Curse

ne33us · Aug 21, 2006, 01:54 PM // 13:54

To start with, I must admit that I didn't search too
much before posting this, so, be gentle

Also, I enjoy all the aspects of the game as it is
greatly so far.

So, alignment is a RPG "attribute/feature" that GW
hasn't implemented almost at all.
Players had kind of alignment game play during the
Christmas event and also at the latest Dragon
Festival event.

Also in the Factions Chapter, players can choose sides
between Kurzicks and Luxons who are fighting each other
but eventually Shiro (the greatest threat) brings them
together in a fight agaist his forces.

Still, the player can not take the side of either
the Searing nor Shiro's forces in any way.

My thought was all about those poor Charrs that always
spawn at the same places cast the same spells and use
the same skills over and over again and finally, always
getting beaten up from the players parties

So what can be done about that ?

Well, Player parties could (should) be able to enter
missions in order to "protect" the mission against
Players parties that actually want to get through the
mission (current storyline).
(i will call "enemy player parties" the opposing
players and "mission player parties" the regular
parties)
It would be surpisingly difficult to Accomplish the
"Thirsty River" mission if the 6 Forgotten teams
consisted of "enemy player parties"

This would add a PvP kind of game play to the PvE
part of the game.
And i don't think it's very complicated (techically) to
implement, since "enemy player parties" can be assembled
the same way parties are formed now in order to beat
a mission and they can coexist in the same area.
Taking it further and further into "I wish for" land.
Alliances could "claim/take" a mission almost the same
way they "claim/take" outposts in factions nowadays.
Ok, most players would be impossible to complete some
missions against human players, who come up with all
kinds of deadly builds, but I find it extremely
interesting.
What are the possible drawbacks ?
"Enemy player parties" request gold (millions of billions)
from the "mission player parties" in order to step
aside and let them complete the mission painlessly,
which eventually whould ruin the missions.
What if the are no "enemy player parties" available.
Well i suppose good old AI foes would always be there
even if this sounds unfair.
(plz add, to the "no that would ruin the game because...")

Quests could also be programmed with the kind of game play
Even further, "enemy player parties" could spawn in any
explorable area (how ? how? what will trigger this and
for which player?) out of the blue, against "mission
player parties" that are out ther farming.

Who would ever again advertise "100% sucess Run
το Drognar Forge" or any other location when there will
be a possibility to face the unpredicted "enemy party
players" on the way there ?

All the above are impossible because...

1) Why oh, why "enemy player parties" would ever want
to play in an area in which they would have to wait
for the "mission player parties" to reach a certain
locaton in order to engage in batle with them ?
Because of the "Non Shall Pass !!" and "Fear me !!!"
feeling of the players maybe ?

2) And what would the "enemy player parties" gain from
those fights ?
Well apparently after a while, more and more expirienced
players would be recruited to join the "mission player
parties" in order to be able (at last) to beat the
mission/quest they need.
High level players are most surely equipted with the
best/rarest weapons and the best elite skils in the
game, so the "enemy player parties" could possibly
capture Elite skills and also collect those rare
green weapon drops, and vice versa if "mission player
parties" win the mission.
(Well this sounds highly unbalanced but...)
Also, special awards could be ..awarded to the "enemy
players parties" for stoping the "mission player parties"

3) How will players gain their "alignment" ? How would they
join one or the other side ?
Well, primarilly this is another way to spend "balthazar
faction" gained in the regular arena fights.
Players should have a fixed amound of balthazars faction
points (or any other new kind of faction) in order to
enter the "enemy player parties" (with an upkeep
requirment maybe)
Maybe Alliances should have another fixed amound of
faction points in order for their members to enter a
mission/quest or even to control a mission/quest.
Also why not involving the ladder into this ?
If a Guild is ranking between 900-1000 in the ladder
can only join Post Searing Ascalon whereabouts areas
and missions, while a Guild ranking between 800-900 in
the ladder can access Silverpeak Mountains areas
and missions, etc. etc.

4) Won't this ruin the missions and the main flow of
the storyline ?
Well, as long as the storyline doesn't always have
the exact same difficulty level per mission/quest
as the day before i'm mostly happy with it.

5) Is there anything else that would add up to the game ?
More titles maybe, like (exm..) "Anti-Protector of Tyria"

Well, that's about that, that i could think of, so
feel free to flame it up and turn it into ashes

DonMoe · Aug 21, 2006, 02:23 PM // 14:23

awesome idea. Dunno how possible this is to be realised though. still: awesome idea

/signed

SpeedyKQ · Aug 21, 2006, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Many PVE'ers would hate-detest-loathe having to fight other players during missions. A lot. Anet has a standing policy that PVE'ers never have to PVP if they don't want to, and vice versa. It has worked pretty well and I expect they won't mess with it.

But the Nightfall previews saying your character's actions have consequences could mean something like alignment. NPC's treat you differently and the storyline branches depending on whether you've made good or evil choices. That would be cool.

Dirty Sticks · Aug 21, 2006, 02:52 PM // 14:52

it's a very good idea i've had it several times my self

but...in the end PvE players dont want to have to PvP...think about it...what if [TE] decided they wanted to test a new build...so they go to a mish and sit thier alllll day testing... it would make it very difficult for pve'rs

/notsigned

ne33us · Aug 21, 2006, 04:25 PM // 16:25

Remember that multiple instances of a mission are played silmutaniously
by dozens and dozens of players around the world.
So, how many teams will [TE] break down ?

How many teams can [TE] assemble in order to dominate a mission

Most Guilds barely have 2 teams of 8 for their GvGs

One drawback there, is that involving opposing human player teams
may require to treat a mission as a PvP fight.
I've heard that PvP fights (HA/TA/RA/AB/Jade Quary/Fort Aspenwood)
are limited to a number of 12 simultaneous fights each (if true).
So if the "idea" is implemented that way too, then yes that would be a
problem.

On the other hand, I was thinking more of "real players" spawning in the
missions as foes and not as a stricktly PvP fight party.
Thinking of it once more... "enemy party members" might be required to
be involved in an "anti-mission" path in order to fight with the "mission
player party" at the final objective of the mission.
Well, there are many possibilities in order to achive some kind of balance
while the human factor is involved, and i'm pretty sure the minds behind
GW are capable to find the best solution to achive that balance

An example of PvE involving "PvP".
In "Defend Fort Aspenwood" (kurzicks) and "Travel to Fort Aspenwood"
(Luxons), both factions parties have the same objective, "Fort Aspenwood".
The two opposing parties could have fought amongst them in order
to win the quest and have access to the "Fort Aspenwood" outpost for
the first time.
But no, everyone gets in "Fort Aspenwood" like a gentleman steping on
those poor AI foes, and then it's pure PvP

Thanks for the reply, it kept me thinking

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Sticks

it's a very good idea i've had it several times my self

but...in the end PvE players dont want to have to PvP...think about it...what if [TE] decided they wanted to test a new build...so they go to a mish and sit thier alllll day testing... it would make it very difficult for pve'rs

/notsigned

Kaguya · Aug 21, 2006, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Isn't this just a Fort Aspenwood taken bit further? This would be very annoying, say, if a PUG team was trying to get through this, and every time they try playing the mission, they get a hardcore guild team against them, obviously failing each and every time.

Are these puggers then required to learn to play PvP in order to progress in PvE?

It's a cool idea, but unfortunately it wouldn't work. You can't play the game whenever you'd want since you'd have to wait for an opposing party to play PvE (or would the enemy team then be of henchmen only?)

I'm all up for new Fort Aspenwood-style missions, but I don't think they should mix that heavily with PvE campaign. More of Aspenwood missions, maybe even FA itself with a map rotation so the mission isn't always the same, maybe even giving Luxons the defence job would make things much more interesting, like a mini-alliance battle, or the map in Aspenwood would be affected by how the alliance battles are going.

ne33us · Aug 21, 2006, 09:45 PM // 21:45

About that "every time they try playing the mission, they get a
hardcore guild team against them.." i have answered in my previous
post. There can't be so many hardcore groups out there, and if there
are...then that would mean that the idea worked !! Lots of people
would be interested in a new aspect of the game

Aspenwood was an example of how 2 PvE missions
- with the same goal (reaching Aspenwood for different reasons each side)
- that are played by two opposing faction parties Kurzicks vs Luxons
COULD have had a PvP ending and letting the best faction team in the
outpost.
Remember the post is all about how to infuse GW with alignment aspects
like good/evil, kurzick/luxons, or whatever else could have two or more
sides

Also i'm not debating PvP vs PvE, i like PvE a lot more than PvP.
In fact, the whole thing started when some guildmates (also PvEers)
started nagging about "i can do that mission with my eyes closed. That
foe is there, the other one is 2 steps behind, i use skills A+B, kill, kill and
i move on..., etc, etc)

And AI boosts will never be (as long as i live at least) insipiring enough
to make my guildmates... open their eyes during a mission

Let me try and look at your statement with another perspective.
"Guild Wars" by statement, declares "i'm a PvP orientated game !!"
So i don't see any harm done by guiding the players towards the
PvP road after all from within the PvE storyline.
That is said having in mind that PvE should be a walk through the
park [not a NY park anyway

] after all.
Also we have to remember that player PvP orientation was part of
the Prophecies campaing, and still is, by attaching PvP arenas in
certain outposts along side the storyline route.

The waiting part, as i mentioned in the opening post, would be mostly
a balancing problem and not a real waiting problem, since good old
foes are there to take their old jobs back in a moment in the expence
that some parties will fight foes and others will fight "enemy player
parties" which is unfair.
I have to think that part over and over again

Thank you for adding up to the discussion.

Any ideas on "alignment" aspects, is very much welcome

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaguya

Isn't this just a Fort Aspenwood taken bit further? This would be very annoying, say, if a PUG team was trying to get through this, and every time they try playing the mission, they get a hardcore guild team against them, obviously failing each and every time.

Are these puggers then required to learn to play PvP in order to progress in PvE?

It's a cool idea, but unfortunately it wouldn't work. You can't play the game whenever you'd want since you'd have to wait for an opposing party to play PvE (or would the enemy team then be of henchmen only?)

I'm all up for new Fort Aspenwood-style missions, but I don't think they should mix that heavily with PvE campaign. More of Aspenwood missions, maybe even FA itself with a map rotation so the mission isn't always the same, maybe even giving Luxons the defence job would make things much more interesting, like a mini-alliance battle, or the map in Aspenwood would be affected by how the alliance battles are going.

storm of daeth · Aug 22, 2006, 04:07 AM // 04:07

/not signed

I mainly play PvE and i'm not a big PvP fan. I don't want to have to face other people just to get to certain citys like in faction or just beat the game. If this idea does get implemented then the entire game would practically be PvP.

ne33us · Aug 22, 2006, 06:38 AM // 06:38

Again this is turning into a PvE vs PvP argument, and that wasn't what
i had in mind.
The post is all about "alignment" and how can this be presented in GW.

So if it ever comes to joining forces fighting on the side of Charrs in order
to overpower Tyrians, it has to be against AI teams of Ascalonian Soldiers
under the command of leading ex-henchmen, and the moving on to Kryta,
overtaking the Magumma Jungle, etc, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by storm of daeth

/not signed

I mainly play PvE and i'm not a big PvP fan. I don't want to have to face other people just to get to certain citys like in faction or just beat the game. If this idea does get implemented then the entire game would practically be PvP.

bigwig · Aug 22, 2006, 10:29 AM // 10:29

most of the ideas here are just bad.

Alignment as a title though would be pretty cool.

Running around in game with "chaotic" below my name? i would like that. but i guess thats a different kind of alignment than this person is speaking of.