Guild Wars Forums - GW Guru
 
Forums Guild Wiki PvX Wiki
 

Go Back   Guild Wars Forums - GW Guru > The Inner Circle > Sardelac Sanitarium
Reload this Page Petition to seperate PvP from PvE
Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

Closed Thread
Page 5 of 8 « First < 34 5 67 > Last »
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 24, 2006, 10:35 PM // 22:35   #81
Frost Gate Guardian
 
Lepton CFd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Guild: Pantheon of Shadows [dei]
Profession: Mo/Me
Advertisement

Disable Ads
Default
/notsigned

Separate the PvP and PvE a little more, but you MUST at some point make PvE players do PvP. Some people may never actually play PvP, and miss out on something that they could truly enjoy. Don't make the really important PvP missions forced upon PvE players, make the lesser ones.

ANet wants people to play both PvP and PvE, so there was bound to be some sort of incorporation in Factions.

Also, I think a lot of people are overreacting to this problem...talking about ANet going out of business because no one will buy Chapter III? What????? That makes NO sense...Factions has only been out a MONTH, may I remind you, give ANet time to fix some of the problems Factions has (though the issue addressed on this thread WILL NOT be fixed), and wait for Chapter III to see what innovations that they will put in. Undoubtedly, they will learn what people want more off/less off after each chapter, so just give them time.
Lepton CFd is offline  
Old May 24, 2006, 10:44 PM // 22:44   #82
Desert Nomad
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phades
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.
Oh I read it, and it was blather to me. Your "commentary" was as stale as week old opened soda and had no taste or fizz. I've seen the same copy and paste argument many times in other games. It had absolutely nothing said about /signed or /not signed. In fact the whole attempt at tearing apart an opinion (my opinion) is really moot point to me, which is why I... umm, how was it you put... bow out. Not worth debating an opinion as we are each entitled to our own.
However, if you really must wonder how you proved my point, I'll point it out, though I was going to let it be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phades
Had the rewards for the pvp been higher, this would not have come to pass. Even still, you are blaming pvpers for exploiting the easier setting of pve, since pvp rewards are not guarenteed and are more dependant on having a large pool of players wanting to use the system. A easy reference would be to look up any thread complaining about how long it takes to enter some of the mission battle areas.
You here even state that PvP and PvE when mixed exploit the system and the paragraph before it, "take the shortest route". Therefore, by removing the two as a whole, each side would have to earn it's own and play within itself. Which was my point all together.
You also oddly state I blamed PvP for something. I never did, I blamed PvEers that go AFK and Leech the game play to achieve their goals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phades
Considering the time investement for just mission completions, many would argue the pve as a "mini game" by comparison to pvp mastery. The two playstyles are very different as well. This is due to the inherent differences between AI logic and the logic of other people. This is why the skill balancing is largely based off of the pvp aspect. Even when it does affect the pve, its rather minor as a whole and still easy to work around due to the AI and mob distribution.
Here your understanding of what a "mini-game" is, shows a rather out of touch point of view. It seems you take "mini-game" as meaning PvP all together and are trying to defend something that needs no defending. PvP mini-games are refered to as Jade/Aspen and sometimes the Challenge missions (as people compete for points). They are not "true" PvP ala deathmatch/ctf/domination etc.

Have I played other online games? lol - Umm, lets see. Started out of EQ beta, Then Asheron's Call, then back to EQ, then to AC2, then that mess of a PvPvE game Shadowbane, then EQ2, and now this. Considering my first game I ever played was Pong, I've pretty much tried as many as I found interesting. One you mentioned was DOAC. That one looked like literal crap to me and the PvP turned me away as it looked dull and pitiful in contrast to the others that were out at the time. For comparison, AC/AC2 and Shadowsbane all had a huge PvP following and each suffers from the same issues when trying to mix the two playstyles.

Now, instead of trying to discredit someone who's opinion you will never change (I'm too old and cranky), how about trying to add something semi-useful on why or why not the two should be seperated?

As I suggested, the only things that really need to be removed from each other is the linking or locking of content (quests, missions, or skills in PvP) being reliant on each other. Remove those bonds and many more people will be happy... or at least happier. Which is... the topic at hand. Not whether or not you agree with or disagree with me.
WasAGuest is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 12:27 AM // 00:27   #83
Forge Runner
 
Guardian of the Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Guild: Radicals Against Tyrants
Profession: W/
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kariston The Swift
Personally I feel sorry for people who don't play both PvE and PvP because I feel that people who play both gain the best understanding of the game. The biggest example of this is how you see Mesmers and assassins never getting picked up in the PvE side of things. If you pvped at all you'd know how strong Mesmers and assassins can be. Also the anytime you see a W/Mo on a team in PvP people automatically think "Hmm must be a noob pug. Time to roll another Noobway" Yet some of the top guilds use W/Mos and make them work efficiently, iQs CoP Warriors being a good example. Its pretty funny how you see all the people down skills that are great in PvE (Mending) in PvP till they see them used efficiently (WM Game #3 against Char).
Quoted for the truth.

However Assassins are regeted both in PvP and PvE
Guardian of the Light is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 01:39 AM // 01:39   #84
Ancient Windbreaker
 
quickmonty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepton CFd
/notsigned

Separate the PvP and PvE a little more, but you MUST at some point make PvE players do PvP. Some people may never actually play PvP, and miss out on something that they could truly enjoy. Don't make the really important PvP missions forced upon PvE players, make the lesser ones.
Why MUST you make PvE players play PvP? I think (though I may be wrong) that most PvE players have tried PvP at some point and have decided that they don't like it. Now you want to force them to do it?


Quote:
Wait for Chapter III to see what innovations that they will put in. Undoubtedly, they will learn what people want more off/less off after each chapter, so just give them time.
And how are they going to learn unless we have discussions on the fansites about what we would like to see?

You see, I don't really care if you agree with me or not. I just want to start a legitimate discussion so Anet has some idea of what we want to see in the future. Note: In the future! I'm not asking for drastic changes (just small adjustments) to a chapter that has already been released.
quickmonty is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 02:39 AM // 02:39   #85
Desert Nomad
 
Phades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by WasAGuest
You here even state that PvP and PvE when mixed exploit the system and the paragraph before it, "take the shortest route". Therefore, by removing the two as a whole, each side would have to earn it's own and play within itself. Which was my point all together.
You also oddly state I blamed PvP for something. I never did, I blamed PvEers that go AFK and Leech the game play to achieve their goals.
All that means is that there is room for improvement. Removing something never adds to a game. I also find that comment strange, because bringing up leeching now as a reason for seperating pvp and pve is amusing since the "afk" guy getting run through a mission or powerleveled is common pve behavior between many games. So, rather than go forward with a solution that actually does something about it, you would rather than amputate something that has nothing to do with it. Perhaps whenever someone has allergies or catches the flu we should amputate their head to fix the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WasAGuest
Here your understanding of what a "mini-game" is, shows a rather out of touch point of view. It seems you take "mini-game" as meaning PvP all together and are trying to defend something that needs no defending. PvP mini-games are refered to as Jade/Aspen and sometimes the Challenge missions (as people compete for points). They are not "true" PvP ala deathmatch/ctf/domination etc.
Considering the varience between the different objectives between pvp, you have no point. Every mission is a mini game then, poorly tied together with a weak attempt at a plot and arguably in a manner that doesnt make clear sense to any standpoint based from the position of attempting to suspend disbelief from either a game mechanics or pure intelectual standpoint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WasAGuest
Have I played other online games? lol - Umm, lets see. Started out of EQ beta, Then Asheron's Call, then back to EQ, then to AC2, then that mess of a PvPvE game Shadowbane, then EQ2, and now this.
Wow, unstructured pvp at its worst in some cases. Shadowbane would take the cake out of those you played and was a overal weak title to begin with, with less content than most of the others. Considering you have supposadly been on the bandwagon so long, i would have also expected UO among those as well. I also wouldn't have been surprised if you included lineage in the aforementioned titles. At some point you are going to have to recognize the difference between structured pvp settings and unstructured ones and the impact they have upon the game setting when there is conjecture regarding seperation between the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WasAGuest
Considering my first game I ever played was Pong, I've pretty much tried as many as I found interesting. One you mentioned was DOAC. That one looked like literal crap to me and the PvP turned me away as it looked dull and pitiful in contrast to the others that were out at the time.
Well gee, since it was attempting to compete with EQ, that comment doesnt come as much of a surprise. Your experience would have held more weight if you could have compared say lineage 2 versus DAOC, but since you played neither you dont really belong in the conversation really. Basing your entire opinion off of a couple games that did deliberatly seperate the pve and pvp community, solely due to the fact that the pvp was unstructured, doesn't give you much experience on the matter. This would be in addition to a few that didnt bother to seperate them at all. The real shock out of all of it was saying that ac and ac2 looked interesting but DAOC didn't, but whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WasAGuest
Now, instead of trying to discredit someone who's opinion you will never change (I'm too old and cranky), how about trying to add something semi-useful on why or why not the two should be seperated?
Actually i couldnt care that much about your opinion specifically, but i did care that you were actually attempting to put forward an effort without providing any valid reason as to why and how it would benefit people or the designer's time in doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WasAGuest
As I suggested, the only things that really need to be removed from each other is the linking or locking of content (quests, missions, or skills in PvP) being reliant on each other. Remove those bonds and many more people will be happy... or at least happier. Which is... the topic at hand. Not whether or not you agree with or disagree with me.
Actually you never even bothered to mention that in the first place. Only that the game would be better off because of people who exploit things. One of my first points was that they have always existed and in formats where there was no transferable gain between pve and pvp from the moment there were tangible rewards in a format where they did not need to coordinate with other people. To which you gave no rebuttal, only dissmissed it entirely.

Then you go on about how the quality of the game suffers, but failed to realize that the core of the game was based around the limited resources aspect that defines many pvp only games. One of these being commonly likened to guildwars is magic the gathering. So, what is next, allow people to hot swap in any skill or move attribute points at any time?

You continued to go on by talking about pve rewards and just ignored the fact that the rewards between the two arent exactly balanced to begin with and biased towards the pve side. You didnt even begin to scratch the surface with alliance battle issues, which would have been easily argued as a possible failure due to it being a central feature introduced with this chapter. Instead you just focus on rewards. This would be an example of tunnel vision at its finest. Then again, you arent genuinly interested in the pvp aspect anyway, so why would you care. Just make the game pve only and you will be happy right?

Beyond that was a baseless hypothesis that doesnt really hold much ground and didnt really support anything. Not that you really brought up actual game mechanics problems to support your ideas and valid solutions to fixing them. What only existed was broad dismissal of pvp entirely and to seperate it from pve. You did choose to bring up another dismissal argument again, but im not entirely sure as to why. Yet, you called my original post a flame. This is amusing in a sense, becuase i was trying to get you to actually bring up a point in the first place that held ground and could be discussed instead of the im right and all of you are wrong drivel that occur too commonly.

As far as making people happy, i believe the thread was about trying to stop fights between people who veiw themselves as a pve or a pvp player with content additions and how people could go about playing the game in their own way. The only major failing along these lines is the temple of the ages being linked to victories in the halls of hereos, which has been a point of contention for as long as i remeber, but largely dismissed by the "top end" pvp community as they were focused on GvG venues. This has nothing to do with factions specifically. Even when the faction line moves, it doesn't affect the pve content at all, so you really do not have a point beyond aknowledging people that exist who use script or bot programs to play the game for them. That would belong in a different thread perhaps.
Last edited by Phades; May 25, 2006 at 02:50 AM // 02:50..
Phades is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 02:44 AM // 02:44   #86
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Profession: W/E
Default
/Signed. Only because I am a pvp only, but I would be pissed off if I was forced into pveing in order to pvp. I can understand where you are coming from.
Teh Mighty Warrior is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 02:49 AM // 02:49   #87
Jungle Guide
 
Tuoba Hturt Eht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Guild: Deimos Tel Arin [CCTV]
Profession: W/
Default
/not signed
ANET's original intention with Guild Wars is to let players:
1. Finish the game using their RPG (PvE) characters
2. Use their RPG (PvE) characters to play PvP

My stand is that, ANET should continue to do their best to achieve this goal -
Unity of PvE and PvP.
Tuoba Hturt Eht is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 04:08 AM // 04:08   #88
Desert Nomad
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phades
cut for length
Meh, you still haven't added anything to the thread. I'll not respond to another of your posts untill it admits to being a flame and you understand that an opinion needs no factual basis to be an opinion. I would love to just see a /sign or /nto signed and a reason why from you. I still have no idea where you even stand on the issue.

You admit there are exploits between the two playstyles, which I feel unlinking the two would solve. Not saying do away with one or the other, but unlink them, or seperate the two. So I would guess you are for it. Then you contradict yourself while attempting to derail an "opinion" (a silly thing to waste time on). You even attempt the ever popular "Straw man" arguments to attempt to pull away from the topic (often done by those with no opinions on topics and just want to argue) by asking "my credentials" (how lame is that?. And lastly you claim I have no point, made no point, yet the very first post I made had several points. If you missed them, sorry for you.

/bored
WasAGuest is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 05:14 AM // 05:14   #89
Wilds Pathfinder
 
Sanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Profession: Mo/
Default
Real petitions rarely result in anything to begin with. Why do you think a grossly redundant thread full of back and forth diatribe is going to succeed where a normal Petition would fail?
Last edited by Sanji; May 25, 2006 at 05:16 AM // 05:16..
Sanji is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 05:21 AM // 05:21   #90
Jungle Guide
 
Isileth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Profession: R/W
Default
/notsigned

I agree on some points however. Dont force people to do what they dont want to however. For example getting 10k faction you can either repeat the supply runs over and over and over or pvp. What if you only want to pve? The two can work well together but it shouldn never be forced upon someone.
Isileth is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 01:01 PM // 13:01   #91
Ancient Windbreaker
 
quickmonty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanji
Real petitions rarely result in anything to begin with. Why do you think a grossly redundant thread full of back and forth diatribe is going to succeed where a normal Petition would fail?
Anet does pay attention to the fansite forums, and although they don't mention that changes are the result of petitions a lot of the changes made were, at one time, petitions on the fansite forums. If enough people say they want something, Anet will try to accomodate them.

As far as the "grossly redundant thread full of back and forth diatribe". Unfortunately many threads end up that way, usually due to two (sometimes more) people who obtain satisfaction from arguing back and forth. (Personally, it often becomes quite boring trying to read the very long posts that repeat the same thing over and over). Since the OP's have no way of moderating their own threads, this cannot be prevented.
quickmonty is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 01:17 PM // 13:17   #92
Wilds Pathfinder
 
Sanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Profession: Mo/
Default
The OP does have the choice not to join in it, though.
Sanji is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 01:21 PM // 13:21   #93
Ancient Windbreaker
 
quickmonty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanji
The OP does have the choice not to join in it, though.
That remark is difficult to respond to without joining in on the useless diatribe. Up to this point I have not been guilty of that, and if I did have the option to moderate my own thread your last post would definitely be deleted.

Now, would you like to offer something of use that is on topic?

Reply to Sanji's post below: We all make mistakes. Human nature. And thanks for adding your honest opinion
Last edited by quickmonty; May 25, 2006 at 01:45 PM // 13:45..
quickmonty is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 01:30 PM // 13:30   #94
Wilds Pathfinder
 
Sanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Profession: Mo/
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by quickmonty
That remark is difficult to respond to without joining in on the useless diatribe. Up to this point I have not been guilty of that, and if I did have the option to moderate my own thread your last post would definitely be deleted.
Actually, that was my fault for not paying attention, I was under the misconception that WasAGuest was the OP due to how vigorously he took charge of the thread. I apologize for posting without doublechecking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quickmonty
Now, would you like to offer something of use that is on topic?
There's not much to add. Guild Wars was intended to blend PvE and PvP, by trying to rip them apart you dilute the best part of this game. If you want a mostly PvP or PvE venue, there are plenty of games available that caters to these playstyles. No matter how rough and clusmy Anet's attempts to combine these two methods of play, I still appreciate it. If anything I think it would be best for Anet to further the intergration of PvE and PvP, but in a more thoughtful and less heavy handed way.

Forum scuffles are going to happen regardless. If not PvP vs. PvE, people will pick something else to bicker about. Your suggestion won't fix human nature but does break the foundation that this game was built upon.
Last edited by Sanji; May 25, 2006 at 01:45 PM // 13:45..
Sanji is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 01:40 PM // 13:40   #95
Lion's Arch Merchant
 
nimloth32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Guild: Celestial Order
Profession: W/Mo
Default
/notsigned
nimloth32 is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 01:54 PM // 13:54   #96
Desert Nomad
 
Stockholm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Censored
Guild: Censored
Profession: R/
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepton CFd
Separate the PvP and PvE a little more, but you MUST at some point make PvE players do PvP. .
No way Must you force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Some of us are adults, and have the right to choose what to do and not to do.
I have tried PvP, don't like it, will not do it.
Stockholm is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 02:13 PM // 14:13   #97
Desert Nomad
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the 7th level of HELL! J/K Somewhere in GW assassinating things
Guild: [acid]members of the KAWS alliance
Profession: A/
Default
/notsigned Like sanji(BTW love the avatar sanji^^) says Guild Wars was made to blend PvE and PvP and besides that fact PvE'ers can earn faction without PvPing Gyala Hatchery anyone? THere are also quests like scouting the coast, not just supply lines.. Guild Wars is not a linear game dont try and make ti that way.
Kijik0  
Old May 25, 2006, 02:19 PM // 14:19   #98
Academy Page
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Guild: HoA
Profession: W/
Default
can anybody explain to me how i can play 12vs12 battles? i only bought factions last week and some people are telling me the 12vs 12 battles are pve chars only.
MirageCloud is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 03:32 PM // 15:32   #99
Jungle Guide
 
Tuoba Hturt Eht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Guild: Deimos Tel Arin [CCTV]
Profession: W/
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanji
Guild Wars was intended to blend PvE and PvP, by trying to rip them apart you dilute the best part of this game. If you want a mostly PvP or PvE venue, there are plenty of games available that caters to these playstyles. No matter how rough and clusmy Anet's attempts to combine these two methods of play, I still appreciate it. If anything I think it would be best for Anet to further the intergration of PvE and PvP, but in a more thoughtful and less heavy handed way.
Quoted for truth. Once again,
/not signed to spilt PvE and PvP

/signed for ANET to continue to do their best to united the PvE-only community and the PvP-only community

Actually, I was wondering, how many people like both PvE and PvP?
Tuoba Hturt Eht is offline  
Old May 25, 2006, 03:49 PM // 15:49   #100
Krytan Explorer
 
Hunter Sharparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Guild: Jeepers Kreepers
Profession: R/Mo
Default
In prophecies alot of people complained about the favor system. All it did was create problems for those that play PvE. In factions problems were amplified now that the PvP and PvE are more closely tied together.

There are those that do PvP, those that do PvE and those that do both. A total seperation wouldn't do much good. What is needed is a connetion between them in such a way that all three player types are satisfied but just remove how one has an impact on the other; how one puts limits on the other.

So /signed to seperate the two but ony seperate their influence upon each other while leaving the inter-connectivity between them.
Last edited by Hunter Sharparrow; May 25, 2006 at 08:47 PM // 20:47..
Hunter Sharparrow is offline  
Closed Thread
Page 5 of 8 « First < 34 5 67 > Last »

Share This Forum!  
 
 
           

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:21 PM // 18:21.

Contact Us - Guild Wars Guru - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
jQuery(document).ready(checkAds()); function checkAds(){if (document.getElementById('adsense')!=undefined){document.write("_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Adblock', 'Unblocked', 'false',,true]);");}else{document.write("