Curse

Red Sonya · Oct 02, 2008, 10:54 AM // 10:54

That's just wanting your own selfish attitude way though Avarre, you should be old enough to realize there's a lot more bad players than good in everything. So, really the bad players do get to dictate a lot of how the game plays or they just won't buy it or continue to play it and then you'll end up like Shadowbane with no players at all. This isn't a sport or atheletic type game. It's a game first and foremost to be enjoyed by the majority moreso than the elite. Just gotta buck up and smell the roses because the bad is never going to catchup with the minority good in any game. Also once again there is no "certain build" by the sold game standards or the EULA read the EULA nothing states a gamer has to play by any "certain build". That's just elitists that think they know it all and that's why you get bad players, because if they don't meet YOUR standards that's what YOU classify them, but, that doesn't mean it's the truth by a long shot, just a handful of minority opinions.

Avarre · Oct 02, 2008, 10:57 AM // 10:57

You're incredibly naive if you think a game that caters to the bad players is good design. All games have challenge curves that provide a more difficult end goal and reward - the better you are, the more reward you can get, and hence the better players are rewarded and the weaker players have something to strive for.

Games that just give you everything end up in generic repetitive grind, or die.

You don't see any other games dumbed down because players find it hard - 'sports and athletic' type games are enjoyed by the majority, and the majority is not skilled. The general rules are constant for everyone, and are defined by the top level. You might have handicaps in place for novices, but that's what the opening of the game, with lower level enemies and poor skillbars is for.

Red Sonya · Oct 02, 2008, 11:01 AM // 11:01

And you're incredibly naive if you think the game caters to a handful of elitists and hardcore hahaha, you really need to get a job as mmorpg design and listen in on some of the developement ideas and discussions. hahaha Develope for the Hardcore and Elite hahaha that is a funny one. The better additions to any mmorpg are few and small. Just count your elite areas compared to the common areas of ANY mmorpg. Sorry, but, developers must make the game more for casual and bad players moreso than good ones. They make elite harder areas to give goals for the bad not just because elite players and hard core players play the games. This I got directly from a publisher and developers own mouths. Games are made for the common masses not elitists or hard core players. It's for financial reasons.

Avarre · Oct 02, 2008, 11:04 AM // 11:04

How do elite areas and catering to certain players have anything to do with what I'm talking about?

Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

It's pretty obvious what she is says perhaps you just can't comprehend.

Oh, I understand it fine. It's just irrelevant.

You can design a game for everyone without dumbing it down. They're seperate design concepts entirely.

Master Knightfall · Oct 02, 2008, 11:14 AM // 11:14

It's pretty obvious what she is says perhaps you just can't comprehend.

Mixie · Oct 02, 2008, 11:15 AM // 11:15

/signed

I would like my gang to have skills i would like them to have. PuG`s were never even an option, and my guildies are not always available. Henchies should not be removed, since not everyone has expansions with heroes.

Red Sonya · Oct 02, 2008, 11:24 AM // 11:24

sigh some people small brains

Quote:

You're incredibly naive if you think a game that caters to the bad players is good design.

Guild Wars caters to bad players....over 5 million copies sold and growing....bad design? I think not, it's just once again your own selfish reasons that you think a game HAS to be perfect/good/great whatever design that caters to YOU for it to be a good design. Sorry pal but the gaming development world doesn't revolve around you or your gaming habits or the gaming habits of the elitists or hardcore players. It revolves around what will bring in the most SALES and if that takes bad game design in YOUR eyes welp then sobeit. GW is a bad game design that made a hellofalot of money from it.

Etta · Oct 02, 2008, 11:34 AM // 11:34

Round, round, Mary goes round.

Pop quiz, what'd you do if they give in to the demand and put in 7 heroes?
(demand! lol)

Avarre · Oct 02, 2008, 11:52 AM // 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

sigh some people small brains

Guild Wars caters to bad players....over 5 million copies sold and growing....bad design? I think not, it's just once again your own selfish reasons that you think a game HAS to be perfect/good/great whatever design that caters to YOU for it to be a good design. Sorry pal but the gaming development world doesn't revolve around you or your gaming habits or the gaming habits of the elitists or hardcore players. It revolves around what will bring in the most SALES and if that takes bad game design in YOUR eyes welp then sobeit. GW is a bad game design that made a hellofalot of money from it.

Appeal to popularity. Guild Wars grew before the game was turned into a heavier PvE game as well.

Grasp the idea that there is a very major difference between building a game accessible for casual players and dumbing the game down for them. It's not the same thing, and it's the point you're laboring over. Obviously Guild Wars is going to have a greater wealth of content for the casual player - that does not mean the game design has to be simplified and made easier. Casual design isn't fully about difficulty, it's about accessibility.

If it can be accurately determined that the lack of 7 heroes is limiting casual players (also taking into account whether they can adequately equip them with skills/gear), then it might be necessary just to bolster the life of the game until GW2. It'd make the decline even more inevitable, but we knew that already.

eximiis · Oct 02, 2008, 12:30 PM // 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etta

Round, round, Mary goes round.

Pop quiz, what'd you do if they give in to the demand and put in 7 heroes?
(demand! lol)

I'd have s** with a-net to thanks them !!

Amy Awien · Oct 02, 2008, 01:24 PM // 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

You don't see any other games dumbed down because players find it hard - 'sports and athletic' type games are enjoyed by the majority, and the majority is not skilled.

THis is a non-argument, 7 heroes doesn't dumb down the game. With 7 heroes you have skills, equipment, attributes and tactics for 1+7 to to design and tune. With H/H that is reduced to 1+3, in PuGs that's only 1. How is 7 heroes going to dumb down the game? If anything it provides more options and more choices and that is never 'dumbing it down'. If anything, the current state of PuGs is what is dumbing the game down.

Strengthening the available options to complete any part of the game without being dependent on human players could significantly help the game - and even social play - because it allows people to team up and PuG for the fun of playing together without the pressure of having to join and complete some task.

Inner Salbat · Oct 02, 2008, 02:17 PM // 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Games that just give you everything end up in generic repetitive grind, or die.

You don't see any other games dumbed down because players find it hard - 'sports and athletic' type games are enjoyed by the majority, and the majority is not skilled. The general rules are constant for everyone, and are defined by the top level. You might have handicaps in place for novices, but that's what the opening of the game, with lower level enemies and poor skillbars is for.

That's just what GW is though once you get past the story line in PvE what do you have left? grinding titles thats it.

Some people like sports I don't I loath every single sport on planet earth every last one of them except 1 sailing which some enjoy other do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

And you're incredibly naive if you think the game caters to a handful of elitists and hardcore hahaha,

But it does cater to elitists DoA is an example of that only a small minority enjoy that, I would say actually that very few that are down there for any other reason than farming generated by an inane need to get gem sets like titles.

Elitists got there hand spanked with Usran everyone could enjoy the content available now that has gone, and to some degree rightly so but what it has left I feel is more damaging to the game than removing it, sure there is cryway but that hasn't seen the same amount of up take that Usran did in DoA wonder why that is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

sigh some people small brains

Guild Wars caters to bad players....over 5 million copies sold and growing....bad design?

Don't buy propaganda that figure is grossly wrong all it means is 5 million copies sold, it doesn't mean it equals 5 million people because you have to take into account how many accounts where brought by; Gold Sellers (and then banned), People who brought more than 1 copy for storage space (which would include me), and since (presumably) we've court them out lying before what is to stop them fabricating there public sales figures to make there game appear more popular than it actually is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etta

Round, round, Mary goes round.

Pop quiz, what'd you do if they give in to the demand and put in 7 heroes?
(demand! lol)

Umm, play the game again with them and other people when there rarely around.

Sjeng · Oct 02, 2008, 02:42 PM // 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etta

Round, round, Mary goes round.

Pop quiz, what'd you do if they give in to the demand and put in 7 heroes?
(demand! lol)

I'd do the same I do now:
- go online
- decide what to do today
- ask if anyone is interested in joining me in the guild/alliance
- if noone is interested, I either:
* join the guild/alliance in w/e they have planned for the evening, or if I'm not interested in that
* help my gf get a little further through the game, or if she's not playing
* take 7 heroes and go vanquish or quest solo (which I now do with H/H)

So 7 heroes wouldn't change a single thing for me, mostly I can team up with at least 1 other alliance or guildmember, so we have 6 heroes anyway. And if I truly am going to do something solo, then 7 heroes would make the game more enjoyable for me. I like reading about team builds with heroes, and testing/tweaking them, or simply try to make builds myself. So all in all it would make the game slightly more interesting for me personally. And that's why I support the cause.

Avarre · Oct 02, 2008, 02:45 PM // 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

THis is a non-argument, 7 heroes doesn't dumb down the game. With 7 heroes you have skills, equipment, attributes and tactics for 1+7 to to design and tune. With H/H that is reduced to 1+3, in PuGs that's only 1. How is 7 heroes going to dumb down the game? If anything it provides more options and more choices and that is never 'dumbing it down'. If anything, the current state of PuGs is what is dumbing the game down.

If you can tune one bar, you can tune eight. If anything's a non-argument, claiming more heroes makes the game more complex is it - especially as most 3-hero/1-player builds are half of a full build and would just need to be copied.

My point was, in any case, drifting away from 7 heroes specifically to talk about the entire general trend of PvE development, and referring more to a difficulty shift rather than a complexity shift. There's no necessity to make any aspect of the game easier - accessibility is only a problem in the elite areas which were never meant to be done solo (evidence: lack of henchmen).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

That's just what GW is though once you get past the story line in PvE what do you have left? grinding titles thats it.

There's the Prophecies answer, and the Factions answer. Guess which one I like better.

Sjeng · Oct 02, 2008, 02:54 PM // 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

If you can tune one bar, you can tune eight.

Not entirely true, since you need to be familiar with multiple professions, ánd more importantly, there needs to be synergy between the heroes to make it REALLY succesfull. If you take the "wrong" professions with the "wrong" builds, you won't get far (well in HM at least). So there is definately an interesting thing to investigate (if you get what I mean).

Another thing that came to mind: right now, you can already take 6 heroes. Simply ask a friend/guildy or even a random person to loan you their 3 heroes. Tell them what you need, ping them your needed builds, go outside, the friend leaves, and voila: 6 heroes. This is often better than 3 heroes and 4 henchmen. So if people really want to use heroes only, they already can.

Bryant Again · Oct 02, 2008, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

It's pretty obvious what she is says perhaps you just can't comprehend.

We *can* comprehend, it's just poor game design. You don't cater solely to one end or the other. If this game catered solely to the bad player, it would be a terrible game. If it catered solely to the best kind of player, it would be a highly inaccessible game. You come up with a middle ground, a game both players can enjoy and find rewarding, and then you're on the right track.

Pretty much what you two are agreeing with is that a person who just picked up the game a day ago, doesn't know jack shit, and is horribly inexperienced would have more valuable input than a player that's been playing this game since release, has played every profession through every campaign, and then some. See how bonkers this is?

The equivalent is like writing an english paper and you want to ask one of your friends for advice. One of them is an English professor at a Community college and the other a very recent foreign student who is still getting his grasp on this English language. Not only would it be logical - NOT discriminatory or "elitist" - to ask the English professor friend, your other friend should have the knowledge and care to not help you with something he's very inexperienced with. The same goes for pretty much everything: why would you want to take your car to a mechanic who knows nothing about cars?

To reiterate: you don't cater solely to casual players. You don't cater entirely to hardcore players. You create a middle ground where both can find fulfillment in the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Guild Wars caters to bad players....over 5 million copies sold and growing....bad design? I think not, it's just once again your own selfish reasons that you think a game HAS to be perfect/good/great whatever design that caters to YOU for it to be a good design. Sorry pal but the gaming development world doesn't revolve around you or your gaming habits or the gaming habits of the elitists or hardcore players. It revolves around what will bring in the most SALES and if that takes bad game design in YOUR eyes welp then sobeit. GW is a bad game design that made a hellofalot of money from it.

You heard it here first: the only way to make big moneyz from games is catering entirely to stupid people. This is why Zelda, Metal Gear Solid, Starcraft, and many other games have done horribly.

/sarcasm.

Snow Bunny · Oct 02, 2008, 03:09 PM // 15:09

Starcraft's popularity completely voids any points any of you have made arguing with Avarre.

It has catered to the elite, and has been successful by all definitions.

Guild Wars has catered to the idiot since its original conception, and its few remaining competitive players can't play an automated tournament because the servers are so bad.

In other words, piss off.

upier · Oct 02, 2008, 03:16 PM // 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

If you can tune one bar, you can tune eight. If anything's a non-argument, claiming more heroes makes the game more complex is it - especially as most 3-hero/1-player builds are half of a full build and would just need to be copied.

3 heroes + 1 player.
You fill up the team with:
1. 4 hench. You just pick up what's available.
2. 4 heroes. You at least need to copy 4 additional bars - even if you just copy them from the hench.

Full hero parties are more complex by default.
(And only the average players would just copy the builds without even modifying them based on the area or the human controlled character - which means that full hero parties would give better players a bigger playing field.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

To reiterate: you don't cater solely to casual players. You don't cater entirely to hardcore players. You create a middle ground where both can find fulfillment in the game.

I think people messed up here a bit.
I have no idea why people started to equal "hardcore vs. casual" with "good vs. bad".
It doesn't matter who the game is targeted at - the point is that in good games players strive to and can get better.
GW PvE lacks this quality.

Avarre · Oct 02, 2008, 03:22 PM // 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

3 heroes + 1 player.
You fill up the team with:
1. 4 hench. You just pick up what's available.
2. 4 heroes. You at least need to copy 4 additional bars - even if you just copy them from the hench.

Having the ability to design 3 balanced bars shows you have the understanding to design seven. It's not a linear scale of difficulty - if I can add one monk, I can add two. Many of the more effective builds are the simpler ones, and if the player isn't able to develop complex 8-man builds they won't be personally developing complex 4-man builds either.

DarkNecrid · Oct 02, 2008, 03:30 PM // 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

And you're incredibly naive if you think the game caters to a handful of elitists and hardcore hahaha, you really need to get a job as mmorpg design and listen in on some of the developement ideas and discussions. hahaha Develope for the Hardcore and Elite hahaha that is a funny one. The better additions to any mmorpg are few and small. Just count your elite areas compared to the common areas of ANY mmorpg. Sorry, but, developers must make the game more for casual and bad players moreso than good ones. They make elite harder areas to give goals for the bad not just because elite players and hard core players play the games. This I got directly from a publisher and developers own mouths. Games are made for the common masses not elitists or hard core players. It's for financial reasons.

Yes because World of Warcraft isn't adding difficult end-game raids in their next expansion that completely out number the content in their actual new continent nor focused on a system of PvP that makes the good better and the bad worser.

oh wait it does!!!!!!

also 5 million copies sold doesn't mean it isn't bad design. Age of Conan had over 700,000 subs on the first month, and you'd be hard pressed to find people who will tell you that's a game with a good design.

All the best online games have catered to the hardcore. Did you know StarCraft is a profitable game that actually out profits Guild Wars for Blizzard, is 9 years old, and also is completely focused on the elite competitive community? Did you know Diablo 2 has done nothing except add decidedly hardcore content at the end game that most players won't ever see and do things that only benefit the hardcore metagaming community, and yet it's one of the most played online games in the world still?

heh...who do they think they are focusing things on the end game where all the difficult content by good game design has to be (easy to hard, this is the difficulty curve for everything) and where most players where spend their time, especially the good ones...

heh....i sound like i know what im talking about because i talked to a few designers who clearly don't know what they are talking about to anyone with half a brain who knows anything in the industry (it's goals for the bad AND top end there buddy, but it's with the intent that the good will advance faster and ergo claim the better awards long before the bad players ever have a chance. very few people have still beaten Kil'Jaeden in World of Warcraft for example. Because a lot of them suck.)...