Curse

fenix · Jun 03, 2009, 04:44 AM // 04:44

You've either deluded yourself over the last 2-2.5 years due to PvE excess, or you simply are wrong.

Brett Kuntz · Jun 03, 2009, 05:12 AM // 05:12

You're in the minority. Back then, all the forums were packed with recruiting guilds for tombs/gvg, etc. A lot came just for the PvE, but most were for the balanced PvP and integrated PvE, something all other games lacked at the time, and still do.

Kashrlyyk · Jun 03, 2009, 05:17 AM // 05:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The alternative should be being a good player. If you're not a good player, why are you trying to play in the high difficulty HM areas?

Come on, the problem was that noone took you in their party, if you had the wrong profession in the elite areas even when you were a good player. How many people are taking their chances with "Is he a good player or not"??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Granted, "being good" these days in GW is pretty easy to achieve, and that's just one of many cracks that needs to be filled. There are numerous problems right now in PvE, and what you've just said above validates that.

So we need a usefull definition of "being good" first? And then we can see how skills and monsters have to change?
So what SHOULD a good mesmer, warrior, assassin, paragon, elementalist, necromancer and so on be able to do to be "good in PvE HM"? How should HM be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Nerfing Ursan wasn't the end-all be-all of fixing PvE. It was just the most scary: it was intentionally implemented by the devs. They developed it to go against everything their game stood for while having it fail at everything they aimed it to do - and that's just frightening.

You can definitely see it like that.

Bryant Again · Jun 03, 2009, 05:29 AM // 05:29

The #1 reason of all of GW's sales is gonna be the fact that it's free to play. The #1 reason why it's able to keep so many players (at least keep them playing long enough for a good opinion) is going to be the fact that it's very comfortable to play.

While I do consider casual PvErs the majority, the fact that GW had such an amazing competitive scene was an enormously huge plus. But I'm still gonna have to go with PvE always being the main driving of an online fantasy game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Come on, the problem was that noone took you in their party, if you had the wrong profession in the elite areas even when you were a good player.

Then fix how the "wrong" classes operate in PvE.

Part of the reason there have been "wrong classes" is largely because of how the AI in PvE works, and why "the holy trinity" was so "holy" in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

So we need a usefull definition of "being good" first? And then we can see how skills and monsters have to change?

The elite areas in Normal mode should scale like the campaigns do. If they're just a sudden spike of difficulty, that's going to be a major deterrent to people who just want to experience the content.

Those who want to bust their ass and play in HM should be "rewarded" as such, since that's what you *should* (keyword) get for being a good and competent player.

DreamWind · Jun 03, 2009, 05:57 AM // 05:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

I think otherwise and I was around during the early days. Definitely. Don't let my join date on Guru fool you.

I did not buy GW for PvP. I'm not being bias here. This is honestly the truth. I'm completely aware my opinions are subjective but it pisses me off when people think their part of the game is the most important part and everything else is just icing on the cake.

PvP made up a small fraction of the many reasons why people would want to buy GW. Everyone has differing reasons.

You don't have to play PvP or buy the game for PvP to realize that PvP was a large part of its success. Guild Wars on release was hugely successful in large part because it was so much different from other typical MMOs. That is...it was largely built around and balanced around PvP. I wouldn't say this is the main reason it sold so much though...I'd say no monthly fees was the number 1 reason.

arcanemacabre · Jun 03, 2009, 06:33 AM // 06:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The alternative should be being a good player. If you're not a good player, why are you trying to play in the high difficulty HM areas?

I am simply appalled by the elitism implied by this statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The elite areas in Normal mode should scale like the campaigns do. If they're just a sudden spike of difficulty, that's going to be a major deterrent to people who just want to experience the content.

I agree. Since the installment of hard mode, I think that the elite areas in NM should be toned down a little (well, mostly Deep, Urgoz, DoA, and Slavers - UW/FoW are fine because of the power creep), and some non-elite areas should be toned up in HM (especially UW/FoW). I would also love an AI upgrade, at least in HM. However, I seriously doubt any of that will ever happen...

the_jos · Jun 03, 2009, 11:40 AM // 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Come on, the problem was that noone took you in their party, if you had the wrong profession in the elite areas even when you were a good player. How many people are taking their chances with "Is he a good player or not"??

This is true for PUGS.
But it's Guild Wars,not PUG wars

I joined my current guild early 2007 because I played necro frequently in one of the elite areas. And those people for some reason thought I was a decent player (we had a lot of fun for sure).
The moment I got in the guild it was no problem playing the non-wanted professions in elite areas.
The reason: PUGS are made as fail-safe as possible. Each team build is more about making sure even stupid players can finish the area than actual efficiency or much coordination.
That's the main reason that PUGS demand the same builds over and over, even when there are more efficient team builds available.

I know some professions had a hard time in PUGS. I've played several of them.
And there are good reasons why they are not wanted in certain areas (at least not with the skills that were available back them).

Part of the game is about who you know.
I had several ex-guildies and friends in high-end PvE guilds who would let me tag along even on less desired professions (as long as it's not a very specific team build made for efficiency). The disadvantage for 'new' players is that it's harder to get to know those players, since they mainly play in guild teams or with friends. And heroes made it easier to form small teams with one or two human players, making it harder to tag along with randoms.

But hey, we had to learn a lot by trial and error so there is no reason new players should get everything handed to them on a silver plate.
It took me a year of play to find my current guild, new players probably can find a decent guild sooner than that....
Just work on your network.

Rocky Raccoon · Jun 03, 2009, 01:36 PM // 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

I think otherwise and I was around during the early days. Definitely. Don't let my join date on Guru fool you.

Now what?

Case in point.
I bought GW because it was a casual game.
I bought GW for the pretty graphics.
I bought GW because of the multi-profession functionality.
I bought GW because it had no monthly fee.
I bought GW because I do not like to play games with 24 hours worth of gameplay.
I bought GW because I wanted an RPG-type game.
I bought GW because I wanted a social online game.

I did not buy GW for PvP. I'm not being bias here. This is honestly the truth. I'm completely aware my opinions are subjective but it pisses me off when people think their part of the game is the most important part and everything else is just icing on the cake.

PvP made up a small fraction of the many reasons why people would want to buy GW. Everyone has differing reasons.

What he wrote. I know people are going to say then you bought it for the wrong reasons, but if I did then I know a bunch of other people who did the same thing.

Ghost Omel · Jun 03, 2009, 03:27 PM // 15:27

[QUOTE=byteme!;4668127]I think otherwise and I was around during the early days. Definitely. Don't let my join date on Guru fool you.

Now what?

Case in point.
I bought GW because it was a casual game.
I bought GW for the pretty graphics.
I bought GW because of the multi-profession functionality.
I bought GW because it had no monthly fee.
I bought GW because I do not like to play games with 24 hours worth of gameplay.
I bought GW because I wanted an RPG-type game.
I bought GW because I wanted a social online game.

I did not buy GW for PvP. I'm not being bias here. This is honestly the truth. I'm completely aware my opinions are subjective but it pisses me off when people think their part of the game is the most important part and everything else is just icing on the cake.

PvP made up a small fraction of the many reasons why people would want to buy GW. Everyone has differing reasons.[/QUOTE/]

Agree to the 110% mark... To add to the list of reason The box art on all 4 packages was jusr delicious which also made me buy the game... Beofrehand i did not even know Guild Wars ha d a PvP system and i definetly did not look forward to PvP due to the exepriences in other games were PvP becomes more of a Curse-fest and trash talk.. and the usual "PvP is more skilled then PvE" yada yda yyada thing. In any case GW is a game worth enjoying for any reason you seem fit.

dusanyu · Jun 03, 2009, 03:33 PM // 15:33

Simple, Invest in a good set of earplugs, balance the skill use earplugs for whine hate.

One of the Huge mistakes in this game was when they Changed the Favor System From being based on Hall of heroes wins to this Title thing the game has now. At that time Everyone had a reason to care about PvP Skill ballance because if you wanted ectos someone from your country had to Win halls.

Default Name · Jun 03, 2009, 03:47 PM // 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I said the majority of PvE players don't want real difficulty. You came back and said perceived difficulty is ok. You didn't deny my claims...you simply added to them.

This is why I also said you don't understand perceived difficulty and you didn't look it up either.

/sigh

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

If temporarily pissed off customers comes as the result of fixing broken mechanics that will long term make the game better, that is a sacrifice any good company is going to have to make. This is especially true in cases where QQ came from almost no change to ones personal gameplay (as happened many times in the past).

I don't think you get it.

There is no need to piss anyone off for the long term goal in the split.

GG?

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

I think otherwise and I was around during the early days. Definitely. Don't let my join date on Guru fool you.

Now what?

Case in point.
I bought GW because it was a casual game.
I bought GW for the pretty graphics.
I bought GW because of the multi-profession functionality.
I bought GW because it had no monthly fee.
I bought GW because I do not like to play games with 24 hours worth of gameplay.
I bought GW because I wanted an RPG-type game.
I bought GW because I wanted a social online game.

I did not buy GW for PvP. I'm not being bias here. This is honestly the truth. I'm completely aware my opinions are subjective but it pisses me off when people think their part of the game is the most important part and everything else is just icing on the cake.

PvP made up a small fraction of the many reasons why people would want to buy GW. Everyone has differing reasons.

You don't have to get pissed off and throw a girly fit. Really.

A-net is a business and they do realize what is profitable. Explaining these simple concepts to ignorant people can be frustrating sometimes.

Ultimately, the "casual" tag was the main selling point. Nothing to do with PVE or PVP. PVP here is far more casual if you compare it to your generic grind-fest-make-level-1000-and-gank-noobs kinda games out there.

Rocky Raccoon · Jun 03, 2009, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

You don't have to get pissed off and throw a girly fit. Really.

How you can interpret that from that statement really puzzles me. It was just a listing of reasons said person bought GW. Just a statement followed with how they feel about others telling them how to play the game. You do know you can be pissed off and not be throwing a fit.

Burst Cancel · Jun 03, 2009, 07:01 PM // 19:01

The argument over the reasons for GW's success largely misses the point. Regardless of GW's main selling feature, I think it's beyond argument that casual players are the ones that pay the bills. Hardcore players simply don't spend enough money to outweigh the disparity in body count. This is largely true throughout the gaming industry (or any industry, for that matter); misguided attempts to "cater" to the "casual gamer" demographic are driving game developers all over the world to create the most dumbed-down and idiotic games they can.

Some developers seem to forget that games can be accessible (and even attractive) to casual gamers while retaining high-level play and complex mechanics that said casual gamers will never grasp. An obvious recent example is Street Fighter 4. The vast majority of people who bought this game frankly have no idea how this game is really played, and will never have any idea - but they love it anyway. It's flashy, cool, and fun even if you completely suck ass. Meanwhile, the real SF players get to reap the benefits of a new game funded primarily by casual dollars.

That's really the target scenario - the top levels are where all of the real playing happens, but there aren't enough players there to actually fund any kind of game development. Naturally, you've got to have some way to sucker casual gamers into paying for your game (and have fun doing it), even if the game wasn't designed for them.

What's even better, though, is if you have some way to turn casual gamers into hardcore gamers - or even just gamers that don't completely suck. GW had a pretty good system for achieving this - the mechanics aren't difficult to understand, and information is widely available both in-game and online. More importantly, unlike most grind games, you don't actually need to invest ridiculous amounts of time to be competitive. I'm still not entirely sure how Anet managed to so thoroughly squander these advantages, but - at least for a while - they really had something.

Longasc · Jun 03, 2009, 07:17 PM // 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

This is largely true throughout the gaming industry (or any industry, for that matter); misguided attempts to "cater" to the "casual gamer" demographic are driving game developers all over the world to create the most dumbed-down and idiotic games they can.
(...)
More importantly, unlike most grind games, you don't actually need to invest ridiculous amounts of time to be competitive. I'm still not entirely sure how Anet managed to so thoroughly squander these advantages, but - at least for a while - they really had something.

This is why I am afraid of their new exciting ideas for GW2.
I fear this is their idea of accessible fun for everyone.

I also dislike the notion that casual players must be dumb and games they play necessarily dumb, too. The idea to attract more casual gamers by making the game DUMB enough for everyone ... did it actually ever work? (I just thought of Free Realms somehow... it might work... *shiver*)

Accessible should not mean dumb. Casual player neither.

DreamWind · Jun 03, 2009, 11:25 PM // 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

This is why I also said you don't understand perceived difficulty and you didn't look it up either.

/sigh

Your argument was crushed, so now you are focusing on the definition of perception to try and prove a point that has nothing to do with what I originally said (or this thread for that matter). As long as the majority wants perceived difficulty thats fine. I agree with you. The game doesn't have to be difficult they only need the perception that it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

I don't think you get it.

There is no need to piss anyone off for the long term goal in the split.

GG?

Here you go (again) rambling on about something other than what I said. There were several things nerfed in PvE that had NOTHING TO DO with PvP or the split or anything. They were nerfed because they were broken mechanics, and people were pissed and QQing. The split did not solve that problem (or just about any balance problem), and just pissed off people who didn't want it. There is still QQ and there is still inbalance.

Ebony Shadowheart · Jun 04, 2009, 03:15 PM // 15:15

I want to point out that the sweeping generalization that all PvEr's whine whenever skills are balanced is uncalled for and insulting. I mainly play PvE, with some PvP sprinkled in for a change of pace on occasion.

You have people that whine (loudly) on both sides of the fence whenever anything in the game gets changed. Very simply put, no matter what you do, or attempt to do, there will always be someone that is unhappy. You cannot please everyone all the time, and that is simply something that just has to be accepted.

Even when they started trying to balance some of the skills separately, making PvP and PvE copies, people were not happy. The change to soul reaping because PvPers complained (loudly) made people on both sides of the fence whine. The change to Warrior's Endurance, a PvP only change, made PvPers whine. So it happens on both sides when skills are adjusted, whether in PvP or PvE. It's going to happen, end of story.

Skill balancing is something that is an ongoing process, because - new exploits are found, new combination are tried, new metas come and go, etc. There is no way to avoid having to change, update, nerf, or buff skills as the game progresses. Even with fewer skills, they would still have to change things up occasionally in order for the game to not stagnate.

The issues (and the whining) come into play when people do not want to adapt to the changes. They don't want to try something new, and get pissed when they skills they are used to using get adjusted in order to make things interesting again. Too many people have the mentality that they shouldn't have to do anything new, everything should always be the same. Essentially 'if it's not broken, don't fix it.' What they don't understand is that by letting it stagnate, it is broken.

Rocky Raccoon · Jun 04, 2009, 03:24 PM // 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebony Shadowheart

The issues (and the whining) come into play when people do not want to adapt to the changes. They don't want to try something new, and get pissed when they skills they are used to using get adjusted in order to make things interesting again. Too many people have the mentality that they shouldn't have to do anything new, everything should always be the same. Essentially 'if it's not broken, don't fix it.' What they don't understand is that by letting it stagnate, it is broken.

I always look at it like a poker game, you play the hand you are dealt. Everyone has the same cards to play with, it's how you play them that determines the outcome. The same cards(skils) are available to everyone, how they are used is up to you. Change is good.

Ebony Shadowheart · Jun 04, 2009, 03:59 PM // 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

I always look at it like a poker game, you play the hand you are dealt. Everyone has the same cards to play with, it's how you play them that determines the outcome. The same cards(skils) are available to everyone, how they are used is up to you. Change is good.

Yes, change is good and I like your comparison to playing poker. Very unique way of looking at it, yet very effective as well.

It's like the recent changes to WoH and PnH; the uproar this caused in both the PvE and PvP environments was deafening. (I think there's a thread whining about it around here somewhere, I'm too lazy to look though) Yet the skills are still completely viable, and the use of them now requires some thinking. Less key mashing = good, in my opinion. The game is more enjoyable when it stimulates your thought process, although the occasional mindlessness of farming is a nice change of pace too.

[DE] · Jun 04, 2009, 07:37 PM // 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Agent

The alternative should be being a good player. If you're not a good player, why are you trying to play in the high difficulty HM areas?

I am simply appalled by the elitism implied by this statement.

THREAD HALT.

That is not elitist. Everyone seems to think that they're entitled to being able to steamroll the game. This is why Ursan was so widely accepted, because the PvE community deludes themselves into thinking that they should be allowed to beat Hard Mode areas with no skill.

Sup, realization time.

Not every game has to cater to the casual audience. In fact, most MMO's don't. There's no reason why a game shouldn't allow only good players to complete certain areas. That's not elitist, it's the plain, and simple truth.

In fact, Guild Wars would benefit from having more elite zones that take skill to beat, instead of just gimmicks (see: prenerf ursan, current cryway, current shadowform). If only good players can complete a certain area then it gives them a sense of accomplishment and other players something to strive for. As of right now, PvE takes almost no skill. This is a big reason why the transition from PvE to PvP is so hard. It's also the reason why PvE'rs complain about their shit getting nerfed and then ignorantly yell at PvP'rs to "lrn2countr" when an imbalanced build arises.

Prenerf HM DoA used to be the only zone that took a decent amount of skill and PvE knowledge to beat. Too bad Anet had to nerf it because of the amount of crying in the PvE community.

>> Thread Resume

Rocky Raccoon · Jun 04, 2009, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

THREAD HALT.Not every game has to cater to the casual audience. In fact, most MMO's don't. There's no reason why a game shouldn't allow only good players to complete certain areas. That's not elitist, it's the plain, and simple truth

The plain and simple truth whether people want to hear it or not is; The game will be designed to sell the most copies. If a game is perceived as to hard to play it just won't sell enough to be profitable.