Curse

erk · Dec 20, 2007, 11:49 PM // 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

This is such a load. It tires me when people say the PvP community killed PvP. Let me put it this way: if PvP had better rewards for play than PvE did (similar to WoW model), than the entire Guild Wars population would move to PvP regardless. Blizzard > Anet at figuring out this fact and implementing it properly.

This has a lot truth to it,The integration of PvE style rewards certainly has not gone unnoticed.

The introduction of the Zaishen Key reward for Balth points has rekindled AB and and other easy PvP activities within the PvE portion of the guilds I play in.

I know many PvP only purists might say who cares, but the reality is that most PvP'ers do understand PvE rewards and what a good item drop is etc. I think PvP rewards that are understood by more GW players are a great thing, lets have some more!

Riotgear · Dec 21, 2007, 01:25 AM // 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Made In Ascalon

Arms warriors dominate every form of arena, really, because healing is MASSIVELY overpowered and they are the only choice.

Then add a 50% global healing reduction in PvP and nerf that shit. There is no reason for one class that makes everything everybody else does to their team twice as effective with one stupidly-easy-to-use skill.

Quote:

The Hunter MS buff is laughable along with every other buff except for the arcane shot buff, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the minimum distance buff

I like how the solution to Warlock+Druid dominating 2v2 was to give Arms warriors another buff.

Quote:

You are right about the healing but that is because its a dps game not a spike game like GW. If GW was a dps game you'd see more of the healing debuffs.

It's a "DPS game" because the only way of dealing with damage is by reactive repair. It's the worst model of healing you can get, one that relies on relentless spam, and is made even more stupid by the fact that pain-training the target with the MS debuff is the only way to get anything done. The dispel system is just as bad.

twicky_kid · Dec 21, 2007, 02:32 AM // 02:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotgear

It's a "DPS game" because the only way of dealing with damage is by reactive repair. It's the worst model of healing you can get, one that relies on relentless spam, and is made even more stupid by the fact that pain-training the target with the MS debuff is the only way to get anything done. The dispel system is just as bad.

Its simple matter of opinion. Some people like that system. Some people hate it. Just as some people hate the spike system of GW.

I didn't mean for this to get this off topic.

While Anet is failing other games are rising up and fixing their problems. Many of the problems being solved in those can be seen as "borrowed" from GW. GW had the midas touch at one point but they squandered that. The business model being the underlined problem to just about everything.

MMO's entire survival rest on maintaining the game (yes it is a MMO, many people play, its massive, and its online). GW's business model doesn't allow that without pushing out new products for you to buy. In turn this introduces power creep otherwise there would be no incentive to buy the new product. Also on the flip side if the new product does not do well it will constrain their budget even more. Each new chapter sold less than the previous. That means Anet's budget got smaller while the game needed even more tweaks than before. Its only a matter of time before they start over from scratch to wipe the slate clean so more people will buy the new product. After looking at both business models I decided to go with a subscription. I can still decide when I want to play but I always know the company will have the budget it needs to maintain the game while also being able to take some risk.

GW was a success in its own right. It tried something no one else has ever attempted. In the beginning they did take a lot of risk. I've stated this in other post and I truly do believe that GW was an experiment to see what works and what doesn't. Hopefully they can translate what they learned into GW2. In the end I'm afraid that the game will simply be restricted based on its budget. GW has to sell copies to keep its self going so you can always bet that's what they will do even if the customer base doesn't like it. Where as a subscription has to appease its customers otherwise they will not renew their subscriptions and the game will fail. GW only has to put out the hype and get people to buy. What happens after that is of little consequence to them they already have your money. Personally I don't like that. It takes the power away from the customer.

At this point its the best time to fix the game as nothing new will be introduced but instead they are putting their resources into GW2.

I'm sorry but its a lost cause imo.

Ensign · Dec 21, 2007, 03:21 AM // 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by twicky_kid

Its simple matter of opinion.

Some people like to play Chess or Go. Others like to play Checkers or Tic-Tac-Toe. It's simply a matter of opinion.

Riotgear · Dec 21, 2007, 03:29 AM // 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Some people like to play Chess or Go. Others like to play Checkers or Tic-Tac-Toe. It's simply a matter of opinion.

Whether the gameplay modes are superior or not is indeed up for debate, but games normally need a good degree of strategic depth to be played competitively. WoW sidesteps that requirement simply by being huge. That's basically my point.

erk · Dec 21, 2007, 05:50 AM // 05:50

I don't think either the pay per chapter or the subscription only business models are any good in isolation. The subscription model lets companies be slack as they have a know source of revenue, so they do as little as they can get away with. The pay per chapter model encourages companies to orphan products forcing you to upgrade, that's pisses people off and they leave the game.

The optimal solution is somewhere between the two.

By that I mean you should be able to buy a basic version of the game and play it without any ongoing fees, but if you want better features such as access to some more sophisticated forms of PvP, you opt for a subscription. Not one of those stoopid auto deduction things but one where you go to the online shop and buy 6-12months in advance.

DarkNecrid · Dec 21, 2007, 05:53 AM // 05:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

I don't think either the pay per chapter or the subscription only business models are any good in isolation. The subscription model lets companies be slack as they have a know source of revenue, so they do as little as they can get away with. The pay per chapter model encourages companies to orphan products forcing you to upgrade, that's pisses people off and they leave the game.

The optimal solution is somewhere between the two.

By that I mean you should be able to buy a basic version of the game and play it without any ongoing fees, but if you want better features such as access to some more sophisticated forms of PvP, you opt for a subscription. Not one of those stoopid auto deduction things but one where you go to the online shop and buy 6-12months in advance.

Hellgate London does this,

and it is god awful.

(i dont just mean the game either)

red orc · Dec 21, 2007, 07:18 AM // 07:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

I don't think either the pay per chapter or the subscription only business models are any good in isolation. The subscription model lets companies be slack as they have a know source of revenue, so they do as little as they can get away with. The pay per chapter model encourages companies to orphan products forcing you to upgrade, that's pisses people off and they leave the game.

The optimal solution is somewhere between the two.

By that I mean you should be able to buy a basic version of the game and play it without any ongoing fees, but if you want better features such as access to some more sophisticated forms of PvP, you opt for a subscription. Not one of those stoopid auto deduction things but one where you go to the online shop and buy 6-12months in advance.

Fury went that way and it was terrible. The game and the company got bust while the player were pissed.
If you take this road, you make the game a momey sink. The problem is that people are not stupid, they recognize when they are blackmailed and they dont like it. Soon all the players will leave you.

erk · Dec 21, 2007, 07:52 AM // 07:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by red orc

Fury went that way and it was terrible. The game and the company got bust while the player were pissed.
If you take this road, you make the game a momey sink. The problem is that people are not stupid, they recognize when they are blackmailed and they dont like it. Soon all the players will leave you.

I don't think that had anything to do with Fury's problems which game/update/bug/review related, the complex PvP team play like Vortex never hit the critical mass of players it needed.

You introduce the value added subscribable add ons after the chapters are successful not at the same time, and use part of that that revenue stream to fuel extra content development! There are countless organizations in all sorts of industries that do this sort of thing. If there is changing content that is perceived as good value people will pay for it.

The problem in GW PvP there is little changing content yet the took our money, the perceived value is dropping off, and the same dev team with the same style and marketing direction is crafting the GW2 content, possibly with a plan to orphan the original GW.

Like twicky_kid pointed out there are problems with the business/marketing model that have an impact on all area including PvP. They are quite fixable but it has to come from top down fueled by the communinty voice.

TheOneMephisto · Dec 21, 2007, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

The problem in GW PvP there is little changing content yet the took our money, the perceived value is dropping off, and the same dev team with the same style and marketing direction is crafting the GW2 content, possibly with a plan to orphan the original GW.

So instead of having little changing content and they took are money, we get little changing content and they took and continue taking our money?

Trying to make something where people have to continue paying to play is pretty much doomed to failure. Look at Starcraft or really, any other competitive game. The game stays the exact same, it's a one-time payment, yet they're ridiculously successful competitively.

wuzzman · Dec 21, 2007, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

So instead of having little changing content and they took are money, we get little changing content and they took and continue taking our money?

Trying to make something where people have to continue paying to play is pretty much doomed to failure. Look at Starcraft or really, any other competitive game. The game stays the exact same, it's a one-time payment, yet they're ridiculously successful competitively.

Starcraft is a single player game. You can be as good as you want or as shitty as you want but that doesn't stop you from entering a match. There would be always starcraft players because there is nothing stopping them from playing the game. Guild Wars pvp, right up to the point where you can call it pvp, GVG,HA,TA, is not a single player game. You need to form groups with other people, thus other people control whether or not you play, and in order to play with them you have to prove your worth one way or another. You can't say "if guild wars stuck with Prophecies the game would have been ok", the fact of the matter is half those unhappy puggers stuck around because new shiny shit was added.

You can't just jimmy a ladder system and so "wa-la functioning pvp game". The casual player base will pick up and leave and avoid pvp like the plague eventually. RA and AB will always have players because it is literally more casual friendly then GVG,TA, or HA will ever be in its current direction.

erk · Dec 22, 2007, 04:52 AM // 04:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

So instead of having little changing content and they took are money, we get little changing content and they took and continue taking our money?.

Of course not, why would anyone purchase a subscription based add on if there was no changing content? Or if you were silly enough,do you thing they would renew once word got out?

wuzzman · Dec 22, 2007, 05:02 AM // 05:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

Of course not, why would anyone purchase a subscription based add on if there was no changing content? Or if you were silly enough,do you thing they would renew once word got out?

you do know that people play WoW right

erk · Dec 22, 2007, 05:22 AM // 05:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

you do know that people play WoW right

Nah, I had one look at WoW cloy graphics on that famous Southpark episode, which apparently increased WoW subscriptions a lot, and said no thanks, though I believe there are some 9million players that do play WoW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MMORPGs

Gigashadow · Dec 22, 2007, 06:48 AM // 06:48

One thing I'd like to know is, is this what we are stuck with until Guild Wars 2? Is the entire game going to remain basically stagnant in its current state (barring new hats and other random pve stuff) for 1.5 more years? How can you expect the game to survive until mid 2009 with absolutely no changes of substance?

Or is Guild Wars 2 in fact much closer to release than people had originally thought, due to GW1 expansions being shelved.

erk · Dec 22, 2007, 09:37 AM // 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigashadow

One thing I'd like to know is, is this what we are stuck with until Guild Wars 2? Is the entire game going to remain basically stagnant in its current state (barring new hats and other random pve stuff) for 1.5 more years? How can you expect the game to survive until mid 2009 with absolutely no changes of substance?

Or is Guild Wars 2 in fact much closer to release than people had originally thought, due to GW1 expansions being shelved.

Ah that's th big question isn't it, without knowledge of the GW2 dates then players can't make informed decisions. If A.net keep improving GW then most won't mind, but if it goes stale then they will loose their sales momentum. Their business model can't cope with long gaps in between releasing new content.

ensoriki · Dec 22, 2007, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Perhaps they are just coasting, they may have enough extra money that they do not need to put out a campaign and they can afford to um "abandon" gw1.

Jaen · Dec 23, 2007, 07:22 AM // 07:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Some people like to play Chess or Go. Others like to play Checkers or Tic-Tac-Toe. It's simply a matter of opinion.

I applaud your wit. This wins the thread.

But on a slightly more appropriate note, I have to ask, does any other MMO out there have such an indepth design for keeping people alive? In my experience, it's mostly been "make red bars go up." Is GW the only MMO to have something like pre-protting?

I think one mistake a lot of people are making here is that they think Anet needs to keep people interested in GW1 until GW2 hits the shelves.

In an interview with Jeff Strain (I think) a long long time ago, he stated that, "The great thing about our game is that you can get bored and put it on the shelf for a few months. Then a few months later, when something new happens, you can come back."

Really, I think that's the attitude they are taking with GW2. They'll maintain GW1 but if people leave thats fine, they don't care. When GW2 launches, they'll have a new marketing campaign, a brand new hype engine and people will remember, "oh hey I used to play GW1" etc. etc.

For better or worse, I think that's the philosophy ANET is adopting so I'd be suprised to see anything new for GW on a larger scale than something like the holiday events.

red orc · Dec 23, 2007, 09:19 AM // 09:19

I'd love to put GW aside for some time, but where can I find a decent, non grind PVP system ?
There are tons of new RPG games coming, but I cann't find one that offers that.

p.s. I dont like tick-tack-tow.

wuzzman · Dec 23, 2007, 05:27 PM // 17:27

considering that players outside of pve has been asking for stagnation for a long, long, long time now, I think Anet will not bother with pvp until January 2008 and then they will leave it alone after that. You can add the shiny toys or no toys to pve and still have players as long as the farming is good. Where attempting to add even a new map can get you accused of destroying the game...

Anet probably realizing that the money really is in the pve market(this is really sad really), and to save themselves some time and wasted resources will probably keep the "farming good" so that they don't have to roll out new content or change anything in game (IE skill balances). Anet already knows that the pve players will move on to guild wars 2. In fact I don't think they are bothering to factor pvp players coming back. Games like Warhammer, Fury, and other shit will draw that player base at first when GW2 comes out until they get tired of that those games and buy GW2 anyway.