Curse

Essence Snow · Jan 28, 2011, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

Are you also ashamed because political campaigns don't hire hobos as consultants?

Neither here nor there......the TK would be the equivelent of consultants not the voters. Hobos do have the right to vote, but would be unlikely to become politicians.

Notice the only places in which the poll was announced. I might be wrong, but I do not recall it being annouced to the mass GW population. So in large the only players that new about the poll where such as to visit PvP sections, hence limiting the exposure to the "hobos" as you so lovingly referred the mass GW popluation to.

Gift3d · Jan 29, 2011, 04:47 AM // 04:47

this would be a good idea if you guys were to take it upon yourselves to, ya know, fix pvp instead of consistently making it exponentially worse with each "balance" update.

but right now the game's imbalanced, and as a result of that: more dead than ever. the PvP seen is now a joke. half of the pvp players disappeared off this game because they noticed the garbage updates that were being implemented, and with each consecutive one saw it wasn't going to end.

unfortunately, a simple reset won't do any good when the underlying problems in guild wars will undoubtedly remain.

Karate Jesus · Jan 29, 2011, 04:57 AM // 04:57

Ok, two things:

Too little, too late. A regular ladder reset at this point is asinine, and it's ridiculous that there's a feigned interest in the PvP community at the end of this game's life.
Why in the world didn't you post this on TeamQuitter? Luckily, Jake (ErrantVenture) posted there to tell them to give their opinions. Regina, you're the community manager and should know your community well enough to post this on TQ as well as here. It's just another drop of incompetence in the proverbial bucket of bullshit that your job has come to represent (as far as GW1 is concerned). You have done nothing but isolate the GW1 community from the GW2 one and hurt your company's name.

Before I get shitstormed, I want to apologize for the tone of this post, but damn people.....just.....damn.

What Now · Jan 31, 2011, 05:28 AM // 05:28

Personally after working there, it would be a shameful loss.

Worse off is the loss of any worth of the title associated. Anyone who has become a casual player or stopped playing years ago has come back to "Lawl syncer" whether you vouch for playing with them or not.

In that sense to stop the syncing guilds..the price of a week or so to get back to Crange would be well worth it.

But if you can't care to even stop the syncing, why would you care to reset the ladder?

Fulgenzio · Feb 07, 2011, 11:24 AM // 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by tealspikes

Nothing since it's less time and resources expended, and avoiding unforseen problems that the something could create. On the other side of the coin, you could aurgue that it can't get much worse than it is now.

I think that was my point saying that if they don't reset, they'll do nothing

However I don't get your point lemming on why players shouldn't be asked for games changes ? I bet some people here know more about GvG than the dev team does, due to the fact they probably never played the game as much as some guys posting their opinions here.
Indeed, I'd prefer to have someone who actually knows something about the game mode and how it is doing nowadays to make the changes.

P.S : And I know you are going to tell me that some players would change things into over unbalanced meta, but I think the others would stop them.

P.P.S : Forgive my poor English, its is not my native language

infi · Feb 07, 2011, 03:36 PM // 15:36

well well well

I just want to point most of forum posters dont give a shit about balance and game mechanics. Even if they do most of the time they just try to influence to Anet because they want this game be played as they want.

i'll give you an example. Year ago Mitch tried to turn this game into ping-reaction-eurohonor-everlasting-metagame by constantly bitching on balance forum. I wont talk is it good or bad but its a common fact.

Personaly, I don't want this game be balanced by players because 99% of them are bad at making builds. And if they cant make a good build how are they going to balance the whole game? There are 10 (maybe 15) players who actualy can balance and they are mostly oldschool americans.

In other side this is just my option and cant be count as a standard. So my point can also be invalid.

I rarely cant understand bitching about nerf stuff in GvG. Look at metagame. What has Anet done to GvG? They builded up the whole GvG around one freaking build (hello triple melee). Ok, fine some gimmicks are here, no doubts, but why did they make it when GvG player base is too stale to make something new and fresh?

Some posters can argue with me that people have left b/c of poor balance. It isnt a real truth. This game is 5 years old and there are no big PvP competitions since last [rawr] cup. No real challenge leads to boredom and dullness. As my old guild-buddie Yush said "Guild Wars is boring". That is completely true after some years of nothing and balance hardly have had something with it.

I dont want to be wordless so i'll put few examples. There was fc air spike, [iQ]'s 4 wars and meteor shower plus gos on ele, thumpers plus hexes build, r spike, necro rider's builds at golden age of gw. But who cares? There was a reason to play for win but nowadays there is no reason to play guild wars serious and people left.

Fulgenzio · Feb 07, 2011, 05:32 PM // 17:32

What really saddens me is that I must agree you last 2 paragraphs, the game is dead and no matter what we ask, it's not gonna give it a second life.
BUT, for what there's left, i'd appreciate changes, just to avoid being so bored while waiting for GW2 so that the urge to get it is gone.

Even if it requires to ask for players advices.

*lemming* · Feb 07, 2011, 07:08 PM // 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fulgenzio

However I don't get your point lemming on why players shouldn't be asked for games changes ? I bet some people here know more about GvG than the dev team does, due to the fact they probably never played the game as much as some guys posting their opinions here.
Indeed, I'd prefer to have someone who actually knows something about the game mode and how it is doing nowadays to make the changes.

I have no problem with player opinion being solicited as part of the decision-making process - as long as it's from people who actually know how things work, which rules out just about everyone who doesn't GvG in addition to most people who do GvG.

As "elitist" as it may sound, most people in the general public are clueless.

Master Fuhon · Feb 07, 2011, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Democracy is flawed, although participants of democracy will not admit it at the risk of giving in to an even more flawed monarchy/dictatorship. The underlying philosophy of a thing like democracy is: "If you suppress the self-interest of individuals, you will come out with an outcome that is near the worst for the society as a whole". I think too many people misinterpret this philosophy as saying "When people are acting in self-interest, the outcome will be what is best for society". It's not as much a pro 'self-interest' stance as it is an anti 'individual suppression' stance. Overly self-interested motivaton can destroy something faster than the status quo allows it to deteriorate on it's own. Each individual situation will determine whether the current 'definition of order' is better than the current 'definition of disorder' that people go by.

Pure democracy is a government system that looks most appealing to people who were on the wrong end of a dictatorship. But over the course of time, purely democratic societies will screw things up so bad that they inevitably move towards a modified system in between democracy and monarchy. This takes hundreds of years in real life (or thousands of years for cultures with poor infrastructure); a game is lucky to last a decade. In many cases, you can simply upgrade from a poorly run monarchy by having the king use advisors instead of trying to make all decisions independently like a dictator would. Unfortunately, most kings and governments would rather bask in luxory and fame than go through the stress of fixing a country. It takes self-discipline and humility to prevent this from happening. This is why, when you take away voting power from the people and make them reliant on an elite class, nothing gets done to help ordinary people.

Pure democracy can be worse than a monarchy in extreme cases. Some people stay completely ignorant about the things they are voting for: some don't care about learning, some are completely stupid, and others don't have access to the resources that help people figure things out. Among the people who actually vote, some of them use that vote to settle old scores with enemies or antagonize outnumbered or neutral parties. Others try to funnel resources into things that only benefit them, regardless of whether they are currently the beneficiaries of the most entitlements in the first place. Democracies also go with the highest vote total; in some cases this may be below 50% and in the 35-40% range, so you will be doing things that a majority of people reject anyway.

However, there are two other reasons why pure democracy will also fail. The standard for democracy is to elect based on 'current population'. Guild Wars has a split population governed by different rules. Places ruled by democracy also have future populations. Imagine including the people of China and India in a vote on things that mainly affect France. While some of the people of China and India may visit Paris once a year, they can vote to impose regulation that they don't have to follow. They can vote to completely starve France to try to increase their own decadence; although with a larger population, socializing/globalizing the resources of France might not really spread 'wealth' into China and India (i.e. turning the Eiffel Tower into scrap metal). There's also another problem with how 'immediatizing' wealth with existing resources, might not result in a greater wealth accumulation by a country in the future (i.e. if Egypt chose to sell off ancient artifacts to put cash in the pockets of rioters to make them happy). Democracies can choose to bankrupt the future by providing for the here and now, because future generations cannot be represented in vote counts.

Human nature is that some people will heed vague lessons, and others will never change regardless of already having the best lessons provided to them. True freedom, after all, is the right to approve of your own destruction; which in many cases, infringes on the rights of others to choose not to be destroyed. Consequences are the major way people who haven't grown up learn important things. Too many people sit on the brink of anhilation saying "Someone should have stopped me from doing something that had consequences I wasn't aware of". But trying to rescue drowning people has consequences of it's own.

galactic · Feb 08, 2011, 02:37 AM // 02:37

Democracy doesn't work if its participants are baddies.

Fate Crusher · Feb 08, 2011, 03:21 AM // 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

You speak more passionately about Guild wars politics more than Rurik speaks out of his behind in Prophecies. Love you for it though. <3

How odd that sometimes I felt like you were explaining the evolution of socialism into communism. After all, the extreme left and the extreme right aren't that different if the spectrum is as a horseshoe.
You're basically asking (as Marx put it) for people to evolve and think in a different way than they already are. In terms of communism, people were expected to eventually evolve into beings that fore-mostly put others needs first and then their own. As much as how pure democracy demands that all parties, despite having different views, are expected to understand and sympathize with all views, in order to bring about the correct direction. But this never happens because as human beings were engage in credibility issues and reasons as to why such actions/views are not credible (CRAVEN, for those critical thinking lot). Which leaves us to the point that both ideologies are purely theoretical and we just live in a mad mad world.

So on that note. No, don't reset the ladder. If you wanted to shake up the PvP scene and generate interest, it's too late now. If it was motivation players wanted, climbing up a stagnant ladder and making top 100 is probably better than mixing it up with randoms and not learning from there. Yes manipulation and smurf guilds aside, daily tournaments take too long and for newcomers, you wouldn't want to try your luck against the higher ranks.
I mean, it was nice to know that Anet wanted our input on the matter, and it was because of the rumours of a reset during New Years, but i'd like to hear why the Live Team actually thought this was a good idea.

*lemming* · Feb 08, 2011, 03:32 AM // 03:32

Enough metaphysics for one thread, people.

Missing HB · Feb 09, 2011, 09:25 AM // 09:25

So , poll is over for about 3 weeks now... Why can't we know the results? Is something going to be done or this idea will be forgotten once again ??

Jeydra · Feb 09, 2011, 12:29 PM // 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

I have no problem with player opinion being solicited as part of the decision-making process - as long as it's from people who actually know how things work, which rules out just about everyone who doesn't GvG in addition to most people who do GvG.

As "elitist" as it may sound, most people in the general public are clueless.

Elitist it may be, but I agree.

I'm not qualified to judge GvG balance either ...

-V- · Feb 10, 2011, 07:36 AM // 07:36

I disagree with all these cry babies that are trying to "protect" their alternate champ point farming guilds. The ladder is just a mess of inactive junk. It's a false ladder and a joke because of inactive guilds that forever keep their rating.

Just reset the ladder now and add rating loss, then later change the acquisition of rating and champ points to suit the current population.

Stop trying to defend a broken system so you can farm the ladder in its current state. I'm expecting Anet already realises what some of you guys are trying to do with your self interest posts.

Pride King R A

*lemming* · Feb 10, 2011, 08:41 AM // 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by -V-

I disagree with all these cry babies that are trying to "protect" their alternate champ point farming guilds. The ladder is just a mess of inactive junk. It's a false ladder and a joke because of inactive guilds that forever keep their rating.

Just reset the ladder now and add rating loss, then later change the acquisition of rating and champ points to suit the current population.

Stop trying to defend a broken system so you can farm the ladder in its current state. I'm expecting Anet already realises what some of you guys are trying to do with your self interest posts.

Pride King R A

Is there actually anyone you'd like to accuse of this, or are you just blowing smoke?

saume · Feb 22, 2011, 12:42 AM // 00:42

if anything the ladder shoudl be frozen and only gain/lose rating from AT matches, this way we get more matches cos ppl rnt worrid about their rating

itsha123 · Feb 22, 2011, 03:57 AM // 03:57

/signed with saume

The only thing is that it would be huge champ point farming if the ladder was frozen.
~Eatable

deluxe · Feb 22, 2011, 11:01 AM // 11:01

Ladder is filled with inactive guilds that play once a few months to keep it on the ladder, reset it.
People selling champion range guilds should be taken care of too.

There really is nothing more to it.

Terrible Surgeon · Mar 08, 2011, 06:49 AM // 06:49

i bet they use my idea bc it actually makes sense.