Curse

Phades · Jul 10, 2005, 01:39 AM // 01:39

You dont seem to understand that a pvp area, that im suggesting, is for pvp only characters, where pve characters wouldnt enter at all. Pve characters would have their own pvp settings that could be what we know now or more integrated like the first tombs event or the pre-searing initiation. Make them as seperate worlds as it were, as they are in the systems that govern their advancement.

The ceiling isnt made of glass, it continues to rise as the age of the game rises. If you cant or havent seen that in every other game on the market, then you havent been paying attention. You are trying to observe the game as it is now in a stasis, while im looking at it 9 months to 1 year or more down the road where these issues will come up. When they do come up the forums will be flodded with how can a new guy compete posts, instead of asking do we need a system that requires a treadmill now? This is what you dont understand. That is why waiting to see while playing = not playing enough to understand.

To be honest the new players i described only one of them i didnt like, because they are unwilling to learn on their own. To encourage that it is better to set everything out on the table before them and let them try everything as they see the need for it. Telling someone about advanced manuvers is very different than allowing them to see the effect from said manuvers. Coordination and timing aside from fighting games, that is a stronger premis than stating that you must only punch or kick at this stage, but dont worry about getting beat by a throw that you dont know how to deal with or knowing how to block. It may seem like dummed down examples, but to me they are just that simple.

Like i said before, the pvp system has flaws that cant be fixed under the current system, while the pve system is easier to tune to cater to that style. You have not stated any solution other than what is fine now, will be fine forever. The logistical problem of the actual location of the priests is more of an oversight than a design issue. This is a very similar instance where rune traders exist in the arena staging areas. Pvp character doesnt have money, pvp character doesnt earn money normally, pvp character can only earn money by selling a sigil to a player or the trader. So what exactly is the point of rune traders in the pvp areas? Also the storage people are pointless as well to a pvp character, unless a pve character sends the pvp character something. Which doesnt make sense when anything new that is unlocked can just be gained by scrapping and remaking that pvp character.

Ancalagon06 · Jul 10, 2005, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quintus

They can make it so that when you enter a PvP staging area, you temporarily recieve all skills, runes, and weapon upgrades for the matches you participate in, and when you leave the staging area, you lose the skills, runes, and weapon upgrades you didn't have already.

That'd take weeks, nay months of programming, all the while the whiners would continue to complain about the "long" response times of A.net...

JoDiamonds · Jul 10, 2005, 03:51 AM // 03:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

But just because I don't think that the current faction point requirements are appropriate doesn't mean I have to jump over to the other side entirely, screaming for UAX, treating it like it's the only thing left to do...

...because it's not. Far from it, in fact. And if I'm insulting someone here, so be it, but viewing everything here in total black and white is not going to solve anything, like others have said in the past. Despite what you may think, I am one of those people in the middle, Phades, one of those people who enjoys the unlocking system, but understands it has issues, but at the same time, understands that UAX is an extreme that simply is too extreme at this point in time.

I'm going to shamelessly point out a couple of threads I've started with the intent of making the game more fun.

Ideas on how to achieve fair PvP without using UAX:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=27583

An idea for a voluntary handicapp system to make PvP between people of different levels more fun:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=29537

I imagine no one will like either idea, since that seems to be the reaction by and large, but I'd like to emphasize that I hope everyone here has sight of the goal: Making Guild Wars more fun.

I have nothing against debate for the mental exercise of it, either, but I'm pretty sure that's not what everyone is here for.

Quote:

But what I don't agree with doing is looking at a 2-week old system and immediately screaming hellfire and damnation, because that's jumping the gun, in the purest sense of the phrase. Personal opinions aside, if someone were to say that (screaming their pretty little heads off, wanting drastic Hiroshima-magnitude changes) about UAX if it were instituted, you'd tell them they were reacting prematurely, right? Same thing here, just flipped around (that pesky "point of view" thing again).

While I agree that it's good to give any new system a fair chance, I don't think you're going to accomplish much by saying so, Siren. The people who hate it it the most will say so (and not completely unreasonably, either, if they are the people who hate it the most); most people will give it a chance anyway.

Quote:

I'm suggesting we all try to keep things in perspective.

And a fine idea, but do understand that you are counseling the people who hate it the most. Almost by definition, those the people who will come complain on forums the strongest.

And at the same time, it's never too early to suggest improvements. And different people will want different things. I'd actually prefer that people at list explore different options and indicate how much they like different options, rather than merely saying that there's only one way to do things. That's never true.

Siren · Jul 10, 2005, 05:23 AM // 05:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phades

You dont seem to understand that a pvp area, that im suggesting, is for pvp only characters, where pve characters wouldnt enter at all. Pve characters would have their own pvp settings that could be what we know now or more integrated like the first tombs event or the pre-searing initiation. Make them as seperate worlds as it were, as they are in the systems that govern their advancement.

And that would divide the game community from an actual game design standpoint. The division we see now is a personality issue.

...personally, I don't mind at all facing against PvPers, even with my PvE characters. The more, the merrier.

Plus, there is a community here who enjoys both, so what would happen to them if a total division like that were implemented? Yes, they could still PvP with their PvE characters...but what if they actually enjoyed facing all types of players? They're the gray area here that's unfortunately stuck between the black and white, and yet another reason why there is no reasonable black and white solution here.

Quote:

The ceiling isnt made of glass, it continues to rise as the age of the game rises. If you cant or havent seen that in every other game on the market, then you havent been paying attention. You are trying to observe the game as it is now in a stasis, while im looking at it 9 months to 1 year or more down the road where these issues will come up. When they do come up the forums will be flodded with how can a new guy compete posts, instead of asking do we need a system that requires a treadmill now? This is what you dont understand. That is why waiting to see while playing = not playing enough to understand.

To be honest the new players i described only one of them i didnt like, because they are unwilling to learn on their own. To encourage that it is better to set everything out on the table before them and let them try everything as they see the need for it. Telling someone about advanced manuvers is very different than allowing them to see the effect from said manuvers. Coordination and timing aside from fighting games, that is a stronger premis than stating that you must only punch or kick at this stage, but dont worry about getting beat by a throw that you dont know how to deal with or knowing how to block. It may seem like dummed down examples, but to me they are just that simple.

Right now, if UAX were implemented, new players will be facing 150 skills all at once. That's a shock enough for someone just starting out in PvP (or really, in anything). But in upcoming years...new players are potentially looking at having upwards of 200 skills dropped on them, because the way you see it, UAX is the only way to go? You say it will be better for the new player to have everything given to them all at once?

You see that as enabling them. I see that as downright smothering them with much more than they could handle. I don't think you're considering just what kind of an intimidation factor that would be--and if you are, I think you're vastly underestimating it...to the degree of alienating new players just as badly as any unlock system could.

Quote:

You have not stated any solution other than what is fine now, will be fine forever.

Again, you're making vague claims that appear little more than transparent bluffs. I've not been saying at all that what we have now is fine now, and will be fine forever. I've been repeating ad nauseum that needing 3k faction points for an Elite skill is absurdly unfair. You've said how that's arguing for UAX, but I've shown you that it isn't. I've explicitly stated that I am not supportive for UAX, because even in the future, that will not solve anything.

The implications for new players in a year's time are just as dangerous and haphazard as an unlock system, because with an unlock system, they're starting behind the 8-ball because they don't have the actual skills, fine.

But with UAX and them getting 200 skills all at once? They're behind the 8-ball because they don't know where to begin...and for a new player to feel intimidated/alienated...is not good for business. Surely, you agree on that point?

Quote:

The logistical problem of the actual location of the priests is more of an oversight than a design issue. This is a very similar instance where rune traders exist in the arena staging areas. Pvp character doesnt have money, pvp character doesnt earn money normally, pvp character can only earn money by selling a sigil to a player or the trader. So what exactly is the point of rune traders in the pvp areas? Also the storage people are pointless as well to a pvp character, unless a pve character sends the pvp character something. Which doesnt make sense when anything new that is unlocked can just be gained by scrapping and remaking that pvp character.

But given how instrumental the priests are instrumental in a PvP character's development, I think placing them on the same level as rune traders and storage agents is a bit foolish.

People are complaining that they'd rather not go through PvE to acquire their skills, and that's exactly what the suggestion addressed. Design issue, oversight, whatever, something's screwy, and it can be fixed very easily. I'm not even sure why you're replying to that, anyway, though, because you don't even sound like you have any real problem with it ("it" being the suggestion).

And JoDiamonds, you're getting to be one of my favorite people here. You know that, right?

Phades · Jul 10, 2005, 08:31 AM // 08:31

An easy parralell to this game in terms of options to form a build would be magic the gathering. Every expansion tends to have more than 150 different cards released, or at least in that ballpark in the past. Some have been less others more, but as the cards became public knowledge people digested and formatted new setups integrating the new stuff with the already massive old stuff within just a couple weeks. It is not massive nor overly complicated to look at a puzzle whole then observe how the pieces fit together.

You havent proven how its not arguing for UAX style system for pvp. You merly feign at that a problem exists and that the problematic system needs to stay.

Personally i dont see any difference between the placement of such characters within the game. Its either a short sighted flaw or an intended design concept forcing someone to play both. In essence by the way the rewards are listed for the priests, id wager that not enough gvg battles were occuring and this was a halfmeasure to help stimulate the desire to participate within them, while at the same time acknowledging that killing off 4 people is easier and scaling back the earlier arena formats with the tombs being the middle ground. Conceptually that works more than insinuating that the faction system was really a bonus to a player who was pvp exclusive.

As far as fragmenting the community, it is already fragmented in a way as how guild ranking and structure is concerned. This is more of an issue of human nature than a game mechanic however and there really isnt way to fix or force people how to act within a game. People who are dedicated to pvp with their guild doesnt really care about what johnny pve does advancing through the game who tries out pvp here and there and might join up with another guild along the way. They quite honestly play two different games and id say its fairly unlikely the two would meet up unless it was within a pve mission while the pvp guy tries to skill cap something for whatever reason. In which case they are both in the pve realm with pve characters anyway. The fragmenting option saves the ability to retain the existing system while also allowing for full experimentation by everyone and not interfering with each other. The pvp and pve systems feel forced upon each other as a design requirement, much in the same way storage and rune traders feel forced within the pvp staging areas.

The worst fragmenting a community will face over time is the turning away of new players. It is worse as the game stops growing in the playerbase and at that point it is the begining of the end as the older players find fewer people to play against among each other as they move on to other games over time. That is far worse than accepting an explosion of options now and in the future for those who desire to test, compete, and experiement with said options. Instead of just getting past egos and learning the ropes, in the future a new person will have the hurdle of just getting up to speed with everyone else and could quite possibly never catch up.

Siren · Jul 11, 2005, 09:50 AM // 09:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phades

An easy parralell to this game in terms of options to form a build would be magic the gathering. Every expansion tends to have more than 150 different cards released, or at least in that ballpark in the past. Some have been less others more, but as the cards became public knowledge people digested and formatted new setups integrating the new stuff with the already massive old stuff within just a couple weeks. It is not massive nor overly complicated to look at a puzzle whole then observe how the pieces fit together.

There's a critical flaw in your argument here:

The "combat" in MtG is nowhere near as intense or fast-paced as the combat in GuildWars. In fact, the respective pace/speeds of the two games are almost the complete opposite. True, in highly competitive play in MtG, surely cards are getting slapped down fairly quickly, but two points need consideration there:

1) You can find even faster speeds at top-tier play in GuildWars.

2) A new player won't be playing in highly competitive play.

But, even with a new player starting out in the "bottom tiers," as it were, doesn't mean they won't be experiencing the breakneck speed of GW battles.

Purely on the style of skill acquisition, MtG is a perfect comparison. The layout, the collections, everything points to building a deck of cards in GW.

But where GW differs from MtG is an issue of speed. It's closer to FPS and Smash Bros Melee in this regard, which is why it's foolish to say UAX will be better for the new player because of the similarities to MtG, because GW combat runs at a speed you'd find in Smash Bros. Melee...not MtG. And we all know how a new player reacts to having every moveset in Smash Bros. Melee dumped on them, and then being thrown out into a combat situation that moves at speeds MtG rarely does, if at all.

Quote:

You havent proven how its not arguing for UAX style system for pvp. You merly feign at that a problem exists and that the problematic system needs to stay.

Every time you say this, it means less and less, Phades, because every time you repeat this, I explicitly show how I've not been arguing for UAX, how I'm in the gray area between the two black and white extremes, how I feel UAX is the nuclear option that should only be seriously considered when all other options have failed.

It seems like just because I can see why some would have a problem with steep faction point requirements, and am willing to work out a compromise of tweaking those requirements so any player can unlock skills in a shorter period of time, you want to say that what I'm saying is no different than what arredondo has been whining for.

And that's utterly false. The implications of what I'm saying (streamlining the current system so that it's more user-friendly) is something entirely different than what the arguments for UAX are (scrapping the unlock system).

You keep repeating this mantra, but just repeating it doesn't make it true, particularly if it continues to be an empty statement that I can disprove easily.

Quote:

Personally i dont see any difference between the placement of such characters within the game. Its either a short sighted flaw or an intended design concept forcing someone to play both. In essence by the way the rewards are listed for the priests, id wager that not enough gvg battles were occuring and this was a halfmeasure to help stimulate the desire to participate within them, while at the same time acknowledging that killing off 4 people is easier and scaling back the earlier arena formats with the tombs being the middle ground. Conceptually that works more than insinuating that the faction system was really a bonus to a player who was pvp exclusive.

And personally I don't really see how this is really all that relevant to begin with. I don't see you making any real points with this paragraph, other than what seems to be a meandering dissertation on rune traders in PvP arenas.

Oh, now I remember why this is relevant: because pure PvPers were whining that they had to play PvE once to access faction point priests.

Simple solution: priests can be added to the PvP arenas.

-or-

Simple solution: they can play PvE once.

It's not a huge issue when you really think about it.

Quote:

As far as fragmenting the community, it is already fragmented in a way as how guild ranking and structure is concerned. This is more of an issue of human nature than a game mechanic however and there really isnt way to fix or force people how to act within a game. People who are dedicated to pvp with their guild doesnt really care about what johnny pve does advancing through the game who tries out pvp here and there and might join up with another guild along the way. They quite honestly play two different games and id say its fairly unlikely the two would meet up unless it was within a pve mission while the pvp guy tries to skill cap something for whatever reason. In which case they are both in the pve realm with pve characters anyway. The fragmenting option saves the ability to retain the existing system while also allowing for full experimentation by everyone and not interfering with each other. The pvp and pve systems feel forced upon each other as a design requirement, much in the same way storage and rune traders feel forced within the pvp staging areas.

And if the division we see is actually a personality issue...how is it the game's fault at all? Further, if it is a personality issue, how is that a precedent for UAX? How is it a precedent for anything, really? This goes back to one of my points much earlier in this thread:

At what point do we draw the line between what a game is designed and contructed to be, and what gamer personalities want it to be?

Quote:

The worst fragmenting a community will face over time is the turning away of new players. It is worse as the game stops growing in the playerbase and at that point it is the begining of the end as the older players find fewer people to play against among each other as they move on to other games over time. That is far worse than accepting an explosion of options now and in the future for those who desire to test, compete, and experiement with said options. Instead of just getting past egos and learning the ropes, in the future a new person will have the hurdle of just getting up to speed with everyone else and could quite possibly never catch up.

Your assessment here is still going on pure theory, though, the theory that new players will be able to adjust with little to no problem with a barrage of 200 or so skills and techniques as soon as they start up the game.

Time and time again through the history of gaming, this has been proven false. The countless starter tutorials across a variety of genres and gameplay types is testament to this.

Many games are pick up n play, sure, but that's to a very certain extent, because in a game like Smash Bros Melee, which is very much pick up n play, if you bombard the new player with every single technique and move in the game, regardless of explaining what the effects are or not...their head will spin. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a gaming fact. Even something like Bomberman suffers from this issue.

StandardAI · Jul 11, 2005, 11:40 AM // 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acan Vishnu

Guildwars isn't an FPS. It isn't an RTS. It isn't Chess. It isn't Basketball.

So why do you keep complaining that ArenaNet doesn't treat it like it is?

Hmmm, Maybe because arenanet says it's a competive online role playing game? Much like, chess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guildwars.com

Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game). Guild Wars was designed from the ground up to create the best possible competitive role-playing experience.

I really wonder what goes through Gaile Gray's head when she reads a lot of the posts on a lot of the forums.
--

Oh, and Siren we're not upset because you have to beat the game once, We're complaining because it's not the solution we've been asking for, and that it takes 16-18x times longer to unlock a skill point through PvP, than it does through PvE.

4thVariety · Jul 11, 2005, 11:59 AM // 11:59

my problem with pvp is, that it interferes with my pve game in a very intrusive way . Ring of Fire takes long enough, still each time I might be able to try it the Hall of heroes is not in my region and I have to call it off. I thought that over time i might have more luck but for now I can't allow myself to stay awake till my region has the HoH @23.00 and then go on playing fissure of woe till 4.a.m. And I don't see how this is going to change. A part of the game eludes me not because of restrictions of skill, but simply because of my personal time limits. That angers me in a way. So anything that ArenaNet does to make the HoH more random again is fine by me. By forcing players to get items from PvE first could very well close the gap between those who play for fun and those who play out of a doubtful understanding of competition.

Siren · Jul 11, 2005, 03:32 PM // 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by StandardAI

Hmmm, Maybe because arenanet says it's a competive online role playing game? Much like, chess.

So Chess is a competitive online role playing game? I always thought it was a straight-up boardgame with no stat building, character development, etc. ~_^

Quote:

Oh, and Siren we're not upset because you have to beat the game once, We're complaining because it's not the solution we've been asking for, and that it takes 16-18x times longer to unlock a skill point through PvP, than it does through PvE.

And the solution you've been asking for is...UAX? So far, I've not seen any real precedent for a full utilization of UAX. All I've seen is tunnel vision complaints and tunnel vision solutions.

arredondo · Jul 11, 2005, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Quote:

Same principle here. UAX (the GW equivalent of dumping everything on a new player from the get-go) is not guaranteed to help the player improve. If anything, they'll get more frustrated, because instead of being shown a dozen or so techniques, they'll be getting almost 200. Instead of having to deal with only a dozen or so techniques, they'll be facing pages of new techniques.

The chances of that actually improving their game? Very slim. They'll be overwhelmed. This is something long established in video gaming. Somebody who's not played the game before will have difficulty if they are immersed entirely in the full breadth of that game's techniques.

I can categorically say that by and large, this point is incorrect. If anything the OPPOSITE is true. As I've said, I've been involved in many competitive activities over many years (athletic and gaming), and consistently the way people have improved the fastest by FAR is to actually play the game the way it was meant to be played. This isn't simply an opinion I'm throwing around out of nowhere. It's a certified observed fact.

There are several reasons for this. Yes, we all start off ignorant of rules and properties of equipment, traits, etc. and how it all flows well together, but when you are learning it in the context of what you need to do when you are in serious matches, it comes together that much smoother. A person spends 100 hours finishing PvE with a Mesmer/Necro. Archane Echo'd Chaos Storm (AoE) and a ton of Death minions can get you pretty far on their own.

You take that to PvP and it doesn't work. You first have to unlearn what you've been doing before you can re-learn how it can be useful in certain PvP situations. Additionally, builds you thought were near worthless all of a sudden have more value when you consider that you are up against the human mind as opposed to the more predictable A.I. of PvE. So unless you are reading the forums to tell you exactly what seems to work/not work (so far) in PvP, you are simply spending time catching up to other strong PvP players.

Now, consider UAX. Take a player spent 100 hours in a UAX environment playing nothing but PvP. He's just begun a PvP match in his 101st hour... you are trying to tell me he won't be faaaaar more skilled for competition than the player who spent his first 100 hours in PvE (assuming he got all his skills and equipment as well)? After 120 hours, after 150 hours, the PvE player is always playing to first unlearn his bad habits and then catchup to even the most basic PvP good habits (let alone advanced strategies and competitive team builds).

The PvP player is a different story. This is a player who's been in the hardcore mix for awhile now. He's seen the different solo builds, team setups, and other unique PvP situations to properly plan and execute. He actually has opponents who will not blindly standing in a Meteor Storm taking each hit.

My time spent in fighting game competitions illustrates this perfectly. Whenever someone brags on the net about how they've been practicing against the computer for months and are ready to show us how to play at the upcoming tourney, they always, 100%, without fail, get absolutely CREAMED by those who've been practicing against other real players. We always say that there's no mysterious wise man in the mountains alone who'll come down one day to show us how to play.

I was one of those people. I used to win fighting games early on against weak local competition using my favorite CPU strategies. I was fortunate enough to meet one guy who'd been in real competitions and he beat me 30 games straight. I asked him which arcade he practiced at and it literally took me about nine months to be able to consistentlyplay at a legitimately high level. Another year or so and I was competing nationally on a regular basis. All that time spent vs. the computer only slowed my growth. I had to UNLEARN before I was able to learn. Each character in these games can have 100-200 moves that, unlike Guild Wars, you have full access to at anytime. To mentally recognize and execute the use of the most appropriate move in the constantly evolving play structure is not a simple matter at all.

A few hours mastering the basic controls? OK, that has benefit, but don't tell me that you need to invest any real amount of time to improve. You want to be good at PvP? You take competition seriously? Then every hour outside of PvE and inside PvP will exponentially aid your growth. Unfortunately without UAX and access to all the skills and gear you need thereby forcing you to PvE, that growth will be artificially stunted.

arredondo · Jul 11, 2005, 03:46 PM // 15:46

Quote:

And the solution you've been asking for is...UAX? So far, I've not seen any real precedent for a full utilization of UAX.

Try checking out every other serious competitive activity ever made. You'll find that the "league" rules doesn't force players to jump through hoops before they can access allowed gear that your opponents might be using.

Algren Cole · Jul 11, 2005, 03:54 PM // 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

It's a certified observed fact.

who certified it? and what qualifications does he/she have to be so presumptious?

Louis Ste Colombe · Jul 11, 2005, 04:57 PM // 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Human Torch

So casual players have fun losing to hardcore players who have grinded more and therefore have more gear? Somehow I don't think that's true for most casual players. We want to have the same gear as hardcore 24-7 playing koreans and let skill decide the outcome of the match, and we don't want to grind as long as they do to do it, either.

My gaming experience is a "fair game" environement (namely Total War series) in MP. Everything is unlocked, everyone got the same "gears" and access to the same stuff.

There is no chance in hell that a casual gamer can win over a hardcore gamer. Not even with a level playing ground. No amount of gear will change that.

You might think you're skilled (or not), but hours played are their own reward in terms of training, learning the skills and combinations. Casual gamers in a team game level playing field like TW were awfully defeated all the times by more experienced players with the same exact gears.
In TW, someone with 0 game experience will lose to someone with 100 battles who will lose to someone who has played a 1000 battles. At that point it level out... But that's 1000 battles, far more than any casual gamers would consider fair (given you need 1 hour to set up and play a battle...). The equivalent of GW so called grind.
Think battle = GvG

And I think the learning curve for GW is just as step as for TW, although being a beginner in GW is less embarrassing than in TW, mainly because in GW a beginner does not face top player as in TW (no matching system there).

At least in GW, you (can) play with same level players, you don't have your game spoiled because end up with a less experienced player on one team unbalance it drastically (and yes, given TW game mechanics, 1 low experience player was enough).

While you are on your way to maxing out GW gear, you're also learning the game... And that's the real difference with a hardcore player.

And to answer arredondo; I wish TW had a "only basic units available" mode to help beginners learning the game. Way too many TW beginners are focusing on army composition and units and think they're defeated because of that instead of their own skill. If they had less units to mess around they would focus more on battle awareness, communication, timing and control.

Just like in GW?

Louis,

arredondo · Jul 11, 2005, 06:27 PM // 18:27

Algren Cole: Never question certifications. It's also a bona fide true-ism burned into the Constitution, and I understand that it almost made it as one of the Ten Commandments.

arredondo · Jul 11, 2005, 07:10 PM // 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Ste Colombe

My gaming experience is a "fair game" environement (namely Total War series) in MP. Everything is unlocked, everyone got the same "gears" and access to the same stuff.

There is no chance in hell that a casual gamer can win over a hardcore gamer. Not even with a level playing ground. No amount of gear will change that.

You might think you're skilled (or not), but hours played are their own reward in terms of training, learning the skills and combinations. Casual gamers in a team game level playing field like TW were awfully defeated all the times by more experienced players with the same exact gears.
In TW, someone with 0 game experience will lose to someone with 100 battles who will lose to someone who has played a 1000 battles. At that point it level out... But that's 1000 battles, far more than any casual gamers would consider fair (given you need 1 hour to set up and play a battle...). The equivalent of GW so called grind.
Think battle = GvG

And I think the learning curve for GW is just as step as for TW, although being a beginner in GW is less embarrassing than in TW, mainly because in GW a beginner does not face top player as in TW (no matching system there).

At least in GW, you (can) play with same level players, you don't have your game spoiled because end up with a less experienced player on one team unbalance it drastically (and yes, given TW game mechanics, 1 low experience player was enough).

While you are on your way to maxing out GW gear, you're also learning the game... And that's the real difference with a hardcore player.

And to answer arredondo; I wish TW had a "only basic units available" mode to help beginners learning the game. Way too many TW beginners are focusing on army composition and units and think they're defeated because of that instead of their own skill. If they had less units to mess around they would focus more on battle awareness, communication, timing and control.

Just like in GW?

Louis,

This isn't simply about a 100 hour player beating a 1000 hour player. It's all about the rate of learning that one goes through before he is able to possibly take down the top dogs.

You can't possibly believe that holding someone back from exercising ALL the options that a competitior has access to helps serious players in the long run. How does the designer know how many morsels (and which ones) would best suit me? Are all of us players being molded the exact same way? Do we all learn at different rates? How does he know whether I may come up with a strat that's even beyond what he thought of, given the chance?

I don't want to be treated like a 3 year old kid, having a little bit doled out by some unknown entity's idea of what's good for me. If the high level players are doing amazing things with full access to the tools, let me have at it too! There's no logic to treat all of us like morons who can't figure out how to put on our own shoes.

My rate of growth with limited access is STUNTED, it has a CEILING... there's no way you can deny that in this system. In UAX my rate of growth is limited only by my imagination and personal aptitude for the activity I'm playing. Slowly gaining access to needed gear and equipment works for PvE games, but in competition it's all about beating the other guy. Period. I don't need to wait for the system to show me what's best when I have a brain that can figure it all out myself.

Do I start with horrible tactics and strategies? Of course, and I'll eat it hard when I try them against a worthy HUMAN foe. You know what? That's exactly what I want! I don't want to develop bad habits, secure that it works with the CPU for hours on end. I want other opponents to help me hone my skills early on, so I'm not constantly UN-learning the junk I got away with in PvE.

And for the same reason, I need all access from the start to see the big picture as it develops based on my hard knock experiences. How can I put the puzzle together of defeating my opponents if the publisher forces me to play without all the pieces? This babysitting approach is not the answer.... save it for kindergarten, but let me be all that I can be.

Siren · Jul 11, 2005, 08:56 PM // 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

I can categorically say that by and large, this point is incorrect. If anything the OPPOSITE is true. As I've said, I've been involved in many competitive activities over many years (athletic and gaming), and consistently the way people have improved the fastest by FAR is to actually play the game the way it was meant to be played. This isn't simply an opinion I'm throwing around out of nowhere. It's a certified observed fact.

There are several reasons for this. Yes, we all start off ignorant of rules and properties of equipment, traits, etc. and how it all flows well together, but when you are learning it in the context of what you need to do when you are in serious matches, it comes together that much smoother. A person spends 100 hours finishing PvE with a Mesmer/Necro. Archane Echo'd Chaos Storm (AoE) and a ton of Death minions can get you pretty far on their own.

You take that to PvP and it doesn't work. You first have to unlearn what you've been doing before you can re-learn how it can be useful in certain PvP situations. Additionally, builds you thought were near worthless all of a sudden have more value when you consider that you are up against the human mind as opposed to the more predictable A.I. of PvE. So unless you are reading the forums to tell you exactly what seems to work/not work (so far) in PvP, you are simply spending time catching up to other strong PvP players.

Now, consider UAX. Take a player spent 100 hours in a UAX environment playing nothing but PvP. He's just begun a PvP match in his 101st hour... you are trying to tell me he won't be faaaaar more skilled for competition than the player who spent his first 100 hours in PvE (assuming he got all his skills and equipment as well)? After 120 hours, after 150 hours, the PvE player is always playing to first unlearn his bad habits and then catchup to even the most basic PvP good habits (let alone advanced strategies and competitive team builds).

The PvP player is a different story. This is a player who's been in the hardcore mix for awhile now. He's seen the different solo builds, team setups, and other unique PvP situations to properly plan and execute. He actually has opponents who will not blindly standing in a Meteor Storm taking each hit.

My time spent in fighting game competitions illustrates this perfectly. Whenever someone brags on the net about how they've been practicing against the computer for months and are ready to show us how to play at the upcoming tourney, they always, 100%, without fail, get absolutely CREAMED by those who've been practicing against other real players. We always say that there's no mysterious wise man in the mountains alone who'll come down one day to show us how to play.

I was one of those people. I used to win fighting games early on against weak local competition using my favorite CPU strategies. I was fortunate enough to meet one guy who'd been in real competitions and he beat me 30 games straight. I asked him which arcade he practiced at and it literally took me about nine months to be able to consistentlyplay at a legitimately high level. Another year or so and I was competing nationally on a regular basis. All that time spent vs. the computer only slowed my growth. I had to UNLEARN before I was able to learn. Each character in these games can have 100-200 moves that, unlike Guild Wars, you have full access to at anytime. To mentally recognize and execute the use of the most appropriate move in the constantly evolving play structure is not a simple matter at all.

A few hours mastering the basic controls? OK, that has benefit, but don't tell me that you need to invest any real amount of time to improve. You want to be good at PvP? You take competition seriously? Then every hour outside of PvE and inside PvP will exponentially aid your growth. Unfortunately without UAX and access to all the skills and gear you need thereby forcing you to PvE, that growth will be artificially stunted.

Your entire post distilled into one sentence:

PvE tactics, and strategies gleaned from the PvE portion of the game are useless in PvP, so therefore UAX is the only option here.

Do you understand the problem with that statement?

Using downright dumb combinations like Arcane Conundrum+Backfire, Shadow of Fear+Empathy and/or Spirit Shackles, etc., is not exclusive to PvE players. It's not as if since someone PvPs 4 billion hours in their life, they're going to use tactics that transcend everything you could ever see in PvE.

See, the problem here is not any gameplay system. The problem here is player attitudes toward other players. The hardcore PvPers treat PvE (situations, players, and tactics) like it's nursery school. PvE is not nursery school at all, because players can (and do--my own guild is testament to this) develop successful strategies for PvP based on PvE experiences. To say that the only way to better one's game is to PvP religiously is absurd. In fact, it's more elitist nonsense than a respectable viewpoint.

And really, I've not been seeing anything other than elitist nonsense coming from you, arredondo.

You've been consistently minimizing any gameplay types that aren't your favorite.

You've been consistently touting some "I have so much experience in competition that I know so much more about everything we're discussing here" mantra that means absolutely nothing in terms of this discussion, and instead of coming off as someone who does know what you're talking about, you come off as an ass--and an elitist ass, at that.

And really, I think that's all you are, anyway. Just an elitist who thinks he's hot shit, simply because he's gotten around. I invite you to prove me wrong, but I don't think that's possible here.

Oh, and by the way...

Quote:

As I've said, I've been involved in many competitive activities over many years (athletic and gaming)

Nobody cares. Your personal life is not bartering currency here.

Quote:

and consistently the way people have improved the fastest by FAR is to actually play the game the way it was meant to be played.

And what would that be, anyway? To use that kind of word selection would imply that GW was meant to only be played in full-on PvP, with UAX.

But as we can clearly see from the Betas through retail...UAX was never how GW "was meant to be played," so your statement here is irrelevant, arredondo. If UAX truly represented how we were supposed to play the game...it wouldn't have been a Beta-only feature.

But as it stands now, it was a Beta-only feature, so what does that say regarding "the way the game was meant to be played"?

And by the way, regardless of what different ratios people are claiming there are regarding PvE/PvP game percentages...GuildWars is definitely a combination of both, so I think you should seriously reconsider treating the game like it was strictly meant to be PvP-only.

Phades · Jul 11, 2005, 11:06 PM // 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

There's a critical flaw in your argument here:

The "combat" in MtG is nowhere near as intense or fast-paced as the combat in GuildWars. In fact, the respective pace/speeds of the two games are almost the complete opposite. True, in highly competitive play in MtG, surely cards are getting slapped down fairly quickly, but two points need consideration there:

1) You can find even faster speeds at top-tier play in GuildWars.

2) A new player won't be playing in highly competitive play.

But, even with a new player starting out in the "bottom tiers," as it were, doesn't mean they won't be experiencing the breakneck speed of GW battles.

Purely on the style of skill acquisition, MtG is a perfect comparison. The layout, the collections, everything points to building a deck of cards in GW.

But where GW differs from MtG is an issue of speed. It's closer to FPS and Smash Bros Melee in this regard, which is why it's foolish to say UAX will be better for the new player because of the similarities to MtG, because GW combat runs at a speed you'd find in Smash Bros. Melee...not MtG. And we all know how a new player reacts to having every moveset in Smash Bros. Melee dumped on them, and then being thrown out into a combat situation that moves at speeds MtG rarely does, if at all.

Every time you say this, it means less and less, Phades, because every time you repeat this, I explicitly show how I've not been arguing for UAX, how I'm in the gray area between the two black and white extremes, how I feel UAX is the nuclear option that should only be seriously considered when all other options have failed.

It seems like just because I can see why some would have a problem with steep faction point requirements, and am willing to work out a compromise of tweaking those requirements so any player can unlock skills in a shorter period of time, you want to say that what I'm saying is no different than what arredondo has been whining for.

And that's utterly false. The implications of what I'm saying (streamlining the current system so that it's more user-friendly) is something entirely different than what the arguments for UAX are (scrapping the unlock system).

You keep repeating this mantra, but just repeating it doesn't make it true, particularly if it continues to be an empty statement that I can disprove easily.

And personally I don't really see how this is really all that relevant to begin with. I don't see you making any real points with this paragraph, other than what seems to be a meandering dissertation on rune traders in PvP arenas.

Oh, now I remember why this is relevant: because pure PvPers were whining that they had to play PvE once to access faction point priests.

Simple solution: priests can be added to the PvP arenas.

-or-

Simple solution: they can play PvE once.

It's not a huge issue when you really think about it.

And if the division we see is actually a personality issue...how is it the game's fault at all? Further, if it is a personality issue, how is that a precedent for UAX? How is it a precedent for anything, really? This goes back to one of my points much earlier in this thread:

At what point do we draw the line between what a game is designed and contructed to be, and what gamer personalities want it to be?

Your assessment here is still going on pure theory, though, the theory that new players will be able to adjust with little to no problem with a barrage of 200 or so skills and techniques as soon as they start up the game.

Time and time again through the history of gaming, this has been proven false. The countless starter tutorials across a variety of genres and gameplay types is testament to this.

Many games are pick up n play, sure, but that's to a very certain extent, because in a game like Smash Bros Melee, which is very much pick up n play, if you bombard the new player with every single technique and move in the game, regardless of explaining what the effects are or not...their head will spin. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a gaming fact. Even something like Bomberman suffers from this issue.

First off MTG can be a much faster pace game than GW depending on the deck build, just like there are fast and slow paced team builds in GW. Commonly in MTG id have games last around 20-30 seconds and it was over, which frequently was within the first 3 turns. At the time if the deck didnt accomplish the goal by the 3rd turn it was a bad deck. The matches only lasted longer if the two people involved didnt understand the game or had denial style deck, which would be akin to spirit builds for GW, since they are dening the ability to kill rapidly. GW is no where near the pace of FPS games. GW is just as slow as any other online RPG when it comes to the speed of the game. I believe you have lost alot of perspective here, or lack experience.

Every time you state that you arent for either, it leads me to believe that you have no argument. Stating that you think the requirements are too high are merly saying that you want everything unlocked sooner, just like the UAX option, but it doesnt adress anyone new entering the game. The real issue here is that the system or concept of the system is flawed. I tried to enlighten you to that fact based upon different angles that included the actual point rewards for the different combat venues, to the placement of the characters, to trying to force the pve system into the pvp system. Also stating that they werent purposfully placed within those areas would also imply that the design team is stupid. Simply saying the points are too high, a real elitist would just counter by saying go farm it in GVG ganks, because of the fractional amount of time it requires by comparison. That is why your statement for reduction makes no sense as the "reduction" ability is already present within the game. That is why i stated that the entire system seems to be more of an incentive to participate in GvG battles rather than truly there to assist in the accrual of items in order to be competitive within pvp.

I do find it odd that you call the views of the "hardcore pvp" individuals as elitist stating that they veiw pve as nursery school when that is how id describe your method of education for new people within a fighting game. It also falls in the exact same lines to insinuate that the new people must be given next to nothing to learn with while playing the game. You are a new guy, so you are incapable of learning beyond this pre-set rate, so just be happy you have the game. Oh yeah dont worry about losing to that guy thats been playing longer, because well he has been playing longer, in fact its better you dont pvp at all till you have beat the pve game 3 times.

Almost in the same breath you state that it is not the game's fault for gamer attitudes then state that a game succeedes because it is easy to pick up and play. First off, its not a game if no one plays, secondly the design of the game drives the direction of the attitudes found within it. Never have i seen someone walk around being just generally rude when my cousin plays the sims online (is the online version even called that? meh). As i see it, making the game more difficult to pickup and play, if the desire is for pvp, then that makes it follow as being sucessful for being complex not simple. Actually what history shows is that people learn at different rates and allowing them to learn at that rate yeilds a better understanding for the content present. If you go too slow and the fast lose interest, go too fast and the slow get frustrated. What history doesnt show is how simple = better in every situation, quite commonly there were always many other factors involved. Simple games from a coplex background or genre have failed, just as much as simple games from a simple background appeal to a wider audience, but typically a younger audience, and suceede.

sama · Jul 12, 2005, 12:18 AM // 00:18

hmm first post here in 3 weeks.

*looks around*

*notices not much changed since i retired*

*laughs contently*

*opens bf2*

gg anet!

arredondo · Jul 12, 2005, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Your entire post distilled into one sentence:

PvE tactics, and strategies gleaned from the PvE portion of the game are useless in PvP, so therefore UAX is the only option here.

Do you understand the problem with that statement?

Sure I understand the problem with that statement, you poorly summarize my post with your weak interpretation and then proceed to argue against your fairy tale. The frustration shown in the nonsense that follows shows that you must be tired of the way I consistently show 2+2 does NOT =5 as you would have us believe. Can't attack the facts with any substance, so ignore them and attack the messenger. I'd feel sorry for your inability to debate with a backbone if I wasn't laughing so hard.

So where can one better see a summary of my post? Amazingly enough, in the post itself! The fact that you half-quoted it and missed it makes it even more hilarious the way you go off on your crazy tangent:

Quote:

I've been involved in many competitive activities over many years (athletic and gaming), and consistently the way people have improved the fastest by FAR is to actually play the game the way it was meant to be played.

Wow, when I get my entire quote put there (instead of your pitiful tactic of snipping it in two) we see the point being made. Obviously I'm referring to a lot of competitive gaming, not just GW. Obviously competitive gaming is synonomous with PvP. Based on a lot of first hand experience over several years, it's become obvious to me that people advance faster playing against a person than a computer in these types of games.

PvP.... as in 'Player vs. Player'..... as in the way these games are MEANT to be played. Despite your obvious white flag waving by going at me instead of the issue, the point remains unchallenged. Please, go ahead and TRY to refute this again. Just try and prove PvP improvement is really best found in PvE over PvP. The weight of pure logic over your twisted reasoning must indeed be immense.

Also, show me where I'm saying 'only'. Show me where I'm saying PvE is "useless". Yes, you learn in PvE, but it is slower. I'm saying that there are people who PvE in different games, including Guild Wars, are much, much, much, much better served playing actual people in PvP than a predictable computer A.I. If you learn 20% of how to play PvP after a year of playing PvE, then in that same time frame, you could be 60% proficient if you delve into pure PvP play. My equation is simple.... more PvP you play, the better at PvP you become. The more those hours are devoted to PvE, the slower your PvP development will grow comparatively. This assumes UAX of course.

Your quote on my competitive experience I use to support my observations:

Quote:

Nobody cares. Your personal life is not bartering currency here.

Oh really?

Quote:

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...&postcount=285

P.S. What fighting games have you played, arredondo? I wish 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.

There's someone who gets the point, and another ignorant statement of yours is shredded to pieces. I guess the pattern explains your growing frustration.

But that's not important honestly... I brought it up for a specific reason. As for my experience, I stick by it because it is the support I provide to back up my observations. Are you saying that real life experiences add nothing to observed results? Isn't that what the scientific approach is all about? Sure, I can set up a controlled study with 20K people over 10 years, but as it stands now, my deep backround in competition has proven for maybe two weeks now to be far more extensive and relavant than what you've offered.

Oh, and by the way... how do you come up with these ridiculous observations? Not attacking you, but the illogical statements like the one you just tried to defend? What basis do you have to suggest that the more PvE one puts in the better at PvP he'll become (as opposed to, play PvP to become better at PvP)? Please, share your background or uber-qualifications. I'm not elite for being experienced, but at least I have something tangible to logically back me up. I'm not elite for saying play PvE for PvE entertainment, and play PvP to improve in PvP. Sounds logical to me.

How about another chance to prove the point you glossed over? Answer the question made:

Two future War Machine guild members are given a copy of Guild Wars. Neither has played before. Who's likely to be in better shape to seriously compete in PvP tournaments after 101 hours of playing... player A who spends the first 100 hours mastering PvE, or Player B who spends the first 100 hours getting beat down in PvP.

Take your time. My prediction? More rants and a diversion to ignore the question. Hint: 2+2 still does not =5.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phades

First off MTG can be a much faster pace game than GW depending on the deck build, just like there are fast and slow paced team builds in GW. Commonly in MTG id have games last around 20-30 seconds and it was over, which frequently was within the first 3 turns. At the time if the deck didnt accomplish the goal by the 3rd turn it was a bad deck. The matches only lasted longer if the two people involved didnt understand the game or had denial style deck, which would be akin to spirit builds for GW, since they are dening the ability to kill rapidly.

And how many matches in Guild Wars routinely last 30 seconds or less?

Quote:

GW is no where near the pace of FPS games. GW is just as slow as any other online RPG when it comes to the speed of the game. I believe you have lost alot of perspective here, or lack experience.

What is the average 4v4 match length in GW? Average of less than 5 minutes? 10 at most?

What's a round of CS, or Halo 2, or GoldenEye 64 like. Under even the normal settings, death occurs very quickly, and matches are over in very short amounts of time...some matches may last longer than 5 or 10 minutes, but the only difference there would be the level layouts, and if Halo 2 matches were to occur in say, Ascalon Arena, you'd see incredibly fast matches. If the win parameters were set like GW's...I wouldn't doubt we'd be seeing 2-minute matches.

Quote:

Every time you state that you arent for either, it leads me to believe that you have no argument.

We'll see about that, Phades.

Quote:

Stating that you think the requirements are too high are merly saying that you want everything unlocked sooner, just like the UAX option

Now I get it...it's all or nothing, isn't it? Either it's the unlock system or UAX, eh?

And therein lies the critical flaw with your entire stance on the matter: you're operating only under a black and white approach. And your argument only works when the subject matter is black and white--and the subject matter here is not black and white. This would explain why you've been trying to color my argument as the same as the UAX argument...because if you don't, you can't argue against it.

Now listen to me very carefully, because you're going to want to tell me that I'm actually arguing for UAX, but what I'm suggesting is the gray area. That much is clear to anyone who isn't required to strictly adhere to the black and whites of this discussion so that they can continue to argue their point.

Through my acknowledgement that the current unlock system, in its current state, is more time-consuming than some would like, I am not going to the other extreme and saying the unlock system should be done away with, because there is a distinct and distinguishable difference between reducing the time required and removing the time required. Those two words do mean radically different things.

But for argument's sake, let's continue along your postulation, and we'll use an example from the game itself:

Althea's Ashes is a quest out of Piken Square that has the player going through the Charr Flame Corridor, through loads of Charr warriors, archers, mesmers, necromancers, etc., to gather Althea's ashes from an urn at the very end of the area. This quest was a bitch and a half to complete, even for a well-organized and well-prepared team.

Understandably, because it was so difficult and time-consuming due to the amounts of Charr in the area, players requested it be made easier...and lo and behold, ANet responded. The amount of Charr in the area was reduced by I'd say 25%, maybe 40%.

If what you're saying is accurate (that because I'm suggesting the unlock system be tweaked so that players don't have to invest such huge amounts of time, I'm actually arguing for the total removal of the system), then those having problems with Althea's Ashes were actually arguing for a total removal of all Charr in the area.

That is the fundamental idea behind what you're saying, isn't it? That if someone has an issue--or at least supports reducing the amount of time required for something--they're actually supporting removing the issue entirely?

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the Althea's Ashes example, just like how it isn't an accurate assessment of my stance on this matter. What do you think?

Were the players actually arguing for a clean run through the Flame Corridor, or were they actually requesting that the difficulty be reassessed/tweaked?

Quote:

but it doesnt adress anyone new entering the game.

Reducing the time requirements isn't addressing anyone new entering the game? When you reduce the time requirements, that means new players can be up and running faster than with the old time requirements. I'm missing how that's not accounting for new players. If it's possible for new players to unlock 75-80% of everything within 75-80 hours from creating their character...I'd say that's pretty good. And it can be done through adjusting the current faction point system. I'll hammer out the rough guesstimates for it later if you'd like.

Quote:

The real issue here is that the system or concept of the system is flawed. I tried to enlighten you to that fact based upon different angles that included the actual point rewards for the different combat venues, to the placement of the characters, to trying to force the pve system into the pvp system. Also stating that they werent purposfully placed within those areas would also imply that the design team is stupid. Simply saying the points are too high, a real elitist would just counter by saying go farm it in GVG ganks, because of the fractional amount of time it requires by comparison. That is why your statement for reduction makes no sense as the "reduction" ability is already present within the game. That is why i stated that the entire system seems to be more of an incentive to participate in GvG battles rather than truly there to assist in the accrual of items in order to be competitive within pvp.

If there's no real issue, then, no real desire from players to adjust the faction point payout/requirements, because GvG is such a huge payout, why are we seeing so many people requesting that the faction points be adjusted? If there's already a reduction ability...why is there an issue then? If faction points aren't a problem (and subsequently, the current state of the unlock system, as it's directly related to the faction points) because someone can hop into GvG and acquire a nice payout...what need is there for any instant unlock?

Quote:

I do find it odd that you call the views of the "hardcore pvp" individuals as elitist stating that they veiw pve as nursery school when that is how id describe your method of education for new people within a fighting game. It also falls in the exact same lines to insinuate that the new people must be given next to nothing to learn with while playing the game. You are a new guy, so you are incapable of learning beyond this pre-set rate, so just be happy you have the game. Oh yeah dont worry about losing to that guy thats been playing longer, because well he has been playing longer, in fact its better you dont pvp at all till you have beat the pve game 3 times.

When it's between throwing new players into the water before they really know how to swim, or teaching them how to tread water? I'd be inclined to teach them the basics first.

And I think there's a difference between establishing a learning curve so that new players aren't alienated and disregarding nearly everything in PvE because it doesn't "fit" with one's particular Ideology.

Quote:

If you go too slow and the fast lose interest, go too fast and the slow get frustrated.

Phades, I honestly like much of what you wrote there, but this sentence is very important to elaborate on, because you've arrived at a point that I'm not sure you even realize what it is quite yet.

Going too slow is a long, drawn-out tutorial, sure. But then, if going too fast is at the opposite extreme...what might that be? Perhaps UAX?

The long, drawn-out tutorial will cause the faster players, more intuitive ones, to lose interest.

But what happens to the slower players if they get instantly bombarded with everything in the game all at once? They will get frustrated, you're exactly right, and eventually, they'll begin to lose interest in the game, because who's going to play a game that frustrates them? Not many, I'd say.

So where does that leave this discussion?

Back at the need to find a medium, a gray area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

Sure I understand the problem with that statement, you poorly summarize my post with your weak interpretation and then proceed to argue against your fairy tale. The frustration shown in the nonsense that follows shows that you must be tired of the way I consistently show 2+2 does NOT =5 as you would have us believe. Can't attack the facts with any substance, so ignore them and attack the messenger. I'd feel sorry for your inability to debate with a backbone if I wasn't laughing so hard.

So where can one better see a summary of my post? Amazingly enough, in the post itself! The fact that you half-quoted it and missed it makes it even more hilarious the way you go off on your crazy tangent:

Wow, when I get my entire quote put there (instead of your pitiful tactic of snipping it in two) we see the point being made. Obviously I'm referring to a lot of competitive gaming, not just GW. Obviously competitive gaming is synonomous with PvP. Based on a lot of first hand experience over several years, it's become obvious to me that people advance faster playing against a person than a computer in these types of games.

PvP.... as in 'Player vs. Player'..... as in the way these games are MEANT to be played. Despite your obvious white flag waving by going at me instead of the issue, the point remains unchallenged. Please, go ahead and TRY to refute this again. Just try and prove PvP improvement is really best found in PvE over PvP. The weight of pure logic over your twisted reasoning must indeed be immense.

Also, show me where I'm saying 'only'. Show me where I'm saying PvE is "useless". Yes, you learn in PvE, but it is slower. I'm saying that there are people who PvE in different games, including Guild Wars, are much, much, much, much better served playing actual people in PvP than a predictable computer A.I. If you learn 20% of how to play PvP after a year of playing PvE, then in that same time frame, you could be 60% proficient if you delve into pure PvP play. My equation is simple.... more PvP you play, the better at PvP you become. The more those hours are devoted to PvE, the slower your PvP development will grow comparatively. This assumes UAX of course.

Your quote on my competitive experience I use to support my observations:

Oh really?

There's someone who gets the point, and another ignorant statement of yours is shredded to pieces. I guess the pattern explains your growing frustration.

But that's not important honestly... I brought it up for a specific reason. As for my experience, I stick by it because it is the support I provide to back up my observations. Are you saying that real life experiences add nothing to observed results? Isn't that what the scientific approach is all about? Sure, I can set up a controlled study with 20K people over 10 years, but as it stands now, my deep backround in competition has proven for maybe two weeks now to be far more extensive and relavant than what you've offered.

Oh, and by the way... how do you come up with these ridiculous observations? Not attacking you, but the illogical statements like the one you just tried to defend? What basis do you have to suggest that the more PvE one puts in the better at PvP he'll become (as opposed to, play PvP to become better at PvP)? Please, share your background or uber-qualifications. I'm not elite for being experienced, but at least I have something tangible to logically back me up. I'm not elite for saying play PvE for PvE entertainment, and play PvP to improve in PvP. Sounds logical to me.

How about another chance to prove the point you glossed over? Answer the question made:

Two future War Machine guild members are given a copy of Guild Wars. Neither has played before. Who's likely to be in better shape to seriously compete in PvP tournaments after 101 hours of playing... player A who spends the first 100 hours mastering PvE, or Player B who spends the first 100 hours getting beat down in PvP.

Take your time. My prediction? More rants and a diversion to ignore the question. Hint: 2+2 still does not =5.

You'd like me to show you where you're outright minimizing anything learned in PvE? Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

I can categorically say that by and large, this point is incorrect. If anything the OPPOSITE is true. As I've said, I've been involved in many competitive activities over many years (athletic and gaming), and consistently the way people have improved the fastest by FAR is to actually play the game the way it was meant to be played. This isn't simply an opinion I'm throwing around out of nowhere. It's a certified observed fact.

There are several reasons for this. Yes, we all start off ignorant of rules and properties of equipment, traits, etc. and how it all flows well together, but when you are learning it in the context of what you need to do when you are in serious matches, it comes together that much smoother. A person spends 100 hours finishing PvE with a Mesmer/Necro. Archane Echo'd Chaos Storm (AoE) and a ton of Death minions can get you pretty far on their own.

You take that to PvP and it doesn't work. You first have to unlearn what you've been doing before you can re-learn how it can be useful in certain PvP situations. Additionally, builds you thought were near worthless all of a sudden have more value when you consider that you are up against the human mind as opposed to the more predictable A.I. of PvE. So unless you are reading the forums to tell you exactly what seems to work/not work (so far) in PvP, you are simply spending time catching up to other strong PvP players.

Now, consider UAX. Take a player spent 100 hours in a UAX environment playing nothing but PvP. He's just begun a PvP match in his 101st hour... you are trying to tell me he won't be faaaaar more skilled for competition than the player who spent his first 100 hours in PvE (assuming he got all his skills and equipment as well)? After 120 hours, after 150 hours, the PvE player is always playing to first unlearn his bad habits and then catchup to even the most basic PvP good habits (let alone advanced strategies and competitive team builds).

The PvP player is a different story. This is a player who's been in the hardcore mix for awhile now. He's seen the different solo builds, team setups, and other unique PvP situations to properly plan and execute. He actually has opponents who will not blindly standing in a Meteor Storm taking each hit.

My time spent in fighting game competitions illustrates this perfectly. Whenever someone brags on the net about how they've been practicing against the computer for months and are ready to show us how to play at the upcoming tourney, they always, 100%, without fail, get absolutely CREAMED by those who've been practicing against other real players. We always say that there's no mysterious wise man in the mountains alone who'll come down one day to show us how to play.

I was one of those people. I used to win fighting games early on against weak local competition using my favorite CPU strategies. I was fortunate enough to meet one guy who'd been in real competitions and he beat me 30 games straight. I asked him which arcade he practiced at and it literally took me about nine months to be able to consistentlyplay at a legitimately high level. Another year or so and I was competing nationally on a regular basis. All that time spent vs. the computer only slowed my growth. I had to UNLEARN before I was able to learn. Each character in these games can have 100-200 moves that, unlike Guild Wars, you have full access to at anytime. To mentally recognize and execute the use of the most appropriate move in the constantly evolving play structure is not a simple matter at all.

A few hours mastering the basic controls? OK, that has benefit, but don't tell me that you need to invest any real amount of time to improve. You want to be good at PvP? You take competition seriously? Then every hour outside of PvE and inside PvP will exponentially aid your growth. Unfortunately without UAX and access to all the skills and gear you need thereby forcing you to PvE, that growth will be artificially stunted.

I notice that a blanket "UNLEARNING PvE techniques and strategies" is a recurring theme throughout the quoted post there. If you do value PvE, and do acknowledge that it does teach valuable play mechanics that are valuable in PvP (Shadow of Fear+Empathy is a waste, for example)...why the constant "When you leave PvE for PvP, you must UNLEARN what you have learned"? Doesn't seem like you value PvE there at all, but maybe that's just because I'm not the one trying to rewrite what your posts mean, after people reply to them?

Quote:

Obviously I'm referring to a lot of competitive gaming, not just GW. Obviously competitive gaming is synonomous with PvP. Based on a lot of first hand experience over several years, it's become obvious to me that people advance faster playing against a person than a computer in these types of games.

PvP.... as in 'Player vs. Player'..... as in the way these games are MEANT to be played.

And GW was designed--was meant to be played--in a way that integrates PvP and PvE. You don't like it, fine. But understand that the game was meant to be played with an integration. It may have faults now, but keep in mind that GW is basically breaking the mold here, so this is basically uncharted waters.

Quote:

There's someone who gets the point, and another ignorant statement of yours is shredded to pieces. I guess the pattern explains your growing frustration.

Quick little thing:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Reed

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.

Very next paragraph. Even though he agrees with your assessment of PvE/PvP...he still disagrees with you on the unlock system. So here you have someone who even understands where you're coming from...and yet his conclusion is radically different than yours. And in fact...I'll underline and organize some really nice bits in that paragraph. I particularly am interested in what he says in the second section there.