Curse

Yawgmoth · Aug 31, 2009, 04:16 AM // 04:16

No chance for any PvE missions, really, who would work on them? The people who would do that are doing GW2 now.

I'm just not sure if adding more festival content is a good thing when they last just a few days. I'd rather see them work on more permanent things. Like more Sealed Deck awesomeness, or adding Vanq ZQuests for PvE.

Fox Reeveheart · Aug 31, 2009, 06:10 AM // 06:10

ok this bothers me, i made a post and now it's gone. I know it was made because I edited it twice to make addendums and made sure they were there

and yes they were for this thread. But now my post isn't even there anymore O_o

are mods allowed to just delete whole posts without reason? I didn't curse or insult anyone. I mostly said this update is lame X3 Fail update is fail!

give us something to really sink our teeth into, like a new elite area along the lines of FoW/UW... but with skills that go through shadow form and take away enchantments (for you farming monks and rits!)

And who wants MORE festival content? you can only access it a few days... the stuff we have is fine... just change the hats, change whatever animal year it is for cantha festival for celestial mini, and everyone will be happy.

Wild Rituals · Aug 31, 2009, 06:19 AM // 06:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talania Vulcanclaw

Pretty sure the novelty of the PvErs excited about Sealed Deck is gonna wear off once they realise they will still get beaten, even more so infact than HB or TA since no chance to lame the opposition.

I agree with this. it seems to me that alot of Pve people are excited at a new chance to get into something pvp wise and i also cannot say thats bad.

But you cant deny this fact.

It may be a new format, But if you arnt into/good at the pvp side of the game you wont get far.

Teh [prefession]-zorz · Aug 31, 2009, 06:35 AM // 06:35

lols.

TA gone = Good

RA 100 Wins= Better

HB gone= Best.

Razon · Aug 31, 2009, 07:01 AM // 07:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teh [prefession]-zorz

lols.

TA gone = Good

RA 100 Wins= Better

HB gone= Best.

^This

12chars

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 07:34 AM // 07:34

Those of you laughing about PvEers being excited about Sealed Deck have completely missed the point. People get better at things by doing them. Ergo, getting a lot of people who would otherwise not PvP at all into a PvP format perceived to have low bars to entry results in a lot of new people learning PvP. I don't see how this could be anything but good.

StormX · Aug 31, 2009, 07:34 AM // 07:34

Good. They should just do away with XTH while they're at it. People shouldn't be getting keys for doing absolutely nothing. As for HB and TA, I don't really care. I don't like HB anyway and only do it for the 6k faction quest.

Snorph · Aug 31, 2009, 08:07 AM // 08:07

Does this mean all PvP areas are unlocked sence no wins needed to get to Halls?

Skins will be nice.

Sealed Deck, how do they determine the skills? I am thinking, monk for an example, lets face it, some of the skills for monks are not great, but I understand that it the point.

Do they choose the skills or is it setup to pick from all the skills from that one class?

EPO Bot · Aug 31, 2009, 08:31 AM // 08:31

Warriors using healing signet wile they get pounded by wurm spawn, and continue to do so after you tell them to stop it.

Short · Aug 31, 2009, 09:53 AM // 09:53

Brilliant news. Sealed Deck, new HoH map and skill updates WE get to help with? Seems to good to be true.

upier · Aug 31, 2009, 10:06 AM // 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Those of you laughing about PvEers being excited about Sealed Deck have completely missed the point. People get better at things by doing them. Ergo, getting a lot of people who would otherwise not PvP at all into a PvP format perceived to have low bars to entry results in a lot of new people learning PvP. I don't see how this could be anything but good.

The problem here is that getting better at SD means just one thing - you get better at SD. You don't get better at "PvP".
At best it's going to be the new RA.

Still, the thing that surprises me the most is the insane support in this thread. The guys from A.Net state that they realised that they can't do everything that needs to be done, so to fix that - they just reduced the number of things that need to be done.
And everyone is applauding their brilliance!

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 10:14 AM // 10:14

Learning SD is learning PvP; by your argument, GvGers and HAers are learning GvG and HA, respectively, instead of "PvP". While each format obviously has its nuances, beginning players can pick up general "PvP" skill from any competitive format. There's a lot of basic understanding and execution to learn before the format details even become a factor.

As for support, I don't think it's misplaced. Anet has limited resources, and it's about time that everyone faced that reality. After all, we've already seen the alternative.

Benderama · Aug 31, 2009, 11:15 AM // 11:15

good luck with the project ! ^^ maybe i'm just rubbish at HB but i hope it's easier for newer players to get into (I'm afraid of losing 1,000 reputaion/points if i go into ranked matches, but in non-ranked matches you get people with a much higher rank than you).
least new stuff will be fun to try out!

upier · Aug 31, 2009, 11:25 AM // 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Learning SD is learning PvP; by your argument, GvGers and HAers are learning GvG and HA, respectively, instead of "PvP". While each format obviously has its nuances, beginning players can pick up general "PvP" skill from any competitive format. There's a lot of basic understanding and execution to learn before the format details even become a factor.

There is a slight difference in which PvP mode you play.
Gameplay modes that provide a fairly easy way of entry achieve that by keeping the level of skill in those areas at low levels. Compare RA and GvG.
So if SD will offer an easy entry, that means that the people that play it will not be able to learn much from it. I don't see it being anything other than a new RA. And the people who then want to try out other PvP modes, will still have the same issues they have now.
That's why I feel that these players will learn to play SD and not PvP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

As for support, I don't think it's misplaced. Anet has limited resources, and it's about time that everyone faced that reality. After all, we've already seen the alternative.

The problem is that I don't see a change.
The only difference is that they now admitted to not having the resources to pull everything off - so instead of them saying that we'll get something, but then won't, they'll just flat out tell us from the start that we won't get something.
We don't need a new way of sharing the lacking improvements.
We need the improvements to NOT be lacking. And outside of hiring a new guy, BUT still telling us that this won't be sufficient for the improvements to not be lacking, they aren't doing that.

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 11:59 AM // 11:59

Well, if you put it in terms of "learning more", then certainly, SD is unlikely to teach as much as GvG. However, none of these PvEers would have played GvG to begin with - and many would not have even PvPed to begin with - so if any of these players can pick up even basic PvP aptitude (which can be learned even in RA), I think SD will have been worthwhile. At the very least, SD will allow an organized team, which makes voicechat and team tactics a possibility - perhaps RA's largest deficiency. In short, I don't think it's meaningful to draw an arbitrary line and declare that only formats above the line are "teaching PvP"; the PvP skillset is sufficiently broad that some of it can be picked up anywhere. If nothing else, simply shifting more casual PvE players to a more competitive mindset would be a victory in-and-of-itself. Much of the tension between the two major GW communities is rooted in lack of mutual respect, which is itself rooted in lack of understanding. Having everyone at least dabble in everything should encourage people to see things in less black-and-white, PvE-vs-PvP, zero-sum-game terms.

I still think you're giving them too little credit for their update goals. They simply don't have the resources to do everything they want/need to do, so they'll do what they can. While you might consider such improvements to be "lacking", it is obviously far preferable to no improvement at all - which would not be unreasonable for a 4-year-old game with no subscription-based funding. If they don't have the resources for a less-lacking improvement, what do you expect them to do?

Frankly, I don't know enough about their design process (or codebase, for that matter), to accurately gauge what can be accomplished with the resources that they have - I'm just going to have to trust them when they say that this is the most they can do for now. All I ask is that, if they're going to do something, that they do it correctly.

Xenomortis · Aug 31, 2009, 12:02 PM // 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

Still, the thing that surprises me the most is the insane support in this thread. The guys from A.Net state that they realised that they can't do everything that needs to be done, so to fix that - they just reduced the number of things that need to be done.
And everyone is applauding their brilliance!

I would prefer one working toy than two broken toys.
Whilst I doubt SD will be anything extraordinary, it may prove more interesting than TA and HB. I also doubt it's going to be a working toy, but it may work better than TA and HB.

upier · Aug 31, 2009, 01:14 PM // 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Well, if you put it in terms of "learning more", then certainly, SD is unlikely to teach as much as GvG. However, none of these PvEers would have played GvG to begin with - and many would not have even PvPed to begin with - so if any of these players can pick up even basic PvP aptitude (which can be learned even in RA), I think SD will have been worthwhile. At the very least, SD will allow an organized team, which makes voicechat and team tactics a possibility - perhaps RA's largest deficiency. In short, I don't think it's meaningful to draw an arbitrary line and declare that only formats above the line are "teaching PvP"; the PvP skillset is sufficiently broad that some of it can be picked up anywhere. If nothing else, simply shifting more casual PvE players to a more competitive mindset would be a victory in-and-of-itself. Much of the tension between the two major GW communities is rooted in lack of mutual respect, which is itself rooted in lack of understanding. Having everyone at least dabble in everything should encourage people to see things in less black-and-white, PvE-vs-PvP, zero-sum-game terms.

We have RA, JQ, FA, AB, hell even the XTH(!!) and the accompanying ZQuests. We already have a decent selection of modes that try to encourage players to try out PvP.
The problem is that some people just don't want to.

And the people that do try it out - will still be at an disadvantage because they are still in the kiddie-pool. That is if they try to move to the big boys league.

I don't have issues with introducing a new mode.
I just don't feel that, given what we are seeing in the game these days, it will have this immensely positive effect outside of this given mode that people think it might have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

I still think you're giving them too little credit for their update goals. They simply don't have the resources to do everything they want/need to do, so they'll do what they can. While you might consider such improvements to be "lacking", it is obviously far preferable to no improvement at all - which would not be unreasonable for a 4-year-old game with no subscription-based funding. If they don't have the resources for a less-lacking improvement, what do you expect them to do?

Frankly, I don't know enough about their design process (or codebase, for that matter), to accurately gauge what can be accomplished with the resources that they have - I'm just going to have to trust them when they say that this is the most they can do for now. All I ask is that, if they're going to do something, that they do it correctly.

What I am getting at is that we are currently ALREADY getting updates that try to fix the game. The problem is that the updates aren't good enough due to A.Net lacking the resources for an overhaul of the game that the game actually needs.
And now, A.Net is acknowledging this problem.
But they are doing JUST that. They aren't fixing it. They are just admitting that there is a problem. Or even worse - they are actually telling us that they know there is a problem BUT they WON'T fix it!
And people are applauding them for it.

trialist · Aug 31, 2009, 01:34 PM // 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

What I am getting at is that we are currently ALREADY getting updates that try to fix the game. The problem is that the updates aren't good enough due to A.Net lacking the resources for an overhaul of the game that the game actually needs.
And now, A.Net is acknowledging this problem.
But they are doing JUST that. They aren't fixing it. They are just admitting that there is a problem. Or even worse - they are actually telling us that they know there is a problem BUT they WON'T fix it!
And people are applauding them for it.

I think its more that people are applauding that Linsey would finally tell us detailed stuff even if its just her hopes and wishes and failed promises. At the very least she is telling us why.

What, four years of crickets chirping from anet's CR team aren't enough for you?

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 01:46 PM // 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

I just don't feel that, given what we are seeing in the game these days, it will have this immensely positive effect outside of this given mode that people think it might have.

As I've stated upthread, I'm not that excited about SD; my assessment of it is similar to yours - but it doesn't matter what I'm excited about, or what you're excited about. If it gets more people to PvP that otherwise wouldn't have, and if just a fraction of those people stick with it (or "convert", or what have you), that's better than the status quo. No matter how well it's designed, the only way a competitive game will matter is if you can get a significant number of people to play it. This is the same problem that has been facing competitive fighting games for many years.

Quote:

What I am getting at is that we are currently ALREADY getting updates that try to fix the game. The problem is that the updates aren't good enough due to A.Net lacking the resources for an overhaul of the game that the game actually needs.
And now, A.Net is acknowledging this problem.
But they are doing JUST that. They aren't fixing it. They are just admitting that there is a problem. Or even worse - they are actually telling us that they know there is a problem BUT they WON'T fix it!
And people are applauding them for it.

Short of throwing more resources at the problem - which may or may not be feasible, based on information I'm not privy to - I don't see what else they can do. Whether they deserve genuine applause or /golfclap, well, that's something that I admittedly don't care much about :P.

dilan155 · Aug 31, 2009, 02:04 PM // 14:04

wow, that was a lot of different, things. its good that you guys are starting to trust us a bit, with the notes before the updates and actually telling us a bit about what your gonna do. I dont do TA and HB so i dont care one way or the other, it will be interesting to see how the sealed deck thing will turn out. Way to go Lindsay