Curse

snaek · Feb 27, 2009, 12:10 AM // 00:10

^lol i didnt see any question there
the pug scene jus isnt as friendly or as big as it used to be

@improvavel
gw was supposed to be a multiplayer game--pvp and pve
pve was not single player...it was multiplayer

which seems to be the base of ur argument
that u think pve is a single-player game, and u can define ur own experience within the confines of ur own set of rules

however, even this i would have to disagree wit
because i do believe that a single-player game should have a global set of rules and strive for balance
unless the game devs r purposely imbalancing the game for the sake of imbalancing it, which can work in certain types of games (but i dun think thats wut anet was intending)

Improvavel · Feb 27, 2009, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

@improvavel
gw was supposed to be a multiplayer game--pvp and pve
pve was not single player...it was multiplayer

which seems to be the base of ur argument
that u think pve is a single-player game, and u can define ur own experience within the confines of ur own set of rules

I'm saying that the game can be single-player, multi-player, confined, PvP, PvE or whatnot.

If you want the game to be changed that is one thing.

Claiming you can't have a challenge in PvE because other people use imbalanced skills and consets is BS.

You can have a challenge regardless. You can define what to use and what to not use.

Try to play prophecies again with only the skills you could use then. Its fun.

If you want the only players in this game to be GvG only, yes, titles and crap are bad for your view of the game.

If you want the only players to do Elite missions be top ranked GvG, then yes the game is too dumb.

Rocky Raccoon · Feb 27, 2009, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

^lol i didnt see any question there
the pug scene jus isnt as friendly or as big as it used to be

Not to be picayune, "I don't know if most have given up or I'm looking in the wrong places?", properly punctuated that is a question. The point is we have a new forum member and they get treated the same way as new players do. ignored.

fireflyry · Feb 27, 2009, 01:36 AM // 01:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

It is also related on the number of players. I bet small games have higher average skill per player.

The setting of maximum in game difficulty or skill level required to garner reward has nothing to do with player numbers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Otherwise, why are you messing with people PvE game? It is none of your business.

I'm not, I'm discussing why making the game so easy has lowered the skill level required to complete "hard" areas and the effect this has had on the game.

There is nothing to be so defensive about, I really don't give two hoots how you or anyone else plays the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

People don't play PvP because it is either stupid (arenas) or the entry level is too high (GvG), not depending exclusively on you and your will.

Nope, PvE is just vastly more popular in the whole MMO genre.

As a result Anet have concentrated on PvE and neglected PvP.

It's really that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Claiming you can't have a challenge in PvE because other people use imbalanced skills and consets is BS.

That's where you have lost the plot.

Your personalizing the issue and repeatedly using "choice" as a mantra, regardless in that it really has no relevance.

It was my understanding the thread was discussing the level of player skill across the wider community and the mechanics that effect this, for better or poorer.

Until you can focus on staying relevant to the topic and it's attempt to discuss the wider scheme of the game, not individual choice, it will be another 10 pages of circular argument and heads mashing walls.

snaek · Feb 27, 2009, 01:42 AM // 01:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by risky ranger

Not to be picayune, "I don't know if most have given up or I'm looking in the wrong places?", properly punctuated that is a question. The point is we have a new forum member and they get treated the same way as new players do. ignored.

there was no question mark! cheater! lol
personally i thought it was a rhetorical question since he technically answered it after the comma (,)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zurisae

I don't know if most have given up or I'm looking in the wrong places, but it seems to me that a clash of attitudes on both parts (experienced players and noobs) has led to a no-win situation.

btw, "ignored" sounds kinda harsh
its not on purpose, its simply cuz we're "pre-occupied"

and actually i think that point really does relate to gw in-game
between grinding for titles in both pve and pvp, and tryin to complete 3 campaigns, fill hom, accross multiple characters....how does one find the time?
especially since u dun even need to find time to socialize wutsoever since u can isolate urself and jus do it wit heroes

like echoman said, gw was a lot simpler pre-factions
and i think this resulted in a more closer community and more similar objectives between players

moriz · Feb 27, 2009, 01:51 AM // 01:51

there are some things to take note of when asking more knowledgeable players:

1) don't ask on QQ forums. just read the stickies
2) don't ask on QQ forums. just read the stickies
3) don't ask on QQ forums. just read the stickies

still with me? good. don't ask any questions on QQ forums. if you just ask, then create your own thread, word it well, and don't read any of the other threads. QQ forums are mostly populated with former players who are just looking for some lulz, probably at your expense.

Bryant Again · Feb 27, 2009, 03:43 AM // 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

If Anet removes pve only skills and consumables the game will be more challenging and requires more skill.

If you remove those from your game by your option the game won't be more challenging?

No, because it simply proves the game isn't challenging. If that's all that had to be done to find "challenge" we wouldn't see difficulty settings last all these years.

Let me repeat that: If that's all that had to be done to find "challenge" we wouldn't see difficulty settings last all these years. Devs would only need to implement one very, insanely easy difficulty level.

By removing them from my bar does not mean they do not exist. By simply ignoring their use does not mean that the task I am facing is challenging.

By not using all those things is it proved that the task itself is not challenging. It's a challenge when even using those skills is it still difficult.

You're always going to reach a peak in any gaming career where you are simply no longer challenged. The goal is to make that trek to that peak last as long as possible. PvE skills, title benefits, and consumables *greatly* reduce the journey to reach that peak.

And if you don't want to make that journey? That's fine. That's what the easier settings in all those hundreds of thousands of other games are for.

DreamWind · Feb 27, 2009, 06:13 AM // 06:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

This game has great PvP for an RPG though and it's an important part of this game, but the format is not popular enough (yet) to sustain itself imo. I would love it if Anet would just tell us the facts.They changed direction for a reason. Money talks.

Not sustain itself? I disagree. But as for wanting Anet to tell us the facts, I think we all would like that, but instead they will string us along and pretend nothing ever happened.

I think my point is legitimate though...the shifting to a PvE game has decreased skill level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

I'm saying that the game can be single-player, multi-player, confined, PvP, PvE or whatnot.

If you want the game to be changed that is one thing.

Claiming you can't have a challenge in PvE because other people use imbalanced skills and consets is BS.

You can have a challenge regardless. You can define what to use and what to not use.

Hmm....well the point doesn't seem to be sinking in here. If the game can be anything, then the game can't be considered a skill game and can't give a challenge to many people. Bryant has been explaining it much more than I have...a game imposed challenge is far better than a self imposed challenge.

Grj · Feb 27, 2009, 11:13 AM // 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Not
Hmm....well the point doesn't seem to be sinking in here. If the game can be anything, then the game can't be considered a skill game and can't give a challenge to many people. Bryant has been explaining it much more than I have...a game imposed challenge is far better than a self imposed challenge.

With the greatest respect when i say this, do what alot of the other players have done and find another game to play.

Whats this obscession with precieved "skill" i keep hearing? When you make up 1/8th of the party that kinda goes out of the window. Of course they're exceptions to this though.

When you have the game so figured out of course its going to look like it takes no skill now compared to when you was new to playing the game.

These discussions are good to read, kinda pointless in other respects.

You'll all soon forgot all this when the slew of Guildwars 2 info starts coming out and anet turn up the charm.

Improvavel · Feb 27, 2009, 12:28 PM // 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

The setting of maximum in game difficulty or skill level required to garner reward has nothing to do with player numbers.

It doesn't. But the average skill of each individual player is related.

Quote:

I'm not, I'm discussing why making the game so easy has lowered the skill level required to complete "hard" areas and the effect this has had on the game.

Sorry but that isn't proved. You can't prove that just because it's harder, everyone or even most or just a nice number of the population, will spend time to develop skill and do research required to complete those "hard areas".

Actually, what you see in game is that increasing the skill required to complete a given area, depopulates that area.

Just because a game has loads of difficulty settings, it doesn't mean most of the population playing that game will ever try it. Most of those games are single player ones and they have cheats too. Why do they have cheats?

Allowing access to more areas, giving people titles and skins to acquire, only give them more stuff to do and better value for their money.

Just because someone will finish DoA (in a game without PvE-only skills and consumables) doesn't mean he will jump to PvP.

Quote:

Nope, PvE is just vastly more popular in the whole MMO genre.

As a result Anet have concentrated on PvE and neglected PvP.

It's really that simple.

No, it isn't. While I agree that PvE is more popular in RPG games, 1vs1 games are much easier to jump in than team games.

Especially a team game that requires pre-planning.

Lets look at some of the most popular e-sports.
Starcraft - 1vs1.
CS - Teams, but you can learn the game by jumping in matches where random teams are made.
WC3- same as starcraft.
Other shooters - 1vs1 or same as CS.

Now lets look at GWs. 1vs1 is pathetic in this kind of game (simply because you are limited to your build). RA Yay no monk team. Yay 4 monks team. HA, require pre-plan. GvG requires pre-plan.

Quote:

Your personalizing the issue and repeatedly using "choice" as a mantra, regardless in that it really has no relevance.

It was my understanding the thread was discussing the level of player skill across the wider community and the mechanics that effect this, for better or poorer.

Until you can focus on staying relevant to the topic and it's attempt to discuss the wider scheme of the game, not individual choice, it will be another 10 pages of circular argument and heads mashing walls.

1) Are GW players really that bad?

No. They are players looking for fun. Not everyone is here to beat the game or become a huge GvG player.

2) Could it be that they haven't been taught how to play the game correctly? Maybe they missed resources like GW wiki, PvX and Guru (without even going into the "cookie cutter build" mentality)? Or they didn't have the time, given that it's a game and they don't want to invest much time in it?

If a game needs to be taught, it is a bit more complex than some people here, (especially those that know all the mechanics) like to give credit to.

3) Isn't it rather so-called "good players" that are bad at teaching how the game works? (not helped by lack of in-game good tutorials on many aspects of the game)

Players are here for fun. They aren't here to spend their time teaching, although some, will like to do that, but you shouldn't expect everyone to enjoy doing that.

Most likely, if players teach someone, it is because they enjoy playing with the other person and wish to bring that person up-to-date, so both can enjoy the same challenges. I did that with a few persons and learned together with them.

Even if a player is willing to teach, the other person needs to be willing to learn, and both need to reserve time to play together. Probably the best way is starting new characters together.

Concluding, increasing the difficulty only means less and less people will finish a given area and only that. Yes, some that are proud and like challenge will try to overcome the challenge, but those will do so regardless, given their personal nature.

Games like starcraft and warcraft 3 have pathetic campaigns, not related at all with the PvP required level of skill. Regardless, to be a good 1vs1 or team player in those games, you need to be skillful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Hmm....well the point doesn't seem to be sinking in here. If the game can be anything, then the game can't be considered a skill game and can't give a challenge to many people. Bryant has been explaining it much more than I have...a game imposed challenge is far better than a self imposed challenge.

No, the point isn't sinking. I see no point in creating a game where the majority of the population will be prevented to do all of the content. That content might as well not exist.

The skill comes from the PvP portion, the same way the CS skill comes from the PvP portion as opposed to Half-life game, or UT skill comes from PvP as opposed to matches vs bots, the same way the skill from SC comes from PvP as opposed to single-player campaign and the same again for WC3.

PvE is a single player campaign that can be played in a cooperative way. If it was once about skill, and I remember a video depicting Eternum(or Eternal?) Pariah, at the time one of the top GvG guilds, getting slaughtered in Sorrow's furnace, it stopped being about it in the PvE portion of the game long ago, with the introduction of the likes of The Deep and Urgoz. It can't be a game about skill when the mobs cheats too.

zwei2stein · Feb 27, 2009, 01:07 PM // 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

I think this observation is true. Have been thinking about that for several months now.

Like many others I expected Anet to nerf Ursan because the all wise and logical people on these boards showed some good arguments. So Ursan got nerfed and now I can play DoA with 6 heroes because almost instantly we saw an exodus from that area. No prob to me but it makes me question if such things are good for the game and population or not.

It's contradictiong as I too find it logical that elite areas are not for everyone or that's what I thought at least.

"Elite" area being underpopulated & unpuggable is not necessarily bad thing.

But players that are not in few elite % need to have something fun to do too. Ideally, full spectrum of areas from novice to expert level. GW managed to do that by introducing dungeons and with older areas still having appeal (as power progression in general made them more playable without voiding challenge. something that level/gear based traditional mmos can not do,)

In fact, if we allow everyone in area with most desirable rewards, every single other area will suffer lack of players who now have less incentive to be there.

fireflyry · Feb 27, 2009, 01:18 PM // 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

It doesn't. But the average skill of each individual player has.

Explain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Sorry but that isn't proved. You can't prove that just because its harder everyone or even most or just a nice number of the population would spent time to develop and research the skills to complete those "hard areas".

Your kidding, we are talking about the same game right?

Have you even heard of the UW, Tombs, DoA, etc, etc, etc.

Look at all the team builds for elite areas in this game that involve crap loads of skill, communication and synergy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Actually, what you see in game is that increasing the skill required depopulates a given area.

Perfect illustration of whats happened to GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Just because a game as loads of difficulty settings, it doesn't mean most of the population playing that game will ever try it.Most of those games are single player ones and they have cheats too. Why do they have cheats?

For fun of course...and......they are single player.

Thing is the majority only use cheats the second run through or when they struggle with a part of the game so much they can't progress.

If your philosophy had any actual merit "godmode" would be a difficulty setting on most single player games.

Good games equal challenging yourself in order to succeed, great games do this well.

Cheats in single player have no relevance to this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

No, it isn't. While I agree that PvE is more popular in RPG games, 1vs1 games are much easier to jump in than team games.

Again your going way off-tangent.

GW PvP has failed because Anet have neglected it and decided to concentrate on PvE due to it's popularity.

Neglect a game component and it stagnates, then slowly dies.

Period.

Your random comparisons hold no water in this regard.

1) Has player skill, in general, decreased in the last two years.

Yes.

2) Should the game integrate a slow and steady requirement for increase in skill in order to progress.

Yes.

3) Would players be required to teach others skill based play if that was actually dictated by the in-game difficulty.

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

-snip-

The rest is just way to off-tangent for me to reply too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

Until you can focus on staying relevant to the topic and it's attempt to discuss the wider scheme of the game, not individual choice, it will be another 10 pages of circular argument and heads mashing walls.

Take it easy, I'm out.

Improvavel · Feb 27, 2009, 02:21 PM // 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

"Elite" area being underpopulated & unpuggable is not necessarily bad thing.

That depends of the interpretation of what the word "Elite" attached to "Mission" means.

If you want to to interpret "Elite" as to referring to the type of "player" it requires, then, yes it is a good thing. If, on the other hand, "Elite" is there to differentiate the "mission" as opposed to simpler missions, than it isn't a good thing.

In my opinion, "Elite mission" exist as opposed to "Mission", meaning it is a special mission, harder/longer/requiring specific things to succeed, not that it is reserved to "elite players".

Those elite players or hardcore players that want a bigger challenge, in my opinion, should be playing PvP, which is the true "elite area" of the game concerning player skill.

Quote:

But players that are not in few elite % need to have something fun to do too. Ideally, full spectrum of areas from novice to expert level. GW managed to do that by introducing dungeons and with older areas still having appeal (as power progression in general made them more playable without voiding challenge. something that level/gear based traditional mmos can not do,)

In fact, if we allow everyone in area with most desirable rewards, every single other area will suffer lack of players who now have less incentive to be there.

Most areas, even "elite areas" have very few incentive to be played. This game is quite the "scrooge" in terms of rewards by traditional play. Only more than 3 years later did Anet consider give something to a player redoing a mission.

But my main disagreement with you lies in the fact that I consider "Elite Missions" just an upgrade to regular "Missions" while you consider that they should be reserved to "elite players".

In my view, GWs has too much early content, too spread, which will make players wishing to play a multitude of professions, spend too much time doing similar stuff, regardless if it is in tyria, cantha or elona, lose interest.

"Elite missions" is where everyone should be, in my opinion, after completing the campaign. And they should be there with 8 different characters/professions or 10 (if they buy extra slots).

Improvavel · Feb 27, 2009, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

Explain.

Smaller player base can mean higher average skill in a few different ways:

- first, it might mean that only hardcore players are still in there. These players, are by definition, much more concerned in challenging themselves and triumph over the game;

-second, a smaller community, will most likely than not, interact much more, although, GWs have a very crippling situation due to 3 starter/staging areas, with dozens of outposts and missions and hundreds of lower level/secondaries quests with very few relevance.

As you say, in GWs the skill of the overall population decreased over the years while the population increased, regardless of what people say about a dying game. And consumables and PvE-only skills didn't affect GvG and the skill in there decreased too.

Or at least it is perceived that way for both formats.

I don't recall many people finishing DoA back then.

Quote:

Your kidding, we are talking about the same game right?

Have you even heard of the UW, Tombs, DoA, etc, etc, etc.

Look at all the team builds for elite areas in this game that involve crap loads of skill, communication and synergy.

Most of those builds were/are based in exploitation of the AI shortcomings. I don't see how is barrage/pet for tombs superior in skill to a balanced team in there, imbagon or not present.

I don't see how, a tank-and-spank team will develop individual skill and knowledge of the game in individual players, other then knowing the mobs pop-ups and patrols by memory.

I don't see how those builds, that appeared by fine understanding of the game mechanics and AI, will then make people using them by mimic better at the game or having a better understanding of it.

I guess that kind of play is what let you see Healing Hands/defy pain warriors in arenas and ab.

Quote:

Thing is the majority only use cheats the second run through or when they struggle with a part of the game so much they can't progress.

People don't start with PvE-only skills nor consumables. Most people if struggle in a part of the game will beg for help, then will pay for help and if can't find neither of those will quit.

Quote:

Good games equal challenging yourself in order to succeed, great games do this well.

Cheats in single player have no relevance to this thread.

Do DoA in HM with a random party, no pve-only skills, no consumables and no tank skills like shadow form and obsidian flesh.

Heck do it in NM.

I view Pve-only skills and consumables as a rushed fix to the fact this game requires teams to do stuff. They are something between a cheat (much more consumables), a way to avoid hours upon hours of team forming and set up, and to make up for the shortcomings of hero AI (in case you use them).

Of course, this is because I consider "Elite missions" are and should be open to everyone. If you are of the opinion that only those that can get a full player team, set up a voice connection, set up a team build and so on, are eligible to do those areas, I can't say much that will change your view.

Quote:

GW PvP has failed because Anet have neglected it and decided to concentrate on PvE due to it's popularity.

Neglect a game component and it stagnates, then slowly dies.

While that is true, imagine you are a person just coming into the game and want to do GvG. Not only want that, but you want to be the BEST at it.

Will it be that easy?

I think, that even though it will be hard, it will be much easier to try to be the BEST in 1vs1 game, where you can eliminate the factor of requiring 7 other people.

Quote:

1) Has player skill, in general, decreased in the last two years.

Yes.

Has your skill decreased? Mine certainly increased.

The game got a huge flux of new players over time while some veterans got bored and left.

I reckon the skill was probably a lot more homogeneous back then.

Quote:

2) Should the game integrate a slow and steady requirement for increase in skill in order to progress.

Yes.

It should, but by design it doesn't. Stand alone campaigns killed that aspect of the game.

Additionally, you need to be careful. Demanding more and more skill to progress, will shrink the number of players advancing. That will mean more and more players will get frustrated and leave. People don't play and PAY for games to be frustrated. That is bad for business.

More, just because it is an online game, that doesn't mean everyone wants to play with 7 other people. This game could easily have a solo single player game mode. It doesn't to avoid piracy.

Having a very small number of players doing the End Side of PvE is bad for business. Should be harder and it is Harder than the earlier areas, but if you filter too many you don't get people buying your game. No money, death game, no new games.

PvP, especially GvG provides what you ask for. Again, and in my opinion, the requirements to play it (7 other people wanting the same as you) is just too high.

zwei2stein · Feb 27, 2009, 03:18 PM // 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

But my main disagreement with you lies in the fact that I consider "Elite Missions" just an upgrade to regular "Missions" while you consider that they should be reserved to "elite players".

...

"Elite missions" is where everyone should be, in my opinion, after completing the campaign. And they should be there with 8 different characters/professions or 10 (if they buy extra slots).

Reserved to? No. Targeted at? Yes. Nothing should prevent any player going there and trying their best. Should they succeed, awesome!

Yes, people should be able to do something more interesting after campaign, like upgraded missions. And they do have access to them. Titan quests. Golem Quests. Sorrows Furnance. Dungeons. FoW ... Eventually getting there is they manage to learn thing or two.

See, DOA is 0.5% of game designed probably for same percentage of people. Isn't it pretty dumb to ignore rest of game for it? Are words 'Elite' really that much shiny? But this is not really about just being able to go to elite are and to have fun or to complete it, is it. It is about ability to farm it.

Improvavel · Feb 27, 2009, 03:48 PM // 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

See, DOA is 0.5% of game designed probably for same percentage of people. Isn't it pretty dumb to ignore rest of game for it? Are words 'Elite' really that much shiny? But this is not really about just being able to go to elite are and to have fun or to complete it, is it. It is about ability to farm it.

The questions are:

-How many people are farming those?

-Does farming have any impact in the balance of the game?

-Do I require 7 other people to do those or can I do those areas with other person and 6 heroes or alone with 6 heroes, using 2 accounts?

-Are NM "Elite missions" supposed to be completed by everyone since we have HM "Elite missions"?

I mostly play with another person.

I can do every PvE area in the game alone with that person (for Deep and Urgoz I use a 3rd account for getting 3 extra heroes) at least in NM. Never did DoA or Urgoz/Deep in HM while alone with that person, however.

A DoA full run in NM, without consumables, 2players+6heroes take me around 4-5 hours. One of us is either an imbagon or an Extend Conditions mesmer (see cathode doa heroway for a basis). Mallyx takes an extra 40-50 minutes (never tried without an imbagon, never used any door glitches). Faillure is quite possible if over aggro, in cave and against the Fury group.

Am I doing something wrong? If is it so mindless and rewarding why don't I see everyone in there doing it?

Do you want to stop DoA farm, I don't know why it is a problem to you but never mind, nerf the tank skills. Prevent consumable stacking.

I'm not interested in playing with 7 other people. I'm not interested in PvP.

There is no need to sever the leg when cutting the toe nail is enough.

Bryant Again · Feb 27, 2009, 05:49 PM // 17:49

Just saw a little snippet that dropped my jaw:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

No, the point isn't sinking. I see no point in creating a game where the majority of the population will be prevented to do all of the content. That content might as well not exist.

Whoooooa this isn't what we've been saying at all!

We're saying that there's 0 point in having the harder variant of an area (i.e. the Hard Mode) being as easy as the easiest variant (i.e. Normal Mode). In such an instance you'd be right: there *is* no point in having a harder variant of it's just as easy the the standard one. You might as well just increase the rewards in the latter.

That's what PvE skills, consumables, etc. have done. I have *0* qualms with having everyone see the area, the monsters, the story, the etc. Not all people will get better at a game and I'm sympathetic of that - but I have many a qualm with everyone, regardless of skill, seeing the area in the most difficult setting. That's what all of this OP crap in PvE has done: voided the difficult variants of the areas.

And again, I like how you've been ignoring my comments.

Improvavel · Feb 27, 2009, 06:43 PM // 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And again, I like how you've been ignoring my comments.

I'm not ignoring or not your comments.

My opinion is that:

-removing PvE-only skills or consumables wont increase skill of the population, will only prevent people from doing some areas;

-people getting rewards without deserving them or not is a moot point since those things have no actual influence on the balance of the game play;

-the game is badly structured because it was quite a new and different project. If all those stand alone campaigns had been expansions instead, things could have been different;

-also, there is a limit to how strong you can make the enemy without giving more powerful tools to the players to fight them. You have a point when you say that things like "save yourselves" that are somewhat ok to use vs Mallyx are too powerful for normal mode desert missions, for example. Again, that is due to bad structure of the came that is hard to change;

-since I give very small importance to the rewards (I like to play and see a few "carrots" but that isn't why I play, and collecting stuff is a big lure to people, myself included), I don't mind if each person can make a choice to how hard or how easy their game can be;

-for me HM equals to a setting where mobs are buffed. They are still as stupid as usual and I avoid playing "Elite missions" in HM cause I just find those things ridiculous. Unfortunately the designers had the "brilliant" idea of making pure objectives that are little more than a checklist of stuff to keep you entertained linked to HM play;

-I guess they did that because otherwise no one in their perfect mind would play in such a stupid setting, where mobs break all the rules and the playstyle drops to "Maximize defense, then worry about killing".

The bigger the difference between the players values (health, energy regeneration, damage, attack speed, armor, etc) and the mob values, the less the game is about skill and the more it becomes about exploitation.

The designers knew that from the beginning. That was why PvP was supposed to be the end-game - the mobs can't learn so to get more challenge either you make them break the rules even more and/or impose artificial penalty on players (environmental effects, force splits like in the deep, etc).

All of these will keep separating PvP and PvE further and further.

Why did Anet decided to focus on PvE so much that GW 2 became the future?

I don't know for sure. I can speculate. Some other people in this thread and other already speculated some and they are probably right.

Hard mode was bad to the game, not because of the consumables or because of the PvE-only skills, but because it increased the already widening gap between PvE and PvP style of play.

Do I have the solution for this?
Nope.

I just know that removing the PvE-only skills wont accomplish anything, it wont increase people skill.

It might increase the average population skill, or whatever remains of the population, afterward.

For myself, while I wish the game was perfect and I hope GW2 fix, at least some, the structural problems of GW, I'm perfectly happy that the game can be played by 2 players and don't require 7 to do the high-end PvE content.

I like to say to other people that I do such and such with 2p+6 heroes and no consumables.

I'm sorry you can't find the same enjoyment by not playing with the stuff you consider overpowered, proving yourself your skill and be able to think or say "you wimps need PvE-only skills and consumables while I can do the same without those".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

but I have many a qualm with everyone, regardless of skill, seeing the area in the most difficult setting. That's what all of this OP crap in PvE has done: voided the difficult variants of the areas.

I don't because the setting is stupid. In the end people will just exploit how AI reacts and/or bugs. Which is acceptable when performing one attack or a skill cost and additional 2 energy or when a monster can deal upwards of 300 damage (and aoe if need be) or when you can't use enchantments, conditions or hexes and stuff like those or when your normal 100 damage gets reduced to 50 or less, etc.

Improvavel · Feb 27, 2009, 07:24 PM // 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

not done readin teh wall of text yet...but i had to reply to this wit a simple....
no

And I was thinking people were complaining about all defense, no pressure and only spike.

snaek · Feb 27, 2009, 07:31 PM // 19:31

more boring and retarded metas? yesh
less skilled players? no

Quote:

Originally Posted by improvavel

Actually, what you see in game is that increasing the skill required depopulates a given area.

indirectly

olafstead also depopulated
was it because ursan-nerf made the area too hard to clear?
wait? why r ppl even clearing it in the first place? its not even a mission or quest of any kind
oh rite....to farm

the direct relation is incentive and accessibility...not difficulty level

wut bout sorrows furnace
that place used to be packed wit ppl
and then it died
it must have been because it became too difficult to beat

and dam im glad they gave us the faction update
because challenge missions and fa/jq jus took too much skill to do before