Curse

X Shadow Reaper · Dec 16, 2008, 07:23 PM // 19:23

mmm.... i would like about 50 cause u can get to lvl 20 in a a hour or two

DreamWind · Dec 16, 2008, 08:49 PM // 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Anet keeps adding in all of this "grind" because it's the only ounce of longevity it can give to it's players. They know how vital it is to keep their game so strictly to skill>time, so they toss in all these title hunts as a "this is the best we can do" for players who wish to persue them.

Which is exactly the problem they are going to run into in Guild Wars 2....in which case more grind will be added. The only way they could avert this problem is to put the grind DIRECTLY into the game...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

For insight: If I was someone completely new to Guild Wars and asked you "does it have grind?", what would you say? Would you leave it at "yes", or would you say "yes, but..."?

It depends on how in depth they wanted me to go. In general though I tell people that Guild Wars is not an MMO, but it is trying to be one by adding things that typical MMOs have. I say it is a single player playthrough game that used to be a PvP game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

What's the benefit in being "God Walking Amongst Mere Mortals" besides gaining attention? What do you get for being the highest Zaishen rank besides having swords and spears appear out of nowhere and that do nothing?

What is the benefit of playing through the game? To have fun? Perhaps people got God Walking Amongst Mere Mortals, a title that almost certainly requires good amounts of grind to achieve, for fun?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You are most certainly right in saying that there are people who like grind. But to assume that's the only group ANet should cater to is quite an oversight. You cater to all types of players possible, easily satiating those who'd like to play through the game from start to finish on a casual lifestyle and those who like to spend numerous hours in each of their games, and it's a good idea to cater to those as well.

Yes that would be nice, but in reality it doesn't work that way. Just ask the PvP players how well they were catered to. The way it works with their marketing model is they have to cater to the people who give them the most sales, and adding more of something they didn't have is a way to do that. Adding a higher level cap that will be harder to achieve (and very possibly require some amounts of grind) is a way to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You point to all the "grind" in GW as proof of its "high demand" but I point out how easy it is to put in the game and the fact that it's not needed to experience the content.

Irrelevent. Its still proof of high demand or it wouldn't be in the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You point out WoW's popularity but fail to realize the rewarding content that comes from the grind.

Just as rewarding things come from the grind in GW, its just not content like it could easily be in GW2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You point to ANet's decision to "increase the level cap" but I point to Oblivion and Mass Effect, both having high and hard to reach level caps but with no amount of "grind" required to go through (if anything the cap increase sounds just like what they did with titles in GW1: easily satisfy those who like to spend large amounts of time in their game).

The problem is Oblivion and Mass Effect aren't MMORPGS. People want the Guild Wars franchise to be a MMORPG like they expect it to be, just without a monthly fee. The core issue of this whole thing is that in Guild Wars 1, one of the MAJOR POINTS of the game was levels meant nothing, but now people want it to mean something. They want it to be harder to attain....like other MMOS...instead of Guild Wars being uniquely NOT an MMORPG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That's why I'm not seeing any harm in what ANet's doing to GW2 with the increased level cap and why I don't see anything wrong with what they've done with titles in GW1: they're catering, only slightly, to a very easy to please portion of players while having very little harm to the core beliefs of their game. Given how much ANet makes from it's players each month (i.e. $0), it's hard to implement anything else.

Think about all the posters who want a higher level cap because the current level cap is too easy to attain. Think about how they want the level cap to be HARDER to attain. They could easily say they just want the game be longer with the same level cap...but they don't. Ask yourself WHY Anet went through the trouble to implement this grind in GW1 though. Then ask yourself WHY they would increase the level cap in GW2.

The core beliefs and philosophy of the franchise are all but gone, and in Guild Wars 2 I bet anything they will be completely gone. One Anet rep even came out and stated that the philosophy has changed! You don't see the harm because you are either one of the people who enjoys it (like a LOT of people) or one of the people who simply doesn't care (like the people who don't care about balance). When you are a person like me, who doesn't enjoy it and does care about how much the game has degenerated from its roots, then you start to see it.

Red Sonya · Dec 17, 2008, 06:21 AM // 06:21

Quote:

I say it is a single player playthrough game that used to be a PvP game.

It's not even a good one of those as even the single player games offer more than GW does. GW offers grind for longevity and that's about it or these silly mini pets that are worthless for play value. Single player games offer so much more loot and challenge as games like Diablo 2 which offer practically unlimited phat loot and 3 yes 3 levels of difficulty and make playing those areas over more fun. I enjoy chapter 2 in Diablo 2 more than any other games areas, love the tombs and phat loot abounds. It's a lot more fun rummaging through 100's of pieces of loot vs the occassional blue, purple or gold you get in GW. GW loot drop rate is so boring and unfun now it's just not worth the time to play it anymore. GW has always needed power loot and it's scale of modifications increased a whole lot more than it is. 15^50 and +30hps I'm sorry is just not enough to go adventuring for.
Even Oblivion offers more and it offers a ladder of challenge and loot scaling as you play because the mobs level along with you instead of you reach the top of the ladder before you find the challenging mobs. The best loot is at the top of the ladder where it should be and there's a ton of it. The only problem with Oblivion is it's small world of only 16 square miles. But, it hardly lacks for other content or fun value. Morrowind is a lot bigger and with player mods even better. I certainly hope they take lessons from the more successful offline rpgs and WOW as skill>time gets boring way too fast when there's nothing else to do with it after you've finished the stories except pvp.

Bryant Again · Dec 17, 2008, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Sigh...A wall of quotes is no less painful than a wall of text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

What is the benefit of playing through the game? To have fun? Perhaps people got God Walking Amongst Mere Mortals, a title that almost certainly requires good amounts of grind to achieve, for fun?

Yeup. And that's all you get. No gear, no boosted stats, just that sense of personal achievement.

There's 0 harm in adding trophies. If having the kind of "grind" that we have in GW is a problem, then pretty much every 360 game would be in some sense of trouble (they're not, don't worry).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yes that would be nice, but in reality it doesn't work that way...

Which is funny, because that's exactly how it worked in GW1: people wanted grind, people didn't want it to get in the way of their game, both groups are happy. If you want to spend hours upon hours doing a tedious task you totally can. You don't have to if you don't want to and there's no drawbacks for not doing so. Now if you have some sort of fear that the grinder's are "GONNA TAKE OVA", then that might be something else...

There's very few routes ANet could take in implementing a high level cap while being able to satisfy both those who enjoy the grind and those who do not:

-Scale encounters based around player's level (as seen in Oblivion and Mass Effect): In doing so, you eliminate some of the urgency of needing to level and eliminating some of the "cheap shots" you see in leveling (ex:killing monsters/mobs only due to how high a level you are). In addition it provides the player with being able to go any route in the game they wished, being able to complete and progress through the game's hubs in any order they desire.

With the game set-up in such a sense, you could pretty much just have the whole game stay at any set level and it would still have that depth. However there are quite a few people who like to see their character grow in such a sense and who love to see how far they've come, and given such a system there's no harm done in implementing it.

-Provide a long and in-depth campaign in a static world: This would be a bit harder to do. In Prophecies it was done highly well, and being level 20 showed that you went through a lot to get there. The problem would be fine-tuning it to not feel drawn-out in any sort of sense (see the "Mumorpuger" path).

-Pull a Diablo: In addition to the previous method, this would mean having a static world but with the option to turn on more challenging difficulties. This would provide with some more consistent gameplay so it doesn't just get easy and effortless because your character is so powerful. Likewise, if you do want to be able to breeze through stuff you could just stay on a less challenging difficulty. If you want to be able to breeze just as easily on the hard as on the "easy", then get better.

-Have a "hard cap" of a certain level and make the rest of the levels completely based on vanity: This is something they've already discussed about not doing, but nonetheless it's worth a mention. Players who like to keep GW reliant on skill are happy, those who like to see their progress tracked are happy.

Then there are the problematic paths:

-Have a static world with an ever increasing (and stat boosting) level cap: If ANet took that "unlimited level cap" they were talking about, put it in GW1, and have none of the enemies scale to that level, things would get boring real fast. Games are supposed to get easier as you get better, not because you've spent time grinding yourself out. You'll see a lot of people that do want things made easier for them in such a fashion, but you'll see the most successful games challenging you and demanding you to be more skilled (like ya know, Mario? Zelda? Any good game released recently?). If all of this change in the Guild Wars franchise is pointing to ANet wanting a lengthier game, this has the potential to bomb it.

-Pull a "Mumorpuger" (see: Zero Puncuation): Have a high level cap but draw it out through numerous kill quests and quests that require items with insanely low drop rates that may or may not come from monsters who also have insanely spawn rates. This also has quite the potential to axe GW2. This is what many consider to be "grind": needlessly long and tedious to obviously keep you subscribed longer.

Bear in mind that these are just some of many possibilities. Not everyone may have the same idea when they think of a higher level cap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Just as rewarding things come from the grind in GW, its just not content like it could easily be in GW2.

wat

The only thing I and anyone can get from the grind in GW is personal fulfillment. In WoW I get access to new instances and raids and the gear required to progress through said instances and raids.

The only way ANet would be able to "easily" provide with as much content in GW2 would be to give it a subscription fee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You don't see the harm because you are either one of the people who enjoys it (like a LOT of people) or one of the people who simply doesn't care (like the people who don't care about balance). When you are a person like me, who doesn't enjoy it and does care about how much the game has degenerated from its roots, then you start to see it.

I don't care because all the "grind" is optional, isn't required to play through the game, and makes little to no difference on your gameplay if you choose to do it all. I just see zero harm in Guild Wars 1 having the varient of 360 achievements, just in GW1 it's shown a bit more pretty-like when you get them. How GW2 goes is different, as shown from above.

DreamWind · Dec 17, 2008, 11:13 PM // 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

There's 0 harm in adding trophies. If having the kind of "grind" that we have in GW is a problem, then pretty much every 360 game would be in some sense of trouble (they're not, don't worry).

There is harm when the game was advertised as something else and turned into this. If the game was always this way, I wouldn't have a problem with it (most likely because I would have never bought it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Which is funny, because that's exactly how it worked in GW1: people wanted grind, people didn't want it to get in the way of their game, both groups are happy. If you want to spend hours upon hours doing a tedious task you totally can. You don't have to if you don't want to and there's no drawbacks for not doing so. Now if you have some sort of fear that the grinder's are "GONNA TAKE OVA", then that might be something else...

You have a 3rd group...people who don't want the crap to be in the game to begin with. People who want the game to stick to its roots instead of degenerating into something else.

Again, optional or not is irrelevent. What matters is all this added grind has changed the franchise into something else. This WILL trickle into Guild Wars 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

There's very few routes ANet could take in implementing a high level cap while being able to satisfy both those who enjoy the grind and those who do not.

Quite honestly, my opinion is that people who enjoy grind or even a higher level cap should not be playing Guild Wars. It was ALWAYS advertised as a no grind high skill game where level meant nothing.

Of course the problem with that opinion is that the grinders have now been catered to and the higher level caps will be catered to in 2, thus changing the entire concept of the franchise. I am now in the minority though, so I get flamed for that opinion even though it is truthful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

With the game set-up in such a sense, you could pretty much just have the whole game stay at any set level and it would still have that depth. However there are quite a few people who like to see their character grow in such a sense and who love to see how far they've come, and given such a system there's no harm done in implementing it.

So in other words, you have quite a few people who want a higher number on the screen (like WoW does it). Couldn't you add depth or length and challenge to the game without adding levels?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The only way ANet would be able to "easily" provide with as much content in GW2 would be to give it a subscription fee.

Or to add grind that "acts" as content and lengthen out the game until the next expansion. Hey...as long as everybody is content. (c wat i did there)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I don't care because all the "grind" is optional, isn't required to play through the game, and makes little to no difference on your gameplay if you choose to do it all.

Again, you don't see the harm because you are in the majority opinion. Honestly your argument sounds almost as bad as "DLDU". You are saying if I don't like it I don't have to do it. Fine...but that doesn't mean the crap isn't in the game still when it shouldn't be in the game to begin with.

Crom The Pale · Dec 17, 2008, 11:37 PM // 23:37

The problem you face, Dreamwind, is that you are indeed in the minority.

If Anet kept GW to its original concept, then we would have very little PvE content if any at all and this would be a PvP only game. We would also have seen the number of people playing GW drop drasticaly much sooner and with far less chance of anyone returning to this game or franchise in the future.

Anet made a buisness decision. GW2 will cater to the widest possible number of people so they have the largest player base possible.

I do know that some companies create games that only fill a small niche market, but those companies have other games that bring in the majority of their income. GuildWars seams to be the big cash cow for Anet so they have to keep spreading the franchise as far and wide as possible.

-Relics- · Dec 17, 2008, 11:58 PM // 23:58

I think level 30 or 35 would be a good cap..

Bryant Again · Dec 18, 2008, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

There is harm when the game was advertised as something else and turned into this. If the game was always this way, I wouldn't have a problem with it (most likely because I would have never bought it).

You have a 3rd group...people who don't want the crap to be in the game to begin with. People who want the game to stick to its roots instead of degenerating into something else.

Again, optional or not is irrelevent. What matters is all this added grind has changed the franchise into something else. This WILL trickle into Guild Wars 2.

Quite honestly, my opinion is that people who enjoy grind or even a higher level cap should not be playing Guild Wars. It was ALWAYS advertised as a no grind high skill game where level meant nothing.

This all begs the question: Why stick to that vision? Why not have optional achievement hunts that contribute nothing to your character's power?

There isn't. This is what Microsoft knew, it's what Sony knew. Achievements and Trophies are solid and harmless additions to the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So in other words, you have quite a few people who want a higher number on the screen (like WoW does it). Couldn't you add depth or length and challenge to the game without adding levels?

This was already discussed a few pages ago between Zwei and I. Short answer: yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Or to add grind that "acts" as content and lengthen out the game until the next expansion. Hey...as long as everybody is content. (c wat i did there)

I saw, and it wasn't too good. Keep on reading til you get to where I go back to ME and Gears of War, you have a lot of work to do.

GW PvE was never meant to hold you, and it still holds true to that. Titles are only meant for those who want to spend an extra period of time in the game, to seek personal fulfillment after a long period of work, or just in general have nothing else to play and they really put GW on a high pedestal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Again, you don't see the harm because you are in the majority opinion. Honestly your argument sounds almost as bad as "DLDU". You are saying if I don't like it I don't have to do it. Fine...but that doesn't mean the crap isn't in the game still when it shouldn't be in the game to begin with.

It's one of the few areas where the "DLDU" applies, because it doesn't affect just your own personal gameplay, it doesn't affect anyone's.

If you didn't like Ursan you didn't have to use it if you didn't like it...but in not wanting to use it you're arguably gimping yourself. You forcibly restrict yourself from blazomg through the most hardest difficult areas in the game in the game with little effort. Same thing goes for not wanting to use PvE skills or consumables: if you don't like or use them, you're missing out.

Now if all Ursan did was change the appearance of your character, would there be as much of an outcry? If you didn't like it and didn't use it, what'd you miss out on besides looking like a bear?

At this point I'm going to ask you how Epic supplying all the achievements brought a negative effect on Gears of War 1 & 2, how the officer ranks in Halo 3 were a bad idea to implement, how achievements in general were a "bad idea". Here, I'll get you started:
Gears of War 2 achievements
Mass Effect Achievements

Besides, grind like titles have been in existence in Guild Wars since the start: 15k armor, and even moreso with Obisidan. If you don't like it, don't get it. And nothing will happen.

DreamWind · Dec 18, 2008, 02:48 AM // 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

The problem you face, Dreamwind, is that you are indeed in the minority.

Yep...the fact that the game changed is indisputable. The fact that the majority wanted it that way is also indisputable. I am only in this thread to point out these facts though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

If Anet kept GW to its original concept, then we would have very little PvE content if any at all and this would be a PvP only game. We would also have seen the number of people playing GW drop drasticaly much sooner and with far less chance of anyone returning to this game or franchise in the future.

I strongly disagree with both of your claims made here. Anet could have easily continued adding more PvE content while keeping it a PvP game and keeping the population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Achievements and Trophies are solid and harmless additions to the game.

I agree...if they are not against the philosophy of the game and they were part of the game from the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

GW PvE was never meant to hold you, and it still holds true to that. Titles are only meant for those who want to spend an extra period of time in the game, to seek personal fulfillment after a long period of work, or just in general have nothing else to play and they really put GW on a high pedestal.

Exactly. So why make half assed attempts at trying instead of focusing on the good parts of your game?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's one of the few areas where the "DLDU" applies, because it doesn't affect just your own personal gameplay, it doesn't affect anyone's.

LoL...I can't believe you are backpeddling on DLDU now. Please don't flip flop on me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

If you didn't like Ursan you didn't have to use it if you didn't like it...but in not wanting to use it you're arguably gimping yourself. You forcibly restrict yourself from blazomg through the most hardest difficult areas in the game in the game with little effort. Same thing goes for not wanting to use PvE skills or consumables: if you don't like or use them, you're missing out.

Now if all Ursan did was change the appearance of your character, would there be as much of an outcry? If you didn't like it and didn't use it, what'd you miss out on besides looking like a bear?

That is not the reason I found Ursan to be repulsive. I found it to be stupid because it was overpowered, degenerative, ruining the game, and should have never existed or even been conceived in the mind of somebody at Anet. I didn't think it was stupid because "not using it gimped you".

Frankly, most people didn't give a crap about Ursan and it didn't affect them in the slightest. I'm actually surprised it was eventually semi nerfed (even though it took FAR too long to do it and is still being heavily used due to its remaining strength). I guess that shows that if a minority wants change enough it might happen as long as the majority doesn't care much. But if a minority wants to keep things the same it doesn't stay the same if a majority wants change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Besides, grind like titles have been in existence in Guild Wars since the start: 15k armor, and even moreso with Obisidan. If you don't like it, don't get it. And nothing will happen.

Those aren't grind titles.

Besides, theres a big difference between things that already existed, and things that were later added. The armors were game starters. The additions were game changers.

Crom The Pale · Dec 18, 2008, 04:19 AM // 04:19

"Anet could have easily continued adding more PvE content while keeping it a PvP game and keeping the population. "

That statement really doesn't make much sense. Based upon the design of GW you can really only be playing one or the other, so if you add more PvE you are taking people out of PvP to play that new content.

"Originally Posted by Bryant Again
GW PvE was never meant to hold you, and it still holds true to that. Titles are only meant for those who want to spend an extra period of time in the game, to seek personal fulfillment after a long period of work, or just in general have nothing else to play and they really put GW on a high pedestal.

Exactly. So why make half assed attempts at trying instead of focusing on the good parts of your game?"

Anet didn't expect people to get hooked on the PvE, they expected players to use PvE as a training ground for PvP and a means of customizing the look of their characters.

However people did indeed become hooked on the PvE content, as well as the PvP, but in much larger numbers. This forced them to shift the direction of the game putting a larger focus upon that which brought in the most money.

Granted they could have done things a bit differently, such as split off PvP (skills/items/armor/training island/ect) much sooner and that would have allowed them much more flexibility when it came to adding content to the PvE side and maintaining ballance in PvP. Based on statements they have made this is closer to the path they will follow for GW2.

Bryant Again · Dec 18, 2008, 04:47 AM // 04:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I agree...if they are not against the philosophy of the game and they were part of the game from the beginning.

This goes back to asking why ANet were so admantly against something so easily harmless. What ANet's added aren't half-assed attempts to keep you in the game longer, they have no reason to do that. They're just like what the 360's done, what the PS3's done, what Valve's done. They're little cookies that rewarded to you for an extended period in the game should you choose to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

That is not the reason I found Ursan to be repulsive. I found it to be stupid because it was overpowered, degenerative, ruining the game, and should have never existed or even been conceived in the mind of somebody at Anet. I didn't think it was stupid because "not using it gimped you".

Not using it forcibly restricted yourself because it was so overpowered. It eliminated a huge chunk of the skill threshold that existed in PvE. It discouraged build diversity.

It "gimped you" because the skill that existed at the time was no longer recognized. The same thing could be said if id Software put in an infinite ammo BFG9000 at the start of every level. Sure you can avoid picking them up, but that goes against the point. When you have to resort to finding a challenge by ignoring numerous overpowered facets in the game - and when using the things that are overpowered is recognized - something's wrong.

ANet saw this, though, in addition to the fact that reducing the skill threshold has a great ability to reduce longevity ("when you don't need to improve..."). This is a problem that WoW's endgame content has at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

But if a minority wants to keep things the same it doesn't stay the same if a majority wants change.

The only time you'll know what the majority wants is when they don't want it, and that can only be shown by a lack of sales and interest. Other than that there's very little that you can do to collect the thoughts of the majority of players when they never state their opinion. Not to mention your experience has colored what you imagine the "majority" to be.

As far as we can tell right now, the people voicing for "GRINDD" are a crowd just as big as those against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Those aren't grind titles...

But it's grind, isn't it? You have to spend an extended period of time getting all those materials, don't you? You actually have to put forth a portion of hours to get those armors (especially FoW) to get those sets, correct? Especially if you want each and every one?

The answer is yes. Getting all of those sets will take a large amount of time. But nobody cares because the higher end armors aren't paramount to your success in any way - *just* like the titles, which are just elite armors in the form of text.

l Rainy l · Dec 18, 2008, 07:32 AM // 07:32

I want as high a cap as possible - preferably 300ish...ill settle for 178. This way I can call people bad for playing too much pve

DreamWind · Dec 18, 2008, 08:12 AM // 08:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

That statement really doesn't make much sense. Based upon the design of GW you can really only be playing one or the other, so if you add more PvE you are taking people out of PvP to play that new content.

No no...you can add PvE content just fine. You just keep the game a PvP focused game. Today the game is no longer a PvP focused game...its PvE focused. Also...most people play both PvE and PvP. It mostly isn't cut and dry play one or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Granted they could have done things a bit differently, such as split off PvP (skills/items/armor/training island/ect) much sooner and that would have allowed them much more flexibility when it came to adding content to the PvE side and maintaining ballance in PvP. Based on statements they have made this is closer to the path they will follow for GW2.

Let's just say I'm not convinced. Anet has proven to us in GW1 that they don't know how to run a PvP game. To me it isn't a case of them learning from their mistakes, because they haven't. The recent update alone was proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

This goes back to asking why ANet were so admantly against something so easily harmless. What ANet's added aren't half-assed attempts to keep you in the game longer, they have no reason to do that. They're just like what the 360's done, what the PS3's done, what Valve's done. They're little cookies that rewarded to you for an extended period in the game should you choose to do so.

But they are attempts at keeping you in the game longer...they have reason to keep players in the franchise until 2 comes which will make them more likely to buy it. Which goes back to my original point...it is these little cookies that are essentially pseudo content and gives rewards for grind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

ANet saw this, though, in addition to the fact that reducing the skill threshold has a great ability to reduce longevity ("when you don't need to improve..."). This is a problem that WoW's endgame content has at the moment.

This is the problem the entire Guild Wars game has...reduction of skill. Ursan was just a shining beacon for the problem. The problem still remains, just in less talked about forms (except in PvP circles).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The only time you'll know what the majority wants is when they don't want it, and that can only be shown by a lack of sales and interest. Other than that there's very little that you can do to collect the thoughts of the majority of players when they never state their opinion. Not to mention your experience has colored what you imagine the "majority" to be.

Yea...and as far as I know there were more sales when the game was still a PvP focused game than when it was a PvE focused game. I haven't done the research on that, but I'm guessing its about correct. Even though most players are PvE players, can we guess what the majority wants? I guess not..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The answer is yes. Getting all of those sets will take a large amount of time. But nobody cares because the higher end armors aren't paramount to your success in any way - *just* like the titles, which are just elite armors in the form of text.

You didn't respond to my point though. Armors have always been in the game. Titles were added later. The former was a game starter. The later was a game changer. Titles have created a culture of player in Guild Wars. Guild Wars has BECOME a game of titles, just as in Guild Wars 2 I'm guessing there will be a culture of power levelers.

Unreal Havoc · Dec 18, 2008, 11:12 AM // 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Also I strongly doubt it'll be first person perspective or require actual aiming of spells, arrows, or weapons - the MMORPG formula is extremely rigid, I'd even say stale, and wouldn't allow for that.

Tabula Rasa anyone?

bel unbreakable · Dec 18, 2008, 04:20 PM // 16:20

tabula rasa isint that going down the toilet

Bryant Again · Dec 19, 2008, 01:40 AM // 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

But they are attempts at keeping you in the game longer...they have reason to keep players in the franchise until 2 comes which will make them more likely to buy it. Which goes back to my original point...it is these little cookies that are essentially pseudo content and gives rewards for grind.

So how does the Mario series keep being so successful? Not because it keeps players in the game for months on end until the sequel comes out, not because they fill it to the brim with content. But because that one journey was insanely enjoyable. The same can be said of any solid and well made game series.

Same is said for Guild Wars, what exactly are you rewarded for with all that grind? As of right now, nothing besides personal gratification. That could change when they finally announce what you get for all the junk in the HoM, but that's the point where we also wait and see. For me, given all of ANet's emphasis on "skill>time", I'd go with it being something not terribly monumental to your game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yea...and as far as I know there were more sales when the game was still a PvP focused game than when it was a PvE focused game. I haven't done the research on that, but I'm guessing its about correct.

The bolded is your problem. You don't attempt to "guess" what people want amongst so many accounts. It's pretty much the saying as pulling a statement out your bum. So unless you can back that up with some qualifying and in-depth research, simply: no. We've already gone over that you can't be "practical' about this.

The only thing you're gonna see from "copies sold" is that copies are being sold. ANet announced on Aug 21st 2007 that they had reached 4 million copies, a long time after the PvP cluster*#$@ that was Nightfall. It then reached 5 million in the following Febuary on the 26th. Sou rce.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You didn't respond to my point though. Armors have always been in the game. Titles were added later. The former was a game starter. The later was a game changer. Titles have created a culture of player in Guild Wars. Guild Wars has BECOME a game of titles, just as in Guild Wars 2 I'm guessing there will be a culture of power levelers.

Is it still skill>time? Yes it is.

Do titles affect the game as much as the hunt for high-end vanity gear and weapons have been? Indeed.

Are you rewarded just as much for grinding out the money for that high-end armor set as you are for grinding out that cartographer title? Yeup.

Same for that crazily rare weapon? Yes.

The only difference I'm seeing is that titles weren't at the start of the game. That's it. They're still just as harmless as the culture that's been created from the high-end weapons and armor, and I don't see anyone complaining about how harmful that's been.

DreamWind · Dec 19, 2008, 09:51 AM // 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

So how does the Mario series keep being so successful? Not because it keeps players in the game for months on end until the sequel comes out, not because they fill it to the brim with content. But because that one journey was insanely enjoyable. The same can be said of any solid and well made game series.

Well then Guild Wars wasn't a solid or well made game, because people need additional stuff to keep playing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Same is said for Guild Wars, what exactly are you rewarded for with all that grind? As of right now, nothing besides personal gratification.

Again...what do you get for doing ANYTHING in the game? Even if it made you more powerful somehow, what would you do with it? Probably more personal gratification. See the entire problem with titles or higher level caps even existing? This grind gives a reward, and either the players are enjoying the grind or enjoying the reward by doing the grind. Either way the grind is still there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The bolded is your problem. You don't attempt to "guess" what people want amongst so many accounts.

The only thing you're gonna see from "copies sold" is that copies are being sold. ANet announced on Aug 21st 2007 that they had reached 4 million copies, a long time after the PvP cluster*#$@ that was Nightfall. It then reached 5 million in the following Febuary on the 26th.

So you say I shouldn't be making guesses, then you give me a source that basically proves what I was saying. Hmm ok. As far as I can tell, there was nearly 3 million copies sold before Nightfall was released. Between Nightfall and Eotn they sold another 2 million or so. That is 1 million less...? I'd be interested to search for the numbers by expansion...but I don't know if they exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Is it still skill>time? Yes it is.

No? The entire concept isn't skill>time. Every single thing we have been talking about in almost this entire thread isn't skill>time. It is people wanting more time>skill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The only difference I'm seeing is that titles weren't at the start of the game. That's it. They're still just as harmless as the culture that's been created from the high-end weapons and armor, and I don't see anyone complaining about how harmful that's been.

There was never a high end armor culture. There is now a high end title culture fueled by things such as HoM and supported by Anet. Grind was nothing more than a sidequest and not the endgame, but NOW it is the endgame.

Look we can go back and forth forever about this, but I'm just trying to get across the point I try to get across in a lot of threads. The game changed. Some people liked it, some didn't. Now people want the game to change more, and people like me just look from the outside and are amazed at what happened.

Lycan Nibbler · Dec 19, 2008, 11:33 AM // 11:33

100, just so we can have more levels than WoW

Bryant Again · Dec 19, 2008, 12:13 PM // 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Well then Guild Wars wasn't a solid or well made game, because people need additional stuff to keep playing.

That would mean all of Valve's games - in addition to many solid 360 and Playstation 3 games - are "bayad".

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Again...what do you get for doing ANYTHING in the game? Even if it made you more powerful somehow, what would you do with it? Probably more personal gratification. See the entire problem with titles or higher level caps even existing?

Nope, because you have yet to show how all the achievements in the hundreds of 360 games, the trophies in the PS3 titles, and the achievement trackers in Valve's game cause "harm" to the playerbase - because they simply don't.

I've still yet to see how adding something that causes no damage to the game is causing damage to the game. The only thing I see is more players being catered to with very few being pushed aside (besides those who enjoyed high-end PvP, but that doesn't correlate to well to this discussion), and that's always a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So you say I shouldn't be making guesses, then you give me a source that basically proves what I was saying...

The franchise aged and Guild Wars wasn't as "fresh and new" anymore. There goes your "proof".

ANet stated during one of the claims that they would never release the information as to how much each campaign sold individually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

No? The entire concept isn't skill>time. Every single thing we have been talking about in almost this entire thread isn't skill>time. It is people wanting more time>skill.

The emphasis of "skill>time" meant that the player would never become a better player just by playing the game for an extended period of time. Straight from the Guild Wars synopsis: "You don't have to spend countless hours on a leveling treadmill to get to the interesting parts of the game, because combat is designed to be strategically interesting and challenging right from the beginning."

And today that still holds true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

There was never a high end armor culture. There is now a high end title culture fueled by things such as HoM and supported by Anet. Grind was nothing more than a sidequest and not the endgame, but NOW it is the endgame.

Interesting that you left out the mention of the communities fueled by high-end and rare weapons.

P.S: You just called 360 achievements "endgame". Careful there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Look we can go back and forth forever about this, but I'm just trying to get across the point I try to get across in a lot of threads. The game changed. Some people liked it, some didn't. Now people want the game to change more, and people like me just look from the outside and are amazed at what happened.

And some people - like me - are amazed and confused at your (over?)reaction, especially when it's based upon so many assumptions. Given how flavored your experience was, though, it's a bit understandable.

DreamWind · Dec 19, 2008, 11:44 PM // 23:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That would mean all of Valve's games - in addition to many solid 360 and Playstation 3 games - are "bayad".

Uh...no it wouldn't? I'm not saying GW is bad...in fact originally it was a great concept. I'm saying the game changed to something less unique because people apparently weren't satisfied with the original game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Nope, because you have yet to show how all the achievements in the hundreds of 360 games, the trophies in the PS3 titles, and the achievement trackers in Valve's game cause "harm" to the playerbase - because they simply don't.

I've still yet to see how adding something that causes no damage to the game is causing damage to the game. The only thing I see is more players being catered to with very few being pushed aside (besides those who enjoyed high-end PvP, but that doesn't correlate to well to this discussion), and that's always a good thing.

Again, there is a big difference. People buying those games EXPECT those things to be in the game, because they are in the game and advertised to be in the game from the beginning. People buying Guild Wars (skill>time PvP endgame etc etc) should not have expected what the game is today. You think a company changing its entire core philosophy is harmless? Yea...maybe to those who either like the new philosophy or don't care one way or the other. Personally I wouldn't buy from a company who changes their core beliefs like rolling a dice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The franchise aged and Guild Wars wasn't as "fresh and new" anymore. There goes your "proof".

ANet stated during one of the claims that they would never release the information as to how much each campaign sold individually.

Because releasing fresh and new expansions isn't fresh and new anymore, despite the fact that they had the existing playerbase as potential buyers and new players as potential buyers as well? Yea ok...I wonder why they won't release that information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Straight from the Guild Wars synopsis: "You don't have to spend countless hours on a leveling treadmill to get to the interesting parts of the game, because combat is designed to be strategically interesting and challenging right from the beginning."

And today that still holds true.

No it doesn't. The idea of skill>time is that the games entire philosophy is skill>time, not time>skill when people want time>skill. SKILL>TIME thats IT. The point is that skill>time was everything. Time meant NOTHING. Levels meant NOTHING. Now people want time to mean something and levels to mean something. Bye bye Guild Wars franchise as we knew it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Interesting that you left out the mention of the communities fueled by high-end and rare weapons.

P.S: You just called 360 achievements "endgame". Careful there.

Interesting you left out the mention of the endgame changing...

And I don't play 360...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And some people - like me - are amazed and confused at your (over?)reaction, especially when it's based upon so many assumptions. Given how flavored your experience was, though, it's a bit understandable.

Again...because you are in the majority. You just don't see it. I speak for a lot of people who don't speak here or just flat out quit the game already.

Also, just look at every single post between ours. They all want higher level caps of course. Now look at their reasons for wanting that higher cap (WoW, longer and harder to get, etc etc). I think my "assumptions" on the playerbase still stand. In fact, you are probably one of the only people in this thread to give decent level cap suggestions. Everybody else simply wants a bigger number for other reasons.