Curse

Bryant Again · May 27, 2009, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by faraaz

Nerfing a skill in PvE because of its implications in PvP (which are often very different from the same in PvE) is pretty much what you were looking for verbatim.

I was looking for statements of PvPers asking for skills to be nerfed in PvE because of their implications in PvE.

The way Bhaav worded it may've messed up my head a bit, dunno.

R.Shayne · May 27, 2009, 10:06 PM // 22:06

The skills should not have been separated, pvp & pve should have stayed together. The only problem is that ANET idea of balance is to either nerf it beyond belief or buff it until everyone is required to run the skill. That seems to be the only way ANET knows how to balance.

The reason for the split was because they were making a lot of PvE (the silent majority) mad because they could not learn how to balance a skill.

Now how many feel that ANET knows how to balance skills? (Look at the last 3 months if you need the answer)

Now how many of you feel that ANET will somehow wave a magic wand and become balance gurus when Guild Wars 2 ships?

haggus71 · May 27, 2009, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Didn't Anet say that PvE and PvP would be separate in GW2? Like, a year ago?

Longasc · May 28, 2009, 12:33 AM // 00:33

Well, they said something.

I wonder what foul compromises they are going to make to appease everyone.

I.e. unlimited levels, with a superflat powercurve (begs the question if minimal "progression" for progression's sake is not just superfluous), PvE being kids friendly, so that young kids and my grandma can play it safely, too. More races, racial abilities like morphing into an "Ursan", Perma-Asuran-Shadow-Form. New pay-to-play mechanisms and tons of new payment options for the store. Titles for everything and achievement hunt and better items and blabla... and there will be PvP of course. World Battles will be Alliance Battles, just cooler as they are named World Battles! :> There will also be High-End PvP of course, but it will feel like a pimple on an already ugly arse. Basically, turn GW into just another standard fare MMORPG with excessive Micro-Transactions. *

This is the worst case scenario, of course.

We have not heard anything new since that PC Gamer interview in ... 2007, 2008? Besides that ANet staff is playing GW2 every Wednesday or so.

Many people have great confidence in ANet, but I second R. Shayne and would like to point out that the success of GW despite totally failed premises like chapter releases every 6 months and people pickung up pvp as the endgame does not necessarily mean that GW2 will become as successful.

There are competitors out there, working on "next generation MMOs", while GW2 rather seems to take a turn back to standard MMO and the currently very popular Micro-Transaction model instead of going ahead.

* I forgot the ongoing trend to add more grind of all kinds into the game. Ensign is quite right that GW's initial premise ("low level cap, flat equipment curve and skill restrictions") was one of the selling factors, it seems to have been forgotten over time. Or people just bought it because they thought it's WoW for free? I do not know.

Gigashadow · May 28, 2009, 01:25 AM // 01:25

Since the game will have more of a focus on gear and levels, it seems safe to assume PvE will be based on those things and you'll need to gear up to do dungeons. The important question for me is, how many people will you need to do the top content in the game? I absolutely hate raiding, and I hope GW2 does not introduce anything like 25 man raids. Leave that market to WoW, which already does raiding very well (for those that like that kind of thing).

I would be really happy if you could do the hardest content in the game with a cozy team of somewhere between 5-8 people.

Also, if sealed deck play is built-in from the start (please?), that will help keep PvP fresh without everyone running the same build for months at the time, or having to introduce random nerfs to skills to stir up the metagame.

Gigashadow · May 28, 2009, 02:07 AM // 02:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Hoping for two things based on that: 1. They don't just accomodate every mission/quest for one person parties, so if you bring along peeps it'll be *real* easy, 2. it instead scales encounters/dungeons/misssions/whoknows based on the number of people. That would be pretty friggin slick and revolutionary, and make it a no-biggie if that one lazy jackass didn't show up to the raid.

The problem with this is then, are the rewards the same if you are a 2 man team (running the dungeon scaled for 2 man) or a 15 man (with appropriate scaling)? It sounds to me that everyone looking for groups will just be 2 manning everything then.

Bryant Again · May 28, 2009, 02:19 AM // 02:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigashadow

The problem with this is then, are the rewards the same if you are a 2 man team (running the dungeon scaled for 2 man) or a 15 man (with appropriate scaling)? It sounds to me that everyone looking for groups will just be 2 manning everything then.

Here's what I'm hoping for:

If you're solo, let's say you get 100gp for a certain kill.
But if there's two people, you'll get 250gp, giving 125gp for each.
And so on and so forth. The same could apply to rare drops: normal chance if solo, 2.5x the chance if two, etc.

Crom The Pale · May 28, 2009, 03:34 AM // 03:34

This debate has been around for over 4 years now and it will continue forever...

The reason is simple, you can never please everyone and each time Anet has tried they have failed. There is a general pattern that Anet is striving for and I think this is the breakdown;

PvE Normal Mode = Easy
PvE Hard Mode/Elite Dungeons = Challenge
PvP Random Arena/FA/JQ = Unpredictable
PvP Team/Hero's Ascent/GvG/AB = Balanced Competative Play

To achieve all of these goals they have tried skill changes, consumables, Heros, skill splitting, environmental effects, loot scaling, map rotations, party sizes, tittle effects and NPC/Monster changes.

They could make a dozen more changes and there will still be people on both sides ready to argue to the death(of the game) that the changes are perfect/horrible.

draxynnic · May 28, 2009, 03:46 AM // 03:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

So by your logic you should be able to take PvE skill bars into GvG and win?

If my team had permasins and imbagons and the like and the other team was stuck to using PvP skills? Probably.

(Okay, maybe not the permasin, since real people would be smart enough to ignore it. But you get my gist.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anon-e-mouse

(asking for examples of PvP'rs getting PvE skills changed

From the recent skill 'balance'.

Mirror of Ice, Steam, Castigation Signet, Peace and Harmony, Word of Healing, Foul Feast, Lingering Curse, Hunter's Shot, Melandru's Shot,
Keen Arrow, Protective Was Kaolai.

All DIRECTLY nerfed in PvE purely based on thier (ab)use in PvP. The skills were not overpowered in any way shape or form, but just got adjusted in PvE thanks to the PvP'rs, for the most part making PvE even easier still (as monsters use the same skills remember).

And that was only the most recent change, heck almost every balance since the beginning of the game has been due to PvP, and DIRECTLY affects PvE.

Including another kick to the proverbial shins to PvE mesmer primaries, for whom it was often hard enough to find groups for within a few months of release and from whom about every third balance update takes something away from because of the effect it was having in PvP...

Fortunately, these days there's always PvE skill abuse. *rolls eyes*

I'd prefer PvE to be balanced than otherwise - but that balance goes both ways (buffing weak things as well as nerfing overly strong things) and sometimes that requires something different to what PvP requires.

EPO Bot · May 28, 2009, 09:24 AM // 09:24

More pvp ers complaining about those pesky pve ers existing in their universe, bringing them down.

You have to realize most GW players are just here for a mmo with no fees. If it had fees 85% of the player base would not play a mmo at all (like me) or play wow because it's better for pve.

Mordakai · May 28, 2009, 02:14 PM // 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

Many people have great confidence in ANet, but I second R. Shayne and would like to point out that the success of GW despite totally failed premises like chapter releases every 6 months and people pickung up pvp as the endgame does not necessarily mean that GW2 will become as successful.

There are competitors out there, working on "next generation MMOs", while GW2 rather seems to take a turn back to standard MMO and the currently very popular Micro-Transaction model instead of going ahead.

* I forgot the ongoing trend to add more grind of all kinds into the game. Ensign is quite right that GW's initial premise ("low level cap, flat equipment curve and skill restrictions") was one of the selling factors, it seems to have been forgotten over time. Or people just bought it because they thought it's WoW for free? I do not know.

First, I'll invite flames by welcoming micro-transactions. If 6 month expansions "failed", then Anet will need an alternative to make money.

I've already bought the character change and pet unlock upgrade, as well as many character slots. I'd probably buy unique armor too, if they offered it (although everyone would have it, so it wouldn't be that unique anymore).

I can't exactly explain WHY I enjoy Guild Wars more than any other MMORPG (and I've tried a lot of them), I can only say I've cancelled all my subscriptions, and now play Guild Wars exclusively. As long as they nail that certain "magic" that Guild Wars has, I predict GW2 will be even more successful.

Toxic OnyX · May 28, 2009, 03:52 PM // 15:52

The "PvE in HM is far harder than PvP" is simply one of the funniest statements I have seen made on this forum

honestly,what drugs are you smoking and do you hand them out for free as I would love my sense distorted that much at times

I am a PvE player and play a little PvP (well HA anyway) and totally sympathise with what the PvP players are saying, the way the game is balanced at present is completely wrong and splitting skills pve/pvp does not work.

IMO, in GW2 they should balance all skills based on PvP requirements only and tbh at least 30% of the PvE population wouldn't give a damn what skills are available as long as they have a Godmode Skill + Uber powernuke farming for teh win Skill (sorry but it's the truth)

PvE in GW has degenerated to either
1: SC "elite" areas with OP skill bar (see pve skills required above)
2: Having everything in the game run for you by either perma or 600/smite variant
3: Meeting up for daily ZQ
4: H/H titles as very few people even think of pugging anymore

What they need to do in GW2 is address these issues in PvE otherwise the same will happen and quickly, start of on the basis of balance via PvP across the whole game and do NOT seperate the skills, if it affects PvP then it affects PvE, if you want a difference add PvE only skills just don't go ape crazy on the OP of them

The unforunate side effect of splitting skills between pve/pvp is that pve'rs find it very difficult to make the transition to PvP because of the way the skills act differently, from reduced dmg/heals to totally different skill effects.

I hope that A-net learn from their woeful balancing attempts of the past year and come good but I am afraid that GW is beyond fixing and as I said before can see Aion becoming the predominant game for NCSoft which doesn't bode well for GW2

Crimso · May 28, 2009, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

The skills should not have been separated, pvp & pve should have stayed together. The only problem is that ANET idea of balance is to either nerf it beyond belief or buff it until everyone is required to run the skill. That seems to be the only way ANET knows how to balance.

The reason for the split was because they were making a lot of PvE (the silent majority) mad because they could not learn how to balance a skill.

Now how many feel that ANET knows how to balance skills? (Look at the last 3 months if you need the answer)

Now how many of you feel that ANET will somehow wave a magic wand and become balance gurus when Guild Wars 2 ships?

PvE and PvP are 2 completley different things though, in PvP you have other players with coordinated tactics, while in PvE there are huge groups of enemies with higher levels and double damage and cast speed bosses.

If you played from day one you'd notice that, in that mesmers never got groups in PvE since their spells where ineffective(the strongest direct damage was Energy Surge which they didn't get until the last few missions), while in PvP they were frequently used in teams due to E-denial,interupts and diversion.

GW2 really does need a split for PvE|PvP skills(especially if there are racial skills).

Rocky Raccoon · May 28, 2009, 04:54 PM // 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toxic OnyX

IMO, in GW2 they should balance all skills based on PvP requirements only and tbh at least 30% of the PvE population wouldn't give a damn what skills are available as long as they have a Godmode Skill + Uber powernuke farming for teh win Skill (sorry but it's the truth)

In my calculations that means 70% would give a damn and that is a large majority of people who now play the game.

draxynnic · May 29, 2009, 03:45 AM // 03:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimso

If you played from day one you'd notice that, in that mesmers never got groups in PvE since their spells where ineffective(the strongest direct damage was Energy Surge which they didn't get until the last few missions), while in PvP they were frequently used in teams due to E-denial,interupts and diversion.

The real problem was that Mesmers are built around single-target shutdown. Great in PvP. In PvE there are few things dangerous enough to warrant that sort of shutdown, and many of those who are have protection against it, leaving a very short list of locations where classic Mesmering works. (Most of them involve monk bosses.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toxic Onyx

The unforunate side effect of splitting skills between pve/pvp is that pve'rs find it very difficult to make the transition to PvP because of the way the skills act differently, from reduced dmg/heals to totally different skill effects.

I do question, however, whether it really is easier to make the transition when some skills simply aren't used in PvE because they're just that bad compared to them being useful in both formats, just with a lower effectiveness in one.

That said, the Aegis change is... errrm...

Buster · May 29, 2009, 06:22 AM // 06:22

All we have to do is get Arenanet to /delete the pvp portion of the game and everything will be fine.

Avarre · May 29, 2009, 07:46 AM // 07:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

In my calculations that means 70% would give a damn and that is a large majority of people who now play the game.

The big issue is this:

Skill changes make negligible changes in PvE. You might have to tweak skills every once in awhile (which you should have to do depending on zones anyways), unless you're running a gimmick that takes a hit (in which case PvE deserves the nerf too). Skill balances have practically never really hurt my PvE play.

Skill changes make massive difference in PvP, and if things aren't balanced, the entire gametype falls apart.

The best compromise would for PvP to get near-total control of skill balances, but to not have lazy nerfs that eradicate skills entirely from playability.

faraaz · May 29, 2009, 11:07 AM // 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

The big issue is this:

Skill changes make negligible changes in PvE. You might have to tweak skills every once in awhile (which you should have to do depending on zones anyways), unless you're running a gimmick that takes a hit (in which case PvE deserves the nerf too). Skill balances have practically never really hurt my PvE play.

Skill changes make massive difference in PvP, and if things aren't balanced, the entire gametype falls apart.

The best compromise would for PvP to get near-total control of skill balances, but to not have lazy nerfs that eradicate skills entirely from playability.

ORRRRR...just use the current system with the PvE/PvP split which has everyone happy? I must say, if the Weapon of Warding nerf was PvE also, instead of PvP only, I would have been hella pissed.

Tell me one reason why WoW should have been nerfed in PvE also, as according to the old PvP > All system.

kedde · May 29, 2009, 11:18 AM // 11:18

I'll repeat my earlier statement.

Pve needs to have AI that compares to a fully functional team working together on surviving and killing their enemy, being you.
Ai should have good, synergizing skillsets etc. etc.
Make them a challenge the right way, meaning not the superhigh levels and stats, maybe a max of lvl 24 if we're to compare it to the current game, the exception of course being bosses.

If that would be true, the skills wouldn't need seperation as you'd need to use bascically the same tactics for both gamemodes to succeed.

Avarre · May 29, 2009, 11:37 AM // 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by faraaz

ORRRRR...just use the current system with the PvE/PvP split which has everyone happy? I must say, if the Weapon of Warding nerf was PvE also, instead of PvP only, I would have been hella pissed.

Tell me one reason why WoW should have been nerfed in PvE also, as according to the old PvP > All system.

Well yeah, that would work too. Shame what PvE separation did to the game overall, but surely ANet would have learned from their mistakes, right?