Curse

lursey · Jul 27, 2011, 12:13 AM // 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

That is a good example, but then you have the case of many people who do not have a group to work with. Especially those who go there alone, expect to find a party, and no one accepts them because of their low rank.

IMO, hiding the rank and emotes while in HA's outpost would do wonders. If there was no way to prove which rank you were, newbies could simply "lie" about it, show their pvx-build, and get in the team.

there are ways to address the eliteness issue

1) to kill the elite....it is just killing the format..
2) to shorten the time for newbie to become an elite....it will just make the arena a teaching ground, but not a competitive ground
3) to recruit more outside elite.. to make the arena only an elite arena. which is supposingly the case.. competition.. the stronger stays, and win.

I think the 3rd one is the easiest and best option.

Zen cow · Jul 27, 2011, 06:34 AM // 06:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

IMO, hiding the rank and emotes while in HA's outpost would do wonders. If there was no way to prove which rank you were, newbies could simply "lie" about it, show their pvx-build, and get in the team.

Right, the newbie gets into the team but still doesn't know what to do resulting in loss. The team will then ritualistic-ly disband after the loss and eventually people will just stop forming PuG groups altogether making HA even more dead.

<essay>

HoM is what really killed PvP since PvErs have no incentives to find themselves a teacher and get better at PvP role and what to do in different situations as you would find (pay) a teacher to teach you how to fill a role in a UWSC team and where to go/what to do.

The elitism in GvG/HA is also the same as in UWSC - rank vs summoning stones; the solution for new UWSCers? They go and find themselves a UWSC guild of like-minded-people in their situation who are willing to practice and get summoning stones (and experience). Similarly, those who REALLY want to HA/GvG would find like-minded players and form a guild and find (pay) someone come along and teach them.

However, as there they only require the buyable Zrank for HoM, there is no incentive for PvErs to try out GvG/HA and the risk/rewards just aren't worth it since PvE is so much more profitable and confers more advantages in the long run (GW2). So you see more people willing to take steps to become better Speed Clearers than PvPers.

</essay>

Artisan Archer · Jul 27, 2011, 06:55 AM // 06:55

There are 3 ways to get into a team.
1. Have the required rank.
2. Know someone on the team.
3. Be a 'famous' PvPer.

Rank discrimination is not a problem. People need to realise PvP is a highly social thing. If you want to get in a good teams and win, you need to socialise, build a friendlist and stop playing with random, clueless people. They will not make you better or help you win.

And don't say you can't make friends, if you can't, I suggest going out for some practise in real life. I can't believe this discussion is still being made...

Ontopic;
A new influx of PvP players is the best thing that could happen to PvP right now. Be it through more real prizes tournies or making PvP free-to-play. Ofcourse it still needs to be balanced etc, but more players, more win.

Missing HB · Jul 27, 2011, 07:00 AM // 07:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

there are ways to address the eliteness issue

1) to kill the elite....it is just killing the format..
2) to shorten the time for newbie to become an elite....it will just make the arena a teaching ground, but not a competitive ground
3) to recruit more outside elite.. to make the arena only an elite arena. which is supposingly the case.. competition.. the stronger stays, and win.

I think the 3rd one is the easiest and best option.

That's just the result of an all.... At first ( or even when rawr played) there were roughly the same amount of guilds from all levels....i can easily say the same for HA...
Today, there are for both formats only let's say good players left and you can see the 3 problems :
- eliteness isn't really a problem but a consequence... considering i will face good people only , most people will just ask themselves why should they take less exped players to face those? ( this of course loses all value when you have no choice because there is noone else to play with....)
- Not enough 'rookies' or mid exped players: they get facerolled by the same people over and over and can't learn a lot by keeping losing
- griefing and unfair situations : Halls map is best example... Almost everytime , you will see the same guild winning 1v1 halls because blue has an unfair advantage , and getting ganked on the first 3 way maps....

There is just a too high lack for competition incentive in the game , because of the high amount of reward you get anywhere for the small amount of skill
required

lursey · Jul 27, 2011, 07:04 AM // 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artisan Archer

There are 3 ways to get into a team.
1. Have the required rank.
2. Know someone on the team.
3. Be a 'famous' PvPer.

Rank discrimination is not a problem. People need to realise PvP is a highly social thing. If you want to get in a good teams and win, you need to socialise, build a friendlist and stop playing with random, clueless people. They will not make you better or help you win.

And don't say you can't make friends, if you can't, I suggest going out for some practise in real life.

why is this needed to be brought up?...

the thread is about opening some pvp arena for free playing...which basically because there is not enough NEWBIE willing to learn...if there is never enough newbie willing to learn...no matter how many times you tell the newbie to learn..there will still never be enough games.

so opening it up to the public...meaning let the real elites come in...and owns the arena if they are capable...

at least for codex dead hour.. there will be games with real players, than sync bots.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missing HB

That's just the result of an all.... At first ( or even when rawr played) there were roughly the same amount of guilds from all levels....i can easily say the same for HA...
Today, there are for both formats only let's say good players left and you can see the 3 problems :
- eliteness isn't really a problem but a consequence... considering i will face good people only , most people will just ask themselves why should they take less exped players to face those? ( this of course loses all value when you have no choice because there is noone else to play with....)
- Not enough 'rookies' or mid exped players: they get facerolled by the same people over and over and can't learn a lot by keeping losing
- griefing and unfair situations : Halls map is best example... Almost everytime , you will see the same guild winning 1v1 halls because blue has an unfair advantage , and getting ganked on the first 3 way maps....

There is just a too high lack for competition incentive in the game , because of the high amount of reward you get anywhere for the small amount of skill
required

well partly agree.. but the recent strongbox update didn't really increase many pve players back to pvp.. because the whole gw base is kinked towards pve.... if the pve don't play pvp.. they will never play, even with 50 ectos a kill.......and it may just let the little pvp population harm the pve economy more if that is the case....

so why is there so little pvp population, because the base hate the current meta, and leaving only a small percentage of population that is the current pvp population struggles mostly with the never can be balanced meta play it...if the skill meta is not appealing...then a wider population has to be found to like the never can be balanced meta....the probability of players who like the bad meta will increase only if it is opened to a wider free population....or through reputation..

so I think a mutually exclusive elite pvp population with free to play is a better go ....

LuckyGiant · Jul 27, 2011, 07:58 AM // 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

horrible talk about... why bother, too hard to coding, no benefit to anets.. all these are bad argument..laziness as an excuse...is hopeless....
good reputation is not a benefit is the first time I heard....
how efficient you can code attributes to the reputation of anet and its future to be honest..I don't think laziness, doesn't care, etc. are good reputation...

Offering free trials is marketing.
Offering free trials in pvp --> negative publicity.
This decision will affect GW1 & GW2 sales.

The point we differ on is - Why do you believe offering free trials in pvp in its current state is a positive?

lursey · Jul 27, 2011, 08:10 AM // 08:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyGiant

You're not seeing the big picture here.

Offering free trials is marketing.
Offering free trials in pvp --> negative publicity.
This decision will affect GW1 & GW2 sales.

lol...are you implying pvp in gw1 sucks?... if gw1 pvp sucks, the damage is done already.....opening to the public won't affect much... beside pvp in gw2 is totally different than in gw1 pvp..

if gw1 pvp doesn't suck, then why is it a negative publicity?...it is rather a positive publicity imho

so i don't know, some people may find the pvp good, but some people may find it bad.. it is not up for judgment until it is opened to a wider public..

but it is sucked now imo because there are not enough elite players who like the meta playing...

offering free trials, and opening pvp arena to the public can both be done at the same time...the current free trial can stay, and opening perhaps 250-500 free slots for a particular arena is just another good marketing strategy...

LuckyGiant · Jul 27, 2011, 08:44 AM // 08:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

if gw1 pvp sucks, the damage is done already.....opening to the public won't affect much... beside pvp in gw2 is totally different than in gw1 pvp..

Thats not true, if people have the impression GW1 is rubbish it will affect GW2 sales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

so i don't know, some people may find the pvp good, but some people may find it bad.. it is not up for judgment until it is opened to a wider public..

No doubt some will find it good, some bad. However, its my opinion it will be biased towards the bad or negative experience for most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

offering free trials, and opening pvp arena to the public can both be done at the same time...the current free trial can stay, and opening perhaps 250-500 free slots for a particular arena is just another good marketing strategy...

I'd love to see a breath of fresh air put into pvp as much as anyone and recently there's been lots of suggestions thrown round to do this. With this idea, I don't think it will get the intended effect of +rep for Anet.

lursey · Jul 27, 2011, 08:58 AM // 08:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyGiant

Thats not true, if people have the impression GW1 is rubbish it will affect GW2 sales.

No doubt some will find it good, some bad. However, its my opinion it will be biased towards the bad or negative experience for most.

I'd love to see a breath of fresh air put into pvp as much as anyone and recently there's been lots of suggestions thrown round to do this. With this idea, I don't think it will get the intended effect of +rep for Anet.

when something is free, it is + rep......

I don't think lol is better than HON...in any sense...until the "free" factor..which is a BIG + rep and ruling out the HON market

GW in the current game market to be honest.. is not really that bad..it doesn't has to be labelled as rubbish, you can hardly find another game that can compare with gw...but nonetheless just it needs more attention on the population problem, or wider attention..

does it affect gw2 sales at most? pvp in gw1 and gw2 are totally different story

Essence Snow · Jul 27, 2011, 02:18 PM // 14:18

For the majority of current players PvE is better then PvP. Having a free trial of PvP, imo, is not a good way to introduce ppl to GW. Ppl that are highly addicted to GW don't like PvP...lord knows if I got a free trial and my introduction to GW was PvP I wouldn't buy the PvE version. If I got a free PvE verison..I'd be better tempted to buy the PvP version ...not knowing any better.

lursey · Jul 27, 2011, 03:34 PM // 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

For the majority of current players PvE is better then PvP. Having a free trial of PvP, imo, is not a good way to introduce ppl to GW. Ppl that are highly addicted to GW don't like PvP...lord knows if I got a free trial and my introduction to GW was PvP I wouldn't buy the PvE version. If I got a free PvE verison..I'd be better tempted to buy the PvP version ...not knowing any better.

it doesn't solve the problem of too little people in pvp if it is a free pve version...beside as I mentioned before...there of course limits on the free pvp in order for them to buy gw altogether....such as limiting the available free accessible slot if all those free accessible slot are filled.. and one want to join.. they will see they can't access and have to wait it out for the slot is emptied.

just like something.. "the free server is fulled...please wait awhile".. etc..

Missing HB · Jul 27, 2011, 04:14 PM // 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

For the majority of current players PvE is better then PvP. Having a free trial of PvP, imo, is not a good way to introduce ppl to GW. Ppl that are highly addicted to GW don't like PvP...lord knows if I got a free trial and my introduction to GW was PvP I wouldn't buy the PvE version. If I got a free PvE verison..I'd be better tempted to buy the PvP version ...not knowing any better.

Yes, and that's like i said, because the only form of PvP playable for everyone ( read , where you can barely play on any hour( not GvG, not Codex, not AB)) is only about taking the most OP build for the format, pressing skills randomly till the target dies and that's all... And even better formats( if not deleted) have turned into a similar mode , with 0 tactics involved.... Games such as AC: Brotherhood are easily 10 times more fun and tactical to play

PvE is about the same , with less risks because people know they will get a reward for it , and won't have to deal with people's behaviour ( that's pretty fun how you can predict what's gonna happen sometimes....) towards time waits/loses/etc....

But well your argument fits to an other problem... a total beginner will obviously start with PvE anyway in most games... and it's even more true when you look at GW's PvP...

lursey · Jul 27, 2011, 04:20 PM // 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missing HB

a total beginner will obviously start with PvE anyway in most games... and it's even more true when you look at GW's PvP...

a true pvp player will see pve as dull....only plays pve is for the cosmetics item etc..but not the story line...you can judge by how fast a player skips a cut scene that never been seen before....

Essence Snow · Jul 27, 2011, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

a true pvp player will see pve as dull....only plays pve is for the cosmetics item etc..but not the story line...you can judge by how fast a player skips a cut scene that never been seen before....

tbh most "true pvp players" play other pvp games.

lursey · Jul 27, 2011, 05:06 PM // 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

tbh most "true pvp players" play other pvp games.

yes.. cause partly the marketing and publicity of gw1 pvp are absent.

jazilla · Jul 28, 2011, 02:59 PM // 14:59

How much does the Trilogy cost now anyways? How much is one of the campaigns? Heck, isn't the PvP only kit like 10 or 20 dollars US? If it gets made free 2 play, all we will have is people with multiple FREE accounts that already play farming strongboxes. No thanks.

Xenomortis · Jul 28, 2011, 03:14 PM // 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazilla

Heck, isn't the PvP only kit like 10 or 20 dollars US?

Yes, but you can't dive straight into competitive play with only the PvP unlock pack.

fowlero · Jul 28, 2011, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazilla

How much does the Trilogy cost now anyways? How much is one of the campaigns? Heck, isn't the PvP only kit like 10 or 20 dollars US? If it gets made free 2 play, all we will have is people with multiple FREE accounts that already play farming strongboxes. No thanks.

To get a fully ready account (all skills/items, which is a necessity if you want to properly engage in the game this late) costs:

5x skill packs at £6.99 ea
1x item pack at £6.99

So £41.94, i'd guess that's gonna cost about $60.

Assuming you bought a campaign or the trilogy/whatever else the PvP access kit's £13.99 (which is ridiculous imo).

If you bother with anything less than that your experience is most likely gonna be very sour (ignoring the fact that what's left of the community is pretty much a cesspit), which is not good for the game.

Xenomortis · Jul 28, 2011, 04:36 PM // 16:36

For comparison; the RRP for Starcraft II (a one year old, highly competitive game) costs £44.99 (although it's easy to obtain one for around £35).

vinoth · Jul 28, 2011, 05:30 PM // 17:30

This is one of the best suggestions IMO. The game is dead. Anet revenue streams from green gw players has dwindled. They could make PVP free to the public.

Due to the massive number of people who would join, they could perhaps even bring sacred and scarred and broken tower back into rotation. Yes the new guys will come into a slaughterhouse for the more experienced players but they will face enough noobies to keep them entertained. Freshies will have a chance to group and try builds and have fun. It would be like when GW first started. Right now at any one time, there are abt 10 teams in HA. This will become 100-200 teams overnight. The outcome will be that the new teams will be on even footing for most games and will fight a strong old school opponent every 10 games.

/signed 100x over.