 'unlocking', you have to admit that you aren't excelling purely on your own abilities, right? You can't be satisfied with a win if you have 90% of the stuff unlocked, and you beat someone who is skilled but only has 10% of the stuff unlocked in the friend's account he is using, right? That's all we're saying... all wins and losses should be based on factors brought on by YOUR situation and NOT under a forced mandate from the league.

Finally the pure PvE'rs who only want to hold back skillful play in PvP because they cherish the PvP-related rewards that PvE unlocking and adventuring gives them. Solution? Ask that the PvE rewards for achieving goals be 100% PvE related. I wrote on that idea a lot in another post that I'll find, but PvE people won't care about UAX if they understand that the rewards for endured and accomplished PvE play is not PvP-related.

arredondo · Jul 07, 2005, 11:58 PM // 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Human Torch

You're saying sports aren't a good comparison but countries are? And what does it matter that they're sports? How about if I bring up the popular analogy of guild wars to chess, in that both players have the same pieces but skill determines the winner. I'm comparing GW to a competitive game, not necessarily a sport.

Lol, don't get pulled into his war posts. The footnote to each and every one of my posts on competitive activities is that if the goal is to kill people on the other side, then I'm in no way referring to that activity in my responses. Whether one can argue or not this issue is one thing, but I choose instead to stay on topic.

Phades · Jul 07, 2005, 11:59 PM // 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

It's like this:

Why are people so pissed about the unlocking system? Because in its current state, it's a bit too much of a time investment for some.

How is that corrected? Not by scrapping the entire system, but through revision of the system.

Isnt tweaking it so that its less of a time sink the same as saying everyone be unlocked in X amount of time, instead of everyone being unlocked now? Dollars to donuts, people will get unlocked and should anyone new begin playing then they will just end up having to jump through those hoops as well if they decide they want to pvp. As a new person still learning the game, it will invariably be quite frustrating as they consistantly lose to older characters, that dont neccarially have more skill as a player, but experience to know what works vs what doesnt and have the options set before them to change to suit the need as neccacary. Cant really learn or adapt if the options are not there.

Personally i dont care either way what happens to the game at this point, but i dont think you are really understanding what you are saying as you type it out.

Loviatar · Jul 08, 2005, 12:06 AM // 00:06

i think everybody should reflect on several items

1 Anet has completely alienated the extremes on both sides.

the dingaholics are gone or going or still yelling for more levels

and the rabid hardcore pvp people are long gone going or still hoping if they yell long and loud enough Anet will scrap a bedrock core part of the game for them.

what is left is a mostly happy middle ground enjoying the game

2. while Anet does listen and respond to the customers they have a point beyond which they will not bend because in their opinion it will hurt the game.

NOTE THEY MAY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU DO

3. in spite of the extremes leaving there are still very high reviews being given for the game AS IT IS and there are a lot of people having fun with it

Siran Dunmorgan · Jul 08, 2005, 12:06 AM // 00:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

The footnote to each and every one of my posts on competitive activities is that if the goal is to kill people on the other side, then I'm in no way referring to that activity in my responses. Whether one can argue or not this issue is one thing, but I choose instead to stay on topic.

In all of the arenas and more than half the Tombs maps, the goal is to kill all of the people on the other side, isn't it?

It always seemed to me that that's why we have things like bows, axes, hammers, swords and whatnot.

I don't even need to draw an analogy to make that assertion.

—Siran Dunmorgan

Phades · Jul 08, 2005, 12:39 AM // 00:39

Covert versus overt actions, i believe was the point. There is some subtlely in transportaion and denail over outright killing.