Curse

CaptainGuru · Jul 06, 2005, 08:09 PM // 20:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iteicea Destroidium

This statement proves that you know nothing about PvP.

LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iteicea Destroidium

There is no "best" build or "best" individual.

I said "better", not best. You're basically saying the same thing I just said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iteicea Destroidium

It is all how you use the build or individuals you have! If you use the right skills, work together well, you have a good chance at winning.

It doesn't matter how skilled you are, a elementalist is not going to take out mesmer with shutdown spells and a warrior isn't going to kill a necromancer design to kill warriors. There is no skill involve whatsoever in this game. Fights are decides by your luck to not go up against a team that has a counter for your build.

Talesin Darkbriar · Jul 06, 2005, 09:18 PM // 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoDiamonds

Dear Arena Net:

I propose that some form of entirely fair PvP be added. By "fair", I mean that there is no possible in-game advantage to a player who has been playing longer. A player who has just purchased GuildWars should be on equal footing in this form of PvP to anyone else.

Why?
Those games already exist - they are called first person shooters. Even in those, it's whoever gets the favorite weapon first beats everybody down with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoDiamonds

But fair PvP doesn't exist in Guild Wars, yet, and it should.

I think a lot of people have a differing opinion of "fair." GW has been up front about their game being based on skill, not anything else. A person who is not as skilled as someone else is certainly going to think the game is "unfair" or "unbalanced."

Perhaps what is really needed is a "handicap" like in golf?

Talesin

Iteicea Destroidium · Jul 06, 2005, 09:35 PM // 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

It doesn't matter how skilled you are, a elementalist is not going to take out mesmer with shutdown spells and a warrior isn't going to kill a necromancer design to kill warriors.

That's why your team assists...so you can focus on taking down one target, PvP isn't one on one, so I'm not sure why your comparing once class against another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

There is no skill involve whatsoever in this game. Fights are decides by your luck to not go up against a team that has a counter for your build

Yes, somewhat. Though a good team can counter most of what is thrown at them. Granted some builds will beat another build 99% of the time. But, how often are you thrown up against a build that is a direct counter to your build?

JoDiamonds · Jul 07, 2005, 03:54 AM // 03:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar

Why?
Those games already exist - they are called first person shooters. Even in those, it's whoever gets the favorite weapon first beats everybody down with it.

My primary reason for wanting to add fair PvP to GuildWars is because it would be easy to add without taking anything away, and I think the game would be stronger for it. Also, because I think it would make a decent number of people quite happy (even though many people would not care). Lastly, because I want to play it because I think it would be fun, of course. ;-)

I think the comparison to first person shooters is largely irrelevant. Tons of fair games exist; I could bring up chess, coin flipping, or arm wrestling as reasonably as you mention FPS games. That is no reason why Guild Wars shouldn't include some form of extremely skill-based.

Quote:

I think a lot of people have a differing opinion of "fair." GW has been up front about their game being based on skill, not anything else. A person who is not as skilled as someone else is certainly going to think the game is "unfair" or "unbalanced."

Perhaps what is really needed is a "handicap" like in golf?

Talesin

- Certainly everyone has their own opinion of what fair is, and how far to one aspect the game should be. Some people will want more luck in favor of skill, or to sacrifice anything in the name of backstory or roleplaying, or even choices that merely make Arena Net a buck. All of these things are factors. I'd believe there's at least a sizable Guild Wars population that would enjoy a PvP venue which is on more equal footing. As always, note that I'm not asking them to change any existing venues in any way, just to add a more fair, more skill-based venue.

- I strongly object to the idea that anyone who isn't the best at the game will automatically assume the game is unfair or unbalanced. I think a lot of people are wiser than that. (Saying so is also a sly insult, which I don't really appreciate, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it if you aren't. My personal skill is far from what I care about here.) There are methodical ways to at least measure how skill base a competitive format is, vs. how luck based, vs. "grind" based. Mostly, I'm looking for a format which is unaffected by grind (but without changing any existing PvP formats, before everyone and their mother start yelling about a full unlock, which is not at all what I want). [/i]

- A handicap system for some parts of the game would be great, and relatively easy to implement (and with many choices for how to do so). Anything which makes a game a better battle between unequal players will make the game more fun; the lesser players can win sometimes, and the stronger players will still be challenged. I applaud this as a great idea. As a brief thought of ways to handicap (assuming you've figured out which teams are better through previous play): Add or remove attribute points (easy and with an excellent granularity), or skill slots (much harder and less useful), or even whole players.

That said, I'm still interested in trying an entire skill-based PvP venue, which I think would be relatively low cost for Arena Net to implement (at least some versions of it), and would greatly please a significant number of players (if not a majority).

I still like my initial idea of adding an arena (of any kind) that only template PvP characters can enter, because it seems so incredibly easy to implement (a small check for placing it on the map or not, and otherwise make it identical to Lion's Arch or Droknar's). I'm not saying it's the best or only idea, and I'm quite open to other thoughts (like handicapping).

Greentongue · Jul 07, 2005, 12:15 PM // 12:15

This could easily be done by increasing the available PvP templates and having an Arena type that is limited to ONLY using these (unaltered) characters.

Calimar · Jul 07, 2005, 12:39 PM // 12:39

Fair is not having all. Sure having all COULD be fairER than actual but I doubt it.

Rather: give a subset of skills to each character, the same for everyone. Give them the same weapon. Give them the same armor and the same health and energy. That's fair. Is it interesting? For some, probably. For me, just a couple times.

It removes strategy and leaves only tactics to it. It helps ME since I'm a far better tactician than I am a strategician, but unless it has a number of different points to balance, it gets boring fast. Just the same difference you have between chess and miniature strategy games.

We've got a game that any casual player - like me - can play and have good chances at. We've got a fine and interesting game. Asking for it to be fairer than it is, sounds pretty pointless to me.

What I'd like to ask the original poster is (and it is no rethorical question): why? what's wrong in having a) a selection of skills that favours strategy, and b) an unlocking mechanism that makes people interested in and encouraged to play more?

Thanks,
Calimar.

EDIT- I don't think Chess is boring, anyway.

drowningfish999 · Jul 07, 2005, 02:19 PM // 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

D&D didn't require skill, it required you to use your best
Rangers as I said are at a disadvantage because everything they can do, mesmers, necromancers and elementalists can do better.

I'd like to see a mesmer, necro, or ele cause bleeding, crippled, burning, knockdown, and blindness with 4 skills.

Quote:

Final Thrust requires the enemy to be at 49% and it only does 64. An elementalist can spike damage at any time and do up to 131 damage with Phoenix.

Final Thrust requires no energy or cast time for one thing, which means its almost impossible to disrupt. It also is used where a warrior usually is playing, near enemies. In order for Phoenix to do max damage, the ele would literally have to be right next to his target, which usually isn't a very good thing. It also has a long cast time, making it easily disruptable.

Quote:

And a good monk won't let them do that. Pacifism anyone?

Pacifism is never going to save a monk from any warrior. It's a hex so it can be easily removed, and it isn't gonna last long enough for a monk to make a clean getaway. And if there are 2-3 hammer warriors on you, using pacifism on one isn't gonna help much.

Quote:

It doesn't matter how skilled you are, a elementalist is not going to take out mesmer with shutdown spells and a warrior isn't going to kill a necromancer design to kill warriors. There is no skill involve whatsoever in this game. Fights are decides by your luck to not go up against a team that has a counter for your build.

Seeing as this isn't a 1v1 game, of course an ele normally wouldn't take out a mesmer. But say that ele is being supported by a ranger who's distracting the mesmer? Or say that warrior is being supported by a monk? It may not matter how skilled you are individually, but your team's skill is what will decide victory.

JoDiamonds · Jul 07, 2005, 02:34 PM // 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calimar

Fair is not having all. Sure having all COULD be fairER than actual but I doubt it.

I agree completely. That is my point.

Quote:

Rather: give a subset of skills to each character, the same for everyone. Give them the same weapon. Give them the same armor and the same health and energy. That's fair. Is it interesting? For some, probably. For me, just a couple times.

It removes strategy and leaves only tactics to it. It helps ME since I'm a far better tactician than I am a strategician, but unless it has a number of different points to balance, it gets boring fast. Just the same difference you have between chess and miniature strategy games.

Yes, the "subset of skills" is generally what I'm aiming at here. That's exactly what I've been trying to describe, if poorly.

Strategy is certainly reduced, but hardly removed. As long as you still have team building choices, there are strategies. You can still go in with an all-healer team, or all elementalist team, etc. Those are different strategies.

Even then, focusing on tactics is a fine thing. Note that I'm only asking that this be added to the existing game, not that it replace anything else. Then there would be a place to practice tactics.

Quote:

We've got a game that any casual player - like me - can play and have good chances at. We've got a fine and interesting game. Asking for it to be fairer than it is, sounds pretty pointless to me.

Why? Everything can be improved. Guild Wars is a wonderful game. That's why I care enough to want to make it better. Saying, "Hey, this is already good, don't touch anything", doesn't seem like the right attitude to me.

Quote:

What I'd like to ask the original poster is (and it is no rethorical question): why? what's wrong in having a) a selection of skills that favours strategy, and b) an unlocking mechanism that makes people interested in and encouraged to play more?

(a) I have no problem with a selection of skills that favors strategy. However, if we take that idea to an extreme, that's fully unlocking everything. I'm don't want that. And it's a big gray area, regardless. It's obviously stupid for everyone to have (for example) only one skill. But there's a big range between "one skill" and "all skills and runes and items". Templates are one route to this end.

(b) I like the unlocking mechanism in Guild Wars. I have no desire to change the current unlocking mechanism. If you see a place where I state that I want to change the unlocking mechanism, then someone else has cracked my account. ;) Seriously, many people keep debating with "the original poster" (i.e.: me) as if I've said I want fully unlocked PvP. I don't want fully unlocked PvP to replace the current PvP system. I don't actually care if a fully unlocked PvP system exists at all, really.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

CaptainGuru · Jul 07, 2005, 05:55 PM // 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowningfish999

I'd like to see a mesmer, necro, or ele cause bleeding, crippled, burning, knockdown, and blindness with 4 skills.

Dust Trap, Fire Trap and Spike Trap are only the 3 skills that can do it perfectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowningfish999

Seeing as this isn't a 1v1

It doesn’t matter if it’s isn’t a 1 on 1 game or not. The point was there is no skill in this game. The gameplay is based on rock, paper and scissors method. If you have a rock dominate party, a paper party is going to kill you.

I don't mean to insult, but it's stupid to say there is any skill in this game when you or your teammate already have the advantage over the person they are fighting. As you mention in post, the Ranger assisting the elementalist already has an advantage over spellcaster. So it wasn't skill or assist, having a class that counter another certain class was the big advantage right there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowningfish999

Pacifism is never going to save a monk from any warrior. It's a hex so it can be easily removed, and it isn't gonna last long enough for a monk to make a clean getaway. And if there are 2-3 hammer warriors on you, using pacifism on one isn't gonna help much.

Most warriors don't bring anti-hex to battlefield so that's big advantage for the monk. And before you note a mesmer or monk will break the hex, the mesmer have his hand full with the other teams monk and your own will have his hands full with the team you are against.

drowningfish999 · Jul 07, 2005, 06:14 PM // 18:14

Quote:

Dust Trap, Fire Trap and Spike Trap are only the 3 skills that can do it perfectly.

You need barbed for the bleeding, which makes it 4.

Quote:

It doesn’t matter if it’s isn’t a 1 on 1 game or not. The point was there is no skill in this game. The gameplay is based on rock, paper and scissors method. If you have a rock dominate party, a paper party is going to kill you.

So what if there are two rock dominate parties? Two teams with almost the same build. The team with the most skill is going to win. Yes every build has it's strengths and weakness, but a good team can find a way to counter the weakness and still stand a chance against a team that has the class advantage.

Quote:

Most warriors don't bring anti-hex to battlefield so that's big advantage for the monk. And before you note a mesmer or monk will break the hex, the mesmer have his hand full with the other teams monk and your own will have his hands full with the team you are against.

Pacifism:
For 8-18 seconds, target foe cannot attack. This effect ends if the target takes damage.

You would have to cast this on a warrior not taking any damage at all, as well as make sure your team doesn't attack him. A warrior not taking any damage is bad enough, and it's so easy to just run around until you take a hit, especially from AoE spells. If a monk is relying on an enemy warrior to not take damage for the monk's personal survival, who's team is he really helping?

CaptainGuru · Jul 07, 2005, 07:00 PM // 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowningfish999

You would have to cast this on a warrior not taking any damage at all,

No contest. Warriors are the last to be fought. Everyone on the opposing team will be on the other side of the battleground, focusing on your monk, not the warrior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowningfish999

So what if there are two rock dominate parties? Two teams with almost the same build. The team with the most skill is going to win.

As much as you click your heels, no, there is no skill involves. If you have the same primaries picked, the fight will be decided by your secondary. If the classes have the same secondary, the fight will be decided by what skills were bought.

A R/Me who use conjure phantasm is probably going to lose to a R/Me with shatter hex. And if you want to be a pain in the ass and say what happens if they have the same skills, which is highly unlike, then it’ll be a LLLLLOOONNNG fight and the fight will be decide on who makes a mistake first.

And no personal skill involve, why do you think a premade builds have been HoH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowningfish999

You need barbed for the bleeding, which makes it 4.

I don't care and that has nothing to with skill. Most of what you mention is only useful against warriors who aren't all that useful in the first place.

Iteicea Destroidium · Jul 07, 2005, 09:39 PM // 21:39

OMG! Captain Guru, your a bitter person. I'm guessing some team wiped the floor with your team in about 30 seconds in HoH and ever since you have decided the world is out to get you. Well, I've got news for you, PvP is fair, and by saying that it is unfair you are trying to validate your complete lack of ability.

CaptainGuru · Jul 07, 2005, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iteicea Destroidium

OMG! Captain Guru, your a bitter person. I'm guessing some team wiped the floor with your team in about 30 seconds in HoH and ever since you have decided the world is out to get you. Well, I've got news for you, PvP is fair, and by saying that it is unfair you are trying to validate your complete lack of ability.

I've had winning streak in HoH, which pretty much throws your "I can't play" arguement out the window buddy. In fact, your argue sounds a lot like those lame Rangers defenders who come up with logics that people who say Rangers such are people who aren't good with them. I'm good with Rangers and say they suck because I've played other class and compare the Rangers to the other classes.

And no pvp isn't fair due imbalance issue with classes. Again, as much as you want to prove I'm wrong, the result speak for themselves at the many numbers of Rangers and Necromancers left out of team in PvE and PvP.

drowningfish999 · Jul 07, 2005, 11:13 PM // 23:13

Rangers and Necros are left out because they aren't flashy, and there roles are understood. When someone says warrior, what do you think? Big, strong, hulk smash door kinda guy. Monk goes along with healer, cleric, medic w/e. Elementalists are like wizards, mages, etc. and have all those big flashy spells, that do big damage and explode and all that. Most of the other classes don't have predefined roles, since they are usually different in every game.

Also, you say rangers suck, yet you don't give any reason except "I'm good with Rangers and say they suck because I've played other classes and compare the Rangers to the other classes." Comparing classes is absolutely the worst reason to say a class is bad. Just like you said, every class has an advantage over another, so there is no way comparing them is in any form fair.

Mayar third Keeper · Jul 07, 2005, 11:13 PM // 23:13

< dont feed the trolls >

Iteicea Destroidium · Jul 08, 2005, 12:20 AM // 00:20

Also, you can't say ranger is worse because you've played other classes and they were better. Almost everyone has a class that they are just better at. So maybe your good with a ranger, but not as good as someone who has the natural ability to play that class right.

CaptainGuru · Jul 08, 2005, 12:31 AM // 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayar third Keeper

< dont feed the trolls >

Words of wisdom.

Arctic Strike · Jul 09, 2005, 04:37 AM // 04:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusch Vokirk

Ok... moron...
The whole purpose of skill based games comes from very old games. Take D&D, the mother of all RPG's. Same idea, smaller extent. The idea, is that a player learns his own strategies, concocts his own schemes, and uses them together strategically. That makes a good player. If you think you should be able to have all the hoohah from the get-go, you don't belong here. MMORPG's are made the way they are for a reason. And I agree with Iteicea, if you want everything to be player skill based, go pick up a twitch game, and leave us to our evil skill improving ways. If that doesn't work, try playing the game, you may actually learn to play your build and not get killed.

Right on.

Everyone should go throught the game once, you'll get some much needed battle experience so that they can last more than 5 seconds in the arenas. And since the faction points came out, no one has a right to whine. You have to play the game to get good at it. Arena Net doesn't give handouts. Yes, it is that simple but I am amazed that people aren't getting it.

CaptainGuru · Jul 09, 2005, 05:04 AM // 05:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arctic Strike

Right on.

Everyone should go throught the game once, you'll get some much needed battle experience so that they can last more than 5 seconds in the arenas. And since the faction points came out, no one has a right to whine. You have to play the game to get good at it. Arena Net doesn't give handouts. Yes, it is that simple but I am amazed that people aren't getting it.

There they are many people in pvp now who went through pve and they normally the first ones to be beaten.

UsagiNoSenshi · Jul 09, 2005, 05:19 AM // 05:19

"We've got a game that any casual player - like me - can play and have good chances at. We've got a fine and interesting game. Asking for it to be fairer than it is, sounds pretty pointless to me."

yeah i agree... i don't see what's so darn unfair here? Maybe i'm missing something? Maybe i'm just not hard core enough? I like the pvp system i mean it's not like only the people who farmed for a billion hours to get the mega ultra weapons and armor win. ::shrug:: i think it's fine the way it is...