Curse

Zhou Feng · May 24, 2006, 06:18 AM // 06:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buoyancy

You really don't understand the problem at all. I have a better idea for how to make PVE influence PVP in much the same manner as the favour system currently works. In order for you to compete in any PVP matches, a randomly selected group (of PVE players) that is currently working on Thunderhead Keep must succeed in that mission. You must wait from the time the next group enters the mission to the time they either succeed or fail. If they fail, you and your team cannot partake in any PVP for the next five hours. That's how stupid the Favour system is.

Why do you care if people have constant access to UW/FoW? Does it affect you in any way? Nope. Well, not unless you are mentally defective, and can only value your accomplishments if you create artificial barriers to other people also completing those accomplishments. If that's the case, then you'd likely be much happier playing a crappy EQ clone like WoW.

I believe I stated THAT as the PROBLEM: PvP INFLUENCING PvE CONTENT!

Constant access to UW/FoW will degenerate it to a Bot Farm area. THAT is not good for the economy as even ArenaNet has remarke on this time again.

I DO know what the situation is. Thank you very much.

However had you paid attention I stated that ArenaNets original Setup seemed to have been trying to unite PvE and PvP, just that they chose a wrong method or form.

dreamhunk · May 24, 2006, 06:27 AM // 06:27

When you have pvp players come in to pve and really want to change it. It is bad. I have to been to fourms where pvp players would say pve should be harder. RPG players don't want hack and slash they want story. they puzzles figure out. They want to talk to npcs. Then they want more story. Rpg players want a world. How meny times Have i see pvp players say to a rpg player why would you do that or wwhy would you do that. For exmaple exploring, there where pvp players saying why would you want to do that. adventure is a part of rpgs. I think that adding true rpg to gw would make this game hole alot better.

Here is a exmple rpg player want clothes, weather, and stuff like that. must pvp players would say that is a waste. Rpg players want night and day, pvp players would say why?

How will the pve get better when you have pvp players who want to destroy it. look at the skills unlock for example. rpg want to work for their skills. pvp players want all their skills now.

Zhou Feng · May 24, 2006, 06:44 AM // 06:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

When you have pvp players come in to pve and really want to change it. It is bad. I have to been to fourms where pvp players would say pve should be harder. RPG players don't want hack and slash they want story. they puzzles figure out. They want to take to npcs. Then they want more story. Rpg players want a world. How meny times Have i see pvp players say to a rpg player why would you do that or wwhy would you do that. For exmaple exploring, there where pvp players saying why would you want to do that. adventure is a part of rpgs. I think that adding true rpg to gw would make this game hole alot better.

Here is a exmple rpg player want clothes, weather, and stuff like that. must pvp players would say that is a waste. Rpg players want night and day, pvp players would say why?

Im a PvP Player and I say all these you mention are exactly what PvE needs...

Still PvE people need to know the limits that this isnt a usual MMO like say WoW or Conquer Online. So its setup is diffrent. I say this because many PvE players in other MMOs are actually Grind type players and in GW that same logic does not apply.

This might be a reason why excessive farming exists seeing as pvE people cannot Grind for levels so instead grind for stuff (or faction as is the case in Factions)

Had the PvE have more uber interesting and rewardable Quests, Storyline, Quest Events, Story Events, Mini Games, Non Story Missions and other things to DO rather then just grind farm or grind faction, like that Catcombs idea with multiple underground levels with Quests and high rewards the lower you go.

I AM also a PvE player. I play currently Runescape (less now), Conquer Online, Maple Story, Rakion, WoW (quitted after the Paladin fiasco might return some time), Achaea (text absed MUD) and in short any MMO (Once I have time Ill try out Mu Online, Lineage, Knights Online, etc)

Most MMO always have a serious probelm with:

-hording where players become obsessed with hording massive amounts of wealth which they never use (Whats the point of having money if you arent going to spend it or cringe when you will?)

-Botting for that same reason to but this time to make actual RL cash, illegally benefitting from propietary MMO games.

-Trashing newer players without realizing THEY ARE the games LIFELINE and BLOOD, instead of helping them (Achaea is about the only exception to this rule and Conquer Online to a certain extent due to the Power Level/Virtue System), which turns potential players away and drive the game to a state of dead inactivity.

-Acting like immature pricks and demanding from the Devs to accomdate all their whims or acting like pricks in game and treating others badly and being jerks.

-Creating INFLATION WHICH KILLS the ECONOMY and drives IT DEAD, with overpriced commodities (Diablo for example) not to mention alienating newer players. See third reason.

Im pretty sure there are other more potential reasons that also apply to GW sance PKing issues (Very very problematic in Conquer Onlineor games with open map open PK styles)

I dont want GW to end up like that or at least hopefully have minor issues compared to actual MMOs. Any PvP Player who thinks hes all God and Mighty for playing PvP should check again: GW isnt much without PvE just another much better Rakion.

dreamhunk · May 24, 2006, 06:46 AM // 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhou Feng

Im a PvP Player and I say all these you mention are exactly what PvE needs...

Still PvE people need to know the limits that this isnt a usual MMO like say WoW or Conquer Online. So its setup is diffrent. I say this because many PvE players in other MMOs are actually Grind type players and in GW that same logic does not apply.

This might be a reason why excessive farming exists seeing as pvE people cannot Grind for levels so instead grind for stuff (or faction as is the case in Factions)

Had the PvE have more uber interesting and rewardable Quests, Storyline, Quest Events, Story Events, Mini Games, Non Story Missions and other things to DO rather then just grind farm or grind faction, like that Catcombs idea with multiple underground levels with Quests and high rewards the lower you go.

I AM also a PvE player. I play currently Runescape (less now), Conquer Online, Maple Story, Rakion, WoW (quitted after the Paladin fiasco might return some time), Achaea (text absed MUD) and in short any MMO (Once I have time Ill try out Mu Online, Lineage, Knights Online, etc)

Most MMO always have a serious probelm with:

-hording where players become obsessed with hording massive amounts of wealth which they never use (Whats the point of having money if you arent going to spend it or cringe when you will?)

-Botting for that same reason to but this time to make actual RL cash, illegally benefitting from propietary MMO games.

-Trashing newer players without realizing THEY ARE the games LIFELINE and BLOOD, instead of helping them (Achaea is about the only exception to this rule and Conquer Online to a certain extent due to the Power Level/Virtue System), which turns potential players away and drive the game to a state of dead inactivity.

-Acting like immature pricks and demanding from the Devs to accomdate all their whims or acting like pricks in game and treating others badly and being jerks.

-Creating INFLATION WHICH KILLS the ECONOMY and drives IT DEAD, with overpriced commodities (Diablo for example) not to mention alienating newer players. See third reason.

Im pretty sure there are other more potential reasons that also apply to GW sance PKing issues (Very very problematic in Conquer Onlineor games with open map open PK styles)

I dont want GW to end up like that or at least hopefully have minor issues compared to actual MMOs. Any PvP Player who thinks hes all God and Mighty for playing PvP should check again: GW isnt much without PvE just another much better Rakion.

the curret state of factions is grind

grind = hack and slash

you have to grind to gain faction, all grind is anit rpg

you now have to grind to gain skills in factions too. In the first gw you did not need to grind to gain skills. you did the quest and you got them. Now you have to grind to gain your skills.

factions is all grind, sure people get more gold wich is a good thing but it is grind.

hack and slash is not rpg, and nothing to do with it. how long will it take till hscking and slashing throught monsters gets boring.

on top of that new players will not want to buy the newer chapters why because the game would be way too hard for them.

I awould agree with you Zhou Feng 100%

Fantus · May 24, 2006, 07:35 AM // 07:35

Integrating PvE and PvP into the same game is a good idea - basically.

Adressing the OP's concern that PvEers and PvPers seem to often flame each other - that's unfortunately true. As I see it, the three major sources of flamewars origin there:

a) PvP only players repeating the #1 bullshit line over and over and over: "GW is a PvP game"... There is no quicker way to make a PvE player go nuclear than this....
b) arrogant GvGers claiming all the time that all that matters in GW is GvG and that it's the only thing requiring any skill anyway.
c) PvEers who will tell PvP players that what they do is "dull", "boring" and "repetitive"

In large parts, that's not the game's problem - it's a player problem.

Personally, I like to have both PvP and PvE parts in the game that I can both access and enjoy. The one thing that HAS to be take into account is that there ARE players who play PvE only and players who play PvP only, and that neither of any likes to be forced to play something they don't want to.

Good integration of PvE and PvP: The factions system. There are both PvE and PvP means to gather faction and both PvE and PvP influence the game. Still, nobody is forced to play anything they don't like.

Bad integration of PvE and PvP: The favor system. It basically forces PvE players to PvP if they want to access PvE areas... bah...

Conclusion: I like PvP and PvE to be integrated, but I'd like them integrated in a smart way.

Fitz Rinley · May 24, 2006, 11:43 AM // 11:43

There is a difference between copetition and opposition. Competition is 'to walk together.' Opposition is 'positioning aagainst,' more-or-less. The current Guild Wars set-up advertizes competition but means opposition.

I use this example because it is the best I expect to be recognizable by the largest audience. In the Lord of the Rings, the companions are in opposition to orcs, nazgul, Sauron. Gimli and Legolas are in competition.

PvE competitive events can exist. Defend the wall scenarios with a who can last the longest befor being overwhealmed/captured by the mobs scenario. (There is a story line we havn't had - the prison break or break form the slave mines - unable to put on your armor or use your weapons until your free.) A monster hunt to see which team can take out the most monsters before time. A monster rampage to see which team can take out the most attacking mobs, but no defend (the wall) set, just open ground. An orienteering competition to see who can reach the most map points first, with mobs in the way. These things would be competition, not opposition.

All PvP play currently is based upon opposition. None of it requires any respect andit has several issues with drops, disconnects, and player sabotage. I have seen a player deliberately show up to die costing his team several resurrects (time and energy) before he laughed about doing this. I have seen people disappear in the middle of fighting. (I would like the AI to take over the Icon of any player that ceased to be connected and run it to the end of the match or until the player reconnects and thereon resumes their active control in the match.) This latter would not stop drops, but map-outs can be blocked. I would like to see a pre-combat and post combat period in which all players meet in a line or better circle formation and /salute before they may be whisked to their corners and given 60 seconds for dicussion of strategy. Then once the contest is complete another meet in the a line or circle formation to salute before the match releases the map-block. Anyone disrespectful in virctory, during match, or defeat becomes reportable and may be banned for it.

I am for redefining PvE involvement with PvP and elimination of the Favor and Faction control of access to any content area. We paid to play in real money as casual players. The way to combat bots is to lessen the obstacle players have in getting what they want. It is not in restricting access to content - that is like prohibition. Prohibition only creates and supports the industry.

Fitz

gojensen · May 24, 2006, 12:02 PM // 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roupe

-I Personally as a PVE are more disturbed by the Coop missions; in short.
Having the success (or failure rest upon ones shoulder) for the mission, due to an unknown party that I have no option of affecting or communicating with.

For example
dying shortly after starting the mission because the Local people couldnt adequatly defend Master Togu, before the foreign "cavalry" to appear. Most often a sad assasin, that didnt get an party invitation -and thus decided to hench it.

This is my biggest gripe with Factions. I've tried this mission several times only to end up failing before I could even reach the "main objective". I don't really like being FORCED to play with complete strangers that may or may not have a clue as to what they are doing.

Likewise I never use Pick-Up-Groups simply because I don't want all the hassle and grief that may occur with complete strangers. My online time is for fun, either alone or with a few good friends. And that means that mostly we are a 2-3 people with some henchies (which makes this a good time to complain about the lack of control over the henchies...).

The PvP and CoOP "features" that "force" me to play with strangers are the things I really don't like. I couldn't care less about HoH. Sure some PvP'ers battle it out and in the end open it up for their "home district"... so long as it's "evenly" distributed I'm okay with that. If the Fissure of Woe became restricted to only those PvP'ers I would not be okay with that.

Likewise I'm not okay with the Alliance/Faction-grind to gain entry to some PvE missions in Factions. Mainly for the above mentioned reasons.

As for PvP I have no interest in that. Mainly because I feel it takes too much time min/maxing and perfecting a build, and partly because I'm a sore loser. Sure it's fun to kick some one's arse, but when it's your arse it's not fun anymore

.

So to summarize, I'll gladly support anything that would allow me to PvE all I want without ever having to think of other people outside my "group" and most specifically to never think about PvP.

Fitz Rinley · May 24, 2006, 12:40 PM // 12:40

Guild Wars has the opportunity to bridge international lines in good ways. The divisions because of server structure lessen the chances for this. Most people who play are likely to make and maintain a few close friends of similar background. All the people I play with regularly have something major in common with me. Four of them have military background or are currently enlisted in some capacity.

The current system does push for larger groups of casual or fleeting acquantance. This is fine for extraverts at one end of the spectrum. It is not the preference of those more towards the middle or who are introverted. One who is more into PvP will most likely have a small group of friends that are the same. One into PvE will most likely have a small group of friends that are the same.

It might be interesting for GW to manage an Alliance War. It would be interesting to see 1,000 man teams in combat. However, the number of players that would want to partake rather than observe such a war is most likely limited. Further, this would require a completely different comm.s system and a completely differnt guild ranking system. At that level regular military ranks woulld be needed. (Although, the Soviets did defeat the Brittish/American invasion at Archangel using armies that had no titular ranks.)

Currently there is benefit for PvP to play PvE, they may open skills and get goods. There is no reason for a PvE player to PvP as the skills they open remain unavailable and there are no rewards such as reskinning one's items.

Fitz

Buoyancy · May 24, 2006, 02:45 PM // 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhou Feng

I believe I stated THAT as the PROBLEM: PvP INFLUENCING PvE CONTENT!

"truth is they are quite wrong as PvE dedicated players into PvP are superior then normal PvP only characters and all because through PvPing they access PvE areas to obtain the equipment and there much needed perfect modifiers and variety to be more otpimal in PvP."

If you wanted to complain that PVP influences PVE, then maybe you should make sure that your post is coherent first.

Quote:

Constant access to UW/FoW will degenerate it to a Bot Farm area. THAT is not good for the economy as even ArenaNet has remarke on this time again.

What do you care about the economy of the game? If everybody has access to various items because they have become extremely common then everyone benefits.

lyra_song · May 24, 2006, 03:15 PM // 15:15

I think PvP needs a "story battle" (See the threads where people want PvP chars in Aspenwood etc).

I agree Fitz, we need incentives to play 1 form or another.

PvP needs a new incentive to play PvE, or at least WITH PvE players.

PvP and PvE missions would rock!

Imagine an optional mission (like Dragon's Throat) where a PvP team and a PvE team meet up to accomplish the same goal. It would involve beating a team of the opposing faction, but the PvP players will only battle the other PvP players, while the PvE players battle NPCs or trigger switches to help their PvP teammates.

The PvP players would get balthazar + their alliance faction as well as some new form of recognition like battle medals or something...stars, thats exclusive to helping PvE players.

The PvE players would of course get the mission done, gain XP, gain cash, maybe get drops and access to chests.

I mentioned earlier in this thread a PvE to PvP incentive such as new armors that require Balthazar Faction to purchase (which would also be unlockable for PvP characters, if they gain enough medals).

The only hitch would be getting the players to actually NOT fight each other (ie: the PvP team or the PvE team insulting their own members). But thats about people, not game design.

dreamhunk · May 24, 2006, 04:56 PM // 16:56

I have to also put down that there is alot pvp players who don't even know what a rpg is really. They compare it to must mmorpg out there that are made for grind.

Nanii · May 24, 2006, 06:19 PM // 18:19

/NOT SIGNED, not even for a million dollars.

EDIT: Guild wars is still a CO-RPG. Not mmorpg.

CO-RPG (Competitive online roleplaying game)

Stockholm · May 24, 2006, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanii

/NOT SIGNED, not even for a million dollars.

Come on guys STOP complaining or play another game.

And the meek shall inhearet the earth.
Without the masses speaking there dissaproval nothing will change.

Cyril Aspect · May 24, 2006, 07:53 PM // 19:53

as has already been stated Pvpers must Pve to be top level competitive. I need to get multiple suits of armor for different situations and more than 2 weapon swaps etc.

I happen to love pve even though its difficulty is fairly low in comparison to most pvp. real people are jsut generally tougher than AI

the more integration the more interesting things happen.

the more story driven ideas for some pvp ideas would be neat.

People have preferences I'm sure there places and in fact someone mentioned coops as also being hated. these indicate to me that there is not really a massive divide between the far sides but rather just differences in specific preferences. some people love fed ex quests and running over the same terrain twice, those quests make me want to punch things.

some like freedom and preferred prophecies because in pve and pvp originally you could wander almost freely, run to misisons jump right into any level of pvp etc.

with the addition of battle isles and factions locked gates anet basically is saying those who play the game cna't be trusted to play how they want and in essence these limitations are outwardly imposed upon us.

so to show that this has relevance ot the discussion at hand I would note that it is the restriction of choice which many on both sides hate.

Liking as I do both modes of gameplay I'd love to see everyon who starts a thread like this quit since its clear what GW offers you don't want and since I prefer what GW offers and would rather not have a repeat of the moaning about elite misisons which resulted in changes.

Don't get me wrong listening to your fanbase is ok I guess but design by commitee or the masses is a fast way to ruin a game.

I'm quite glad they know enough to ignore most of these "suggestions"

and if you think I'm being abrasive or incendiary or whatever, Thx.

Omega X · May 24, 2006, 07:55 PM // 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

I think PvP needs a "story battle" (See the threads where people want PvP chars in Aspenwood etc).

I agree Fitz, we need incentives to play 1 form or another.

PvP needs a new incentive to play PvE, or at least WITH PvE players.

PvP and PvE missions would rock!

Imagine an optional mission (like Dragon's Throat) where a PvP team and a PvE team meet up to accomplish the same goal. It would involve beating a team of the opposing faction, but the PvP players will only battle the other PvP players, while the PvE players battle NPCs or trigger switches to help their PvP teammates.

The PvP players would get balthazar + their alliance faction as well as some new form of recognition like battle medals or something...stars, thats exclusive to helping PvE players.

The PvE players would of course get the mission done, gain XP, gain cash, maybe get drops and access to chests.

I mentioned earlier in this thread a PvE to PvP incentive such as new armors that require Balthazar Faction to purchase (which would also be unlockable for PvP characters, if they gain enough medals).

The only hitch would be getting the players to actually NOT fight each other (ie: the PvP team or the PvE team insulting their own members). But thats about people, not game design.

First of all to the OP - /not signed.

Second of all I agree 100% with your post.

The thing it seems to be with Guild Wars lately (and I see it ALOT in the responses) is that there is a lack of variety/goals/atmosphere. And the integration of it all seems to be the problem.

Factions started a trend that seems to fix this but they will need to take it to another level. Bigger, better, and more fleshed.

I would rant more than that but there seems to be a number of spin doctors waiting to say things should be divided.

quickmonty · May 24, 2006, 08:39 PM // 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyril Aspect

Liking as I do both modes of gameplay I'd love to see everyon who starts a thread like this quit since its clear what GW offers you don't want and since I prefer what GW offers and would rather not have a repeat of the moaning about elite misisons which resulted in changes.

Don't get me wrong listening to your fanbase is ok I guess but design by commitee or the masses is a fast way to ruin a game.

I'm quite glad they know enough to ignore most of these "suggestions"

and if you think I'm being abrasive or incendiary or whatever, Thx.

No, I don't think you are abrasive and enjoyed most of your post, except the end. These (and other) forums are full of suggestions. Do you really think that all those people should quit? A lot of game improvements have come about because of these forums. The game is constantly evolving and it is through player input on fansite forums that Anet gets a better idea of what the players want. There seems to be a lot of discontent with Factions in that it doesn't measure up to the standards set by Prophecies. We have a right .... no, a duty .... to inform Anet of our disatisfaction and even to offer up suggestions and how to improve future chapters.

There are a lot of good ideas and suggestions here for improving future chapters. Thanks all.

And to all of you who oppose my original suggestion ..... thanks for doing so in an intelligent and civil manner.

Kaguya · May 24, 2006, 08:46 PM // 20:46

Just add a tick on the beginning: 'I don't want to participate in PvP with this PvE chara at all.', after which you won't be allowed in Aspenwood, Quarry, Arenas and anything else PvP related, and if you leave that tick unchecked, you can do everything you can do now :P

Whatever they did to 'bring PvP closer to PvE' is only good from my PoV, as I actually got some feint interest in the PvP portion of the game thanks to Factions. And only thing that really seems to be 'PvP closer to PvE' in factions is.. umm. Um. What, actually? Playing through the storyline in Factions, there is not a single quest or a mission that you have to complete, that features fighting other players.

Yes, there are Alliance Battles, yes, there is Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry. But hey, you don't have to do them if you hate PvP. You can do the Challenge Quests, you can do the repeatable quests! The initial idea in Factions was that both PvE-only and PvP-only people can donate to the 'cause' by donating faction, be it on PvP chara from Alliance battles, or repeatable quests/challenge missions on PvE chara, or those who like both PvP and PvE; Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry. Looks like a great deal to me :P

And don't start with 'but Aspenwood gives better factions than repeatables :'(((', the repeatable quests are much faster.

Cyril Aspect · May 24, 2006, 09:07 PM // 21:07

even on these forums if you look at who is posting in these threads its nearly the same people every time. thos eof us posting in these places have agendas.

In my case its to go directly against your particular opinions about the game.
make no mistake If we want to be honest the two so called sides have specific agendas and it is in reality altering the game to specifically fit a very particular mode of play. they do not want to bring people together for if they did they wouldn't suggest ideas which promote divisiveness.

my personal agenda has to do with eliminating the two categories because i despise sides and categories unless they are fictional liek the lux kurz

I don't want people to use the terms pve and pvp i want them to say when you are playing the game and mean the entirety of it.

I recognize this idea is jsut as absurd as the other two sides but unlike them I perfectly content to leave the developing to the developers and play as close to what i wish within the framework of the game they design.

I am against limitaitons to how i integrate the two so called gameplay types.

Phades · May 24, 2006, 09:08 PM // 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasAGuest

After all that "spouting" I found not a thing that added to the conversation at hand. It was perhaps the longest most wordy "flame" I've ever seen. lol

The one thing you did help me do with that though, is prove that PvE players and PvP players do not mix and should not be "pushed" together via game design. Many thanks for helping me show that.

If you actually read any of it and didnt stop at where i began to comment about your opinions not based upon game history, you might have actually came up with a point.

If you are basing this opinion on my comments comming as a pvp only player, then you are wrong as i do both in roughly equal quantities, but lately tilting to the pve side for exploration just for the hell of it.

The sad truth is that, my commentary didnt reinforce your points on any of the points you tried to make. So, instead of going down the route of conflict you attempt to bow out of it, by just ignoring everything i stated. That does not make any of your statements valid.

I am curious though if you have even played in another online game environment that is either solely pve or pvp and then took the time to compare the two. Then take it a step further and compare them against other designs where the pve and pvp are blended. Then take it a step even further where you analyze the overal effects of free formed pvp in pve environments, versus structured pvp settings such as the ones found within guild wars. It would appear you haven't even begun to scratch the surface for analysis as you are so dismissive of everything not currently within your own tunnel vision. Simply stated, seperating the two in this environment detrects greatly from both.

shinrinningu · May 24, 2006, 09:21 PM // 21:21

Sorry, but I know a lot of people who enjoy playing both aspects of the game. It is also already mentioned that Anet has been trying to bring PvE and PvP together (or... PvE players towards PvP). By suggesting this idea would only be rendering their efforts useless. I doubt Anet will ever split the two types of gameplay and I hope they never will.

/not signed