Curse

Mustache Mayhem · Feb 22, 2009, 02:32 AM // 02:32

lol at this thread.. I look at it like this (it makes more sense).. I am better than 90% of all people on this earth at everything- so obviously it will spill over into this game XD they aren't mental midgets- I am just a genius!! end of story

Qing Guang · Feb 22, 2009, 07:05 AM // 07:05

No, the majority of Guild Wars' community doesn't suck. A lot of players are lazy, but that's not a crime against humanity.

The way I see it, there are four types of people who play this game:

Newbies. These people are very late to the game, but they're also just experiencing its magic. They've got no "good old days" to look back on and long for; they're enjoying the game as it is today. These are probably some of the most fun people to play with, as they do tend to ask for help and one can vicariously experience the best part of the game IMO (ie, building a character from scratch, with a whole world open to her in terms of what she can be). I've recently brought several friends into the game, and I enjoy running with them. I also, in times of supreme boredom, run a help desk at Shing Jea Monastery to help and advise new players.

Noobs. We've all had experiences with them. The PUG gone horribly wrong, the begging for items, the rank requirement, the cliche build. These are NOT the same as Newbies, although some new players become Noobs very quickly. They don't listen to advice, they overaggro, they run cookiecutters off pvx. Their main flaw is a complete lack of imagination; they can't make a build for the life of them. They are the whiners when skills are nerfed. If they enjoy plowing through pve with overpowered skills, so be it. I won't let them ruin my day. Heck, if they then overfarm with their SF and their invincimonks, that just makes things less expensive for me. The best way to deal with these in a PUG is to get the monk on your side (or, ideally, BE the monk) and control them through withheld healing. Alternatively, just leave.

Guild Wars Fan. This is a majority of the populace. They may be pve or pvp, though they probably have difficulty with Hard Mode and high-end pvp. They don't comment on Guru, though they'll contribute to and read wiki, and they generally know how things work. They screw up sometimes, but for the most part, they get it. They struggle to make their own builds and may sometimes give in to pressure from the pvx types, and they'll appreciate a consumable (but generally don't rely on them). They're in a guild, which they may or may not like, and often do things with other members. They will pug and will chat with other puggers. They tend to distrust henchmen but frequently resort to using them, and they tend to run bad builds on heroes of professions they don't have characters for. They appreciate ANet but are disappointed if their build is inadvertently nerfed when ANet plays with the meta. They're generally fun to play with and have a decent attitude.

Gurus (this is where I'm going to get flak): High-end players who are good at what they do. They know the game well, and usually know how to make a build. Not all Guru people are Gurus (a large chunk are Noobs and artistically inclined Fans) but they do tend to congregate here, especially in this particular forum. The problem is that they expect everyone else to be as dedicated and skilled as they are. They tend to object to pve skills and consumables and loathe cookiecutters. They also have a stronger love/hate relationship with ANet. Gurus tend to be middle- to upper-class ingame but don't discriminate against poorer players like Noobs do. They tend to be cynical and several of them don't even play anymore. It's good to have one Guru in your party (a tough thing unless you've got one in your guild, because they avoid PUGs like the plague) to keep things in line.

So there. I guess I'm pretty optimistic about the populace, but quite frankly I haven't had The Bad PUG (I've had bad ones, but not horror-story quality), and I pug a lot, so I see a variety of players. One thing to keep in mind is that wiki's people are a bit more negative than your average Joe, and Guru is, I've found, highly negative compared to the random people you run into in outposts. So people's reactions here are a bit skewed, probably because mostly Noobs and Gurus participate in GW websites. Fans will read but tend to steer clear, and Newbies have to be introduced.

I'll admit I've used consumables and pve skills, but I also swore never to use true Ursan, don't own a full sin, and have only ever used one pvx build (an abject failure). I'm terrible at pvp higher than TA (and I genuinely like RA and AB). THAT I do blame on ANet - as has been said, unless you have a great pvp guild or friend, your introduction to pvp is going to be pathetic, kind of like when you first left Pre and found out that [forcefed mix of skills due to lack of trainers] was really a bad idea. The BotM metagame is so firmly ingrained that it's tough to get into at this point if you want to stay unique.

I've found that the best way to play (for me, at least) is to avoid competing with those high-end, metabuild, runs-DoA-daily types. I play for encounters interesting people, for stress relief, and for that rush of joy when I find I've finally got enough cash for the elite armor I've been eying. The game (and its inhabitants) are a lot more pleasant if you just avoid the cutthroat minority that has the loudest presence and find yourself a nice group of average players struggling to get to the end of the game, to get that cool armor, to beat a self-imposed goal. Quiet as they are, they're everywhere - you just have to ask for them.

Improvavel · Feb 22, 2009, 11:01 AM // 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Right, hence why attempts at shortening it is bad.

Doing what you want is good. Being able to set your own difficulty level is good. Making the hardest settings as easy as the easiest settings is bad.

That's why games that let you "carve your own way through the world however way you choose" limit you when you attempt to make it easier. Oblivion? The lower the setting the slower you level. Same thing as Fallout 3 (same dev too so there you go). Mass Effect? Lose out on the achievement for the hardest settings if you change the settings even once. God of War? Best secrets are only unlocked in God mode.

Funniest things about all those games? All solid, all highly renowned. They could've given you a simple "invincibility all the time" button in the options, but they didn't. Same thing for an "insta-kill option", but they didn't.

You know something fun about them too? I've never played any of them.

I've played a very decent number of games, most of them RTS and the ultimate setting is PvP and I don't get any other reward that the challenge of overcoming someone else.

Quote:

When you cut down on the amount of effort you need to put into the hardest modes, you cut down the content. You cut down the depth, and that's something ANet didn't acknowledge.

The thing is you only cut down the amount in the hardest mode if you want too.

Why do you use PvE-only skills and consumables? If they gave more rewards for not using those you wouldn't but since they don't you wont?

Quote:

Give me one good solid reason why Ultra-violence should be just as easy as I'm Too Young To Die besides cutting down the game. The only people that are truly benefiting from PvE skills and other imbalanced facets are those who cared only about the rewards.

Ultra-violence in GWs is GvG. Somewhat lower than ultra-violence is HM PvE (like DoA) without consumables and PvE-only skills.

Quote:

All of those things you mentioned - "freedom of path", "non linear world", "create you own story", "endless options" - are not the same thing as "mindless gameplay".

I'm not at fault that if given the choice between "mindless gameplay" and "solid gameplay" you chose the first because you want a "shinny virtual sword".

I guess what set us apart is that you seem to need a "carrot" to keep playing, while I play by the sake of playing the game itself.

I know some people that prefer spend their time power trading to get more armbraces or doing some mindless farming (I did some of this some time ago) and barely play the game.

Sincerely I don't know why they aren't playing a virtual economy game instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

At least I got you to admit that they screwed up in GW1 and are moving on to GW2...a small victory.

Legendary Forum Guardian for you.

Although I stated that a few pages ago, most likely in my first post in this thread.

I'm going to elaborate on why I think they screwed the game - too much starting content. You have 3 massive (tyria early parts are huge) continents and basically the high-end of PvE is just a few elite areas and some dungeons.

More the skills are all scattered around. An old profession, like an ele, needs to move all around the world just to get all the options for the various element builds. Ok if you made it some time ago, not so funny if the ele is your 5th ot 10th profession.

More, they failed to split PvE and PvP stats of skills from the beginning, when they started to pump mobs stats, and that by itself was a mistake. Mobs like charr and summits in eotn are much more challenging that other higher level mobs due to better builds.

the_jos · Feb 22, 2009, 12:21 PM // 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qing Guang

.... and Guru is, I've found, highly negative compared to the random people you run into in outpost .....
The game (and its inhabitants) are a lot more pleasant if you just avoid the cutthroat minority that has the loudest presence .....

That was a nice observation.
There are a lot of reasons for this (remember, many people on fan sites care a lot more about a game than 'random people').
But you are right, I've experienced myself that reading guru does make me somewhat cynical on occassions. More that I should be based on ingame experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

I'm going to elaborate on why I think they screwed the game - too much starting content. You have 3 massive (tyria early parts are huge) continents and basically the high-end of PvE is just a few elite areas and some dungeons.

More the skills are all scattered around. An old profession, like an ele, needs to move all around the world just to get all the options for the various element builds. Ok if you made it some time ago, not so funny if the ele is your 5th ot 10th profession.

More, they failed to split PvE and PvP stats of skills from the beginning, when they started to pump mobs stats, and that by itself was a mistake. Mobs like charr and summits in eotn are much more challenging that other higher level mobs due to better builds.

Agree on skills. Don't agree on starting content.
Let me explain what I think is wrong with the 'starting content'.
It's part of the 'scattered skills' problem you describe. When I make a new character I need to play the entire story again before I get to the point I want to be. Why would I roll a monk, collect all skills I want to test in DoA and get to DoA only to find out that I don't need a monk there but a Ritualist and need to do the entire stuff all over again.
Less people will experiment with build because of this and the number of experimental players is already low.
And 5th or 10th profession? Many players stick to one because of titles.

Improvavel · Feb 22, 2009, 12:53 PM // 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

And 5th or 10th profession? Many players stick to one because of titles.

Hopefully with the April update this will change.

One of the best things in this game is/was that you can savor different play styles.

If someone stick to a reduced number of professions, chances are, they will never understand all the profession pros and cons, their little tricks and their concerns (mostly resource generation).

And I still think there is too much lower tier stuff to do. People can be playing for years and never even approach the elite missions, considering the huge number of missions and quests around.

Then we face the problem of - "ok we have 3 warriors 3 eles and 2 rangers. We need monks or rits and necros would be nice too. But I need this statues on this guy. I've a monk but barely any skills. I don't know how to play a necro." So on so forth.

Bryant Again · Feb 22, 2009, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

The thing is you only cut down the amount in the hardest mode if you want too.

We've already gone over the "self-inflicted challenge" =/= "challenging". When you have to come to gimping yourself to make it difficult, that means that you've already mastered all the game has to throw at you - as shown here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Ultra-violence in GWs is GvG. Somewhat lower than ultra-violence is HM PvE (like DoA) without consumables and PvE-only skills.

The instance itself is not challenging, but in how I limit it. When you gimp yourself, it's rarely satisfying because you're always knowing what you could bring to make the areas easier: what you threw out to gimp yourself.

Challenge should not be about leaving some of your tools at home. You may say otherwise, but the fact that harder and harder difficulty settings have been in games for years upon years goes directly against that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

I'm not at fault that if given the choice between "mindless gameplay" and "solid gameplay" you chose the first because you want a "shinny virtual sword".

Incorrect.

I'm saying all those games provide incentive to get better. In Doom, the better you get the harder difficulties you can go into - the better you get at the game. In Guild Wars you now reach that peak very, very easily with PvE skills and the rest just becomes shits and giggles.

ANet no longer wants you to learn all that their game has to offer, the depth of the classes, the synergy of the skills. Instead, they now just want you to rely on a small set of highly powerful skills and money (for consets).

And I don't know about you, but I preferred it much more when ANet wanted you to rely on smart play, good performance, and smart build, skill, and team selection.

Improvavel · Feb 22, 2009, 11:14 PM // 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

In Guild Wars you now reach that peak very, very easily with PvE skills and the rest just becomes shits and giggles.

U need to get better at the game to do PvP.

I'm pretty sure a game like Starcraft isn't so highly regarded because of its campaigns.

But whatever...

Bryant Again · Feb 22, 2009, 11:49 PM // 23:49

That doesn't really answer any reason why ANet is able to totally bork up their PvE. Not to mention these skills hurt PvP even more by having players be accustomed to skills that are only usuable in the PvE portion.

To go a bit more off-topic: notice how Blizzard is putting so much more effort on such an arcing and long single-player campaign for SC2?

Improvavel · Feb 23, 2009, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

To go a bit more off-topic: notice how Blizzard is putting so much more effort on such an arcing and long single-player campaign for SC2?

They just splitting the game in 3 parts to have 3 times the income.

About ANet destroying PvE it was because the game wasn't planned to be PvE. Just happened. And then mistakes were made.

Bryant Again · Feb 23, 2009, 12:41 AM // 00:41

Eh? So you agree ANet put a huge dent into PvE?

DreamWind · Feb 23, 2009, 11:50 AM // 11:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

To go a bit more off-topic: notice how Blizzard is putting so much more effort on such an arcing and long single-player campaign for SC2?

Just to respond to this...the single player game in SC2 will obviously be important, but everybody knows that the multiplayer will define the legacy of the game. Many people believe that GW was meant to be that way as well, hence they don't care about the dents in PvE (and there are many).

Improvavel · Feb 23, 2009, 11:54 AM // 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Eh? So you agree ANet put a huge dent into PvE?

If you read all my posts carefully, you will see I agree the PvE part of the game has something that "is being designed on the fly" instead of being carefully though.

The big problem for Anet was that the stand-alone campaigns aren't exactly worth from the player point of view if they all had to have a starter area.

You will also notice, that in the beginning a PvE player would have very little objectives to keep playing unless he jumped to PvP.

What I disagree with you and other people, is the reason the PvE isn't good and the solutions suggested to solve the problem.

To put it simple, PvE lacks high-end content and had too much lower end content (which will make spent hours after hours to get your new characters ready and everywhere).

Also, PvE lacks more mobs that are challenging because of their tactics/skills and has too many places where the difficulty comes from environmental effects and monster-only skills - those aren't preparing players to play in PvP either.

It is my opinion, that simply removing PvE-only skills and consumables at this time, would be even more pernicious for the game.

For the removal of those, more changes would have to be made. Since Anet won't do them, its better if they don't remove PvE-only skills and consumables.

snaek · Feb 23, 2009, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryant again

To go a bit more off-topic: notice how Blizzard is putting so much more effort on such an arcing and long single-player campaign for SC2?

Just to respond to this...the single player game in SC2 will obviously be important, but everybody knows that the multiplayer will define the legacy of the game. Many people believe that GW was meant to be that way as well, hence they don't care about the dents in PvE (and there are many).

too bad gw doesnt have a single-player campaign?
it has a multiplayer campaign (at least it used to)

Quote:

Originally Posted by improvavel

For the removal of those, more changes would have to be made. Since Anet won't do them, its better if they don't remove PvE-only skills and consumables.

thats wut most of us have been saying the whole time
pve skills were jus a "lazy" solution to a problem in gw--and by that i mean it only created more problems

so they r indeed a problem...and we never mentioned that it was the -only- thing that must be remedied to better gw
of course such a small effort wont completely fix gw; its a long and involving process--that should already be assumed when discussing such a topic
there was no reason to deny that they were a problem, jus state wut things which u think r more important at hand

but generally i find its a good idea to tackle the outer-most layers before goin deep into the core problems

Improvavel · Feb 23, 2009, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

thats wut most of us have been saying the whole time
pve skills were jus a "lazy" solution to a problem in gw--and by that i mean it only created more problems

but generally i find its a good idea to tackle the outer-most layers before goin deep into the core problems

That is what I've been saying all this time.

I disagree that removing the fix, however rushed that was, to the problems will do any good. I think it might be even worse.

Maybe start by changing SF and preventing consumables form stacking.

Gigashadow · Feb 24, 2009, 12:58 AM // 00:58

Speaking of PvE difficulty, a few of you may have been interested enough to follow what's happened to the WoW raid scene (even if you don't play the game). Prior to their expansion, only some tiny fraction of people ever saw their end game raid content. In fact, even in vanilla, almost nobody saw Naxx, which is why they recycled that raid.

With WoTLK they went in completely the entire opposite direction, where everything is now so ridiculously easy that every single raid in the game is PUG'd via the trade channel, and the only accomplishments are getting titles while doing it (e.g. do it with fewer people, or nobody in the raid dies the entire night, etc.). Many people complain about this, but perhaps the vast silent majority of their customers love playing on easymode?

Blizzard knows how to casualize their game to grab a lot of customers, so are ArenaNet going to come to the same conclusions, and make PvE trivially easy in GW2? It's a little disturbing to think about.

cataphract · Feb 24, 2009, 07:53 AM // 07:53

I'm guessing they'll do the same thing they've done with GW1. Start off with a decent and balanced learning curve, then give us more challenges as we become more skilled and then dumb everything down. In order for everyone to have a chance to max everything before GW3.

Bryant Again · Feb 24, 2009, 09:18 AM // 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

If you read all my posts carefully, you will see I agree the PvE part of the game has something that "is being designed on the fly" instead of being carefully though.

The big problem for Anet was that the stand-alone campaigns aren't exactly worth from the player point of view if they all had to have a starter area.

You will also notice, that in the beginning a PvE player would have very little objectives to keep playing unless he jumped to PvP.

What I disagree with you and other people, is the reason the PvE isn't good and the solutions suggested to solve the problem.

To put it simple, PvE lacks high-end content and had too much lower end content (which will make spent hours after hours to get your new characters ready and everywhere).

That problem was largely solved through Hard Mode: Campaigns in their entirety now could become high-level content.

The "problems" with it, we'll discuss below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Also, PvE lacks more mobs that are challenging because of their tactics/skills and has too many places where the difficulty comes from environmental effects and monster-only skills - those aren't preparing players to play in PvP either.

It is my opinion, that simply removing PvE-only skills and consumables at this time, would be even more pernicious for the game.

For the removal of those, more changes would have to be made. Since Anet won't do them, its better if they don't remove PvE-only skills and consumables.

One problem that's always going to be in a player vs. computer environment: the AI. Unless you're pretty much the epitome of Jesus in terms of programming, the largest portion of the challenge is going to be pitting you against what would be massive odds. Think about it: in some of the very first games you were put in as a character going through wave after wave of monsters with the ocassional boss. From a pen-and-paper standpoint, there looks like there'd be no @%(#ing way to survive any of it.

But you know what's always going to give us an edge against the AI? Us: our brains and are adaptability, knowing when fire hurts, learning from our mistakes. I've yet go get to a point in a game where I don't say "damn the AI is stuuupid." That's why we're seeing monsters gaining all of this "OP" stuff: they have to be compensated for their stupid, and *even then* are players able to beat them (Prot Spirit lawl).

Another of PvE's problem isn't just that builds are always static, but that skills aren't. This may be a bit more solvable through PvE/P skill split, but considering the number of different builds they'd have to recaliberate (i.e. the groups of monsters) It's still quite a shit ton of work to put together.

A very prominent problem is that not all classes scale accordingly to the "op'ness" of higher level monsters, most notably Mesmers. But that's a different thread and more a class-specific problem rather than a game one.

So, no. I don't believe that adding PvE skills are better than not having them. The AI is always going to have an advantage in terms of brute strength, but you the player are always going to have the advantage of not being brick-wall stupid. Giving players the same power with PvE skills and consumables makes them *just as stupid as the AI*. Games where you simply have to "fight fire with fire" (i.e. running into an enemy that hits harder than you and the only way to win is to hit even harder) are boring, and that wasn't terribly possible to do pre PvE skills and the like. If we want to help players get better, we have to nerf the PvE skills and consets. If we want to make the game much more healthy, we have to have balance. Be it gradual or sudden.

@Giga: Same thing happened with BC, but the later content became a bit less "user-friendly". But you're right in that things are no longer as hard as it was pre-BC days. We'll have to see the progression of the 10-mans as compared to the 25-mans

pingu666 · Feb 24, 2009, 10:39 AM // 10:39

how do you define high end content?
in terms of designed for max level, then its basicaly dragons lair onwards, gwen, and the 2 mainlands. thats *alot* of the game.

or is it optional stuff like the deep, doa, dungeons ?

Improvavel · Feb 24, 2009, 10:51 AM // 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

One problem that's always going to be in a player vs. computer environment: the AI. Unless you're pretty much the epitome of Jesus in terms of programming, the largest portion of the challenge is going to be pitting you against what would be massive odds. Think about it: in some of the very first games you were put in as a character going through wave after wave of monsters with the ocassional boss. From a pen-and-paper standpoint, there looks like there'd be no @%(#ing way to survive any of it.

But you know what's always going to give us an edge against the AI? Us: our brains and are adaptability,

No matter how smart you are, if the designer wants he can stack an odd at you that you just can't beat.

The main problem here, is that you are seeing the game mostly from the point of 8 real person party.

I bet the large majority of people don't play or aren't even interested in playing with 7 other people.

Ursan, Cryway are impossible to recreate with a single player or 2 players.

Cutting down the PvE-only skills will remove tools for those players that prefer to play alone (occasionally, sometime, most of the time, or always) or small groups of 2-4 players.

Heroes AI is also dumb as shit, and please don't tell me discordway or sabway will pump more damage or be faster than a physical human team.

How can you cater to groups of 8 players and people that play on their own or play in duos or trios?

You can say that this a multiplayer game, but I can bet any money with you that if the game required 8 people to do every shitty quest (as in no heroes/henchmen), this game would long be dead.

The challenge is to find a way to stop full parties of abusing the excessive power of PvE skills and consumables (I m much less concerned with the removal of consumable, and those are much more overpowered than the skills) without removing the tools of the solo-small party players.

the_jos · Feb 24, 2009, 11:58 AM // 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

The challenge is to find a way to stop full parties of abusing the excessive power of PvE skills and consumables (I m much less concerned with the removal of consumable, and those are much more overpowered than the skills) without removing the tools of the solo-small party players.

The best way to achieve this would be limiting the same PvE skill to a certain amount of copies in the party (2 or 3 copies).
And yes, consumables are much more overpowered than PvE skills indeed.

Back to topic: this would not solve much.
It would not make players better, it would just stop certain farming builds.
Farming in groups only involves a limited group of players, specially 'high-end' farming. This is not the group when you want to improve 'the community'.
First of all, many of them have some game knowledge. And if they suck they will always suck, not because of their skill but because of their attitude.
Just make sure they only team with each other and the rest of the players won't have any problems with them.

On the AI subject, sure this is hard to avoid.
But what A-net could have done for HM and didn't is randomising spawns.
We now have the same foes with almost the same builds so we know how to counter them. Just add more randomness in it, push more 'untargeted' enchantment removal in the game. Would require some work on the mobs but would also make most tanking and solo-farming a lot harder.
Creating a massive uproar from a lot of players.