Curse

DreamWind · Dec 25, 2008, 08:52 AM // 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

The concept of Skill over Time was never true, it was very missleading to some from the very start. You MUST spend TIME playing the game, unlocking skills and working with team mates to learn how to be good.

This is somewhat true...which is why unlocks and the PvE barriers to PvP (like gold) have always been a big blow to the game and most players have always complained about them.

Time spent playing is not part of time>skill though, as long as the time spent increases skill or is spent trying to increase skill. The very definition of grind is that there is no skill neccessary...it basically becomes mechanical repetition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom the Pale

What Anet was trying to say is more like this:

PvP is a level field of battle where a players skill at playing, and that of his team mates, will determine the outcome. Players levels and gear will NOT have a major impact upon PvP.

I see nowhere were it says it is restricted to PvP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom the Pale

PvE has an easily achievable maximum level and max items that are availible to everyone.

True and this is a good thing. So why change it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom the Pale

I believe that in GW2 player skill will only impact PvP and that players levels will only show how far into the PvE aspect they have progressed.

If this is true, I am so glad I am not buying the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

Ok, you need to reread it, cause, while the box DOES say Skill>time, it never says ANYWHERE that there is NO grind. I just went over the box 2-3 times to make sure. Also, you keep assuming that a majority of GW players, old and new, bought the game for that reason. The HUGE advertisement on the box is the "FREE ONLINE PLAY" plastered on every GW campaign/Expansion box, the skill>time advertisement is on the fold-out of the box & most ppl that buy games don't look at those. I'm willing to bet the AT LEAST 60-70% of the ppl that bought the game saw the "FREE ONLINE PLAY" on the box and NOT the Skill>Time statement, which doesn't support the NO grind statement, maybe minimal grind, but not NO grind.

The problem is that the very definition of skill>time means grind shouldn't exist. Grind is the exact opposite of skill>time. It is time>skill.

You are right about the free online play part though. Brilliant marketing by Anet...but its flaws have obviously been exposed over time.

bel unbreakable · Dec 25, 2008, 02:01 PM // 14:01

dreamwind you would need the judgment of solomon to define grind

DreamWind · Dec 25, 2008, 08:35 PM // 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by bel unbreakable

dreamwind you would need the judgment of solomon to define grind

www.dictionary.com

Soloman has spoken. Anyways I'm out of this thread for a while, be back to telling people on the internet they are wrong after the holidays!

EagleDelta1 · Dec 25, 2008, 11:31 PM // 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

www.dictionary.com

Soloman has spoken. Anyways I'm out of this thread for a while, be back to telling people on the internet they are wrong after the holidays!

The problem with that is that the Gaming industry (or any industry for that matter) doesn't always follow the dictionary when it classifies game genres and features. I.E. If the gaming industry followed the dictionary's definition of Role-Playing game, then ALL video games would be classified as such since you're always taking on some sort of role, but instead the gaming industry created it's own definition of RPG and made it into a specific Genre.

Same can be said for grind. My exact definition of grind and it's effects on a game are probably different from yours. And as the definition gives NO specific definition of grind in a Gaming world, then you can't try and limit it. I've seen the dictionary argument used before ( in the case of GW being an RPG and how having/not having character development affects that) and it simply doesn't work if the said game, developer, or player base follows that definition.

Crom The Pale · Dec 26, 2008, 03:27 AM // 03:27

There is no "skill" in PvE by most players standards. Since the foes are static it is just a matter of learning what skills the monsters use, bringing the proper counters and taking the correct path through the mission/quest/dungeon. Once you learn this it is exactly the same every time.

Yes there is some skill for those that create the first builds and the most efficient builds. IF they never shared that knowledge maybe others would be forced to work a bit harder to find a means of completing PvE. The fact is once the first few people are through the game they tend to post builds on forums, and too offer help to those in need.

Skill in GW has always been relegated to the PvP side of the game, where your opponents skill bars are random and unpredictable as well as live and not repetative.

The topic of Time vs Grind doesn't even belong here since we have no idea of the ratio between levels and work required to achieve them.

What we could disscuss are the goals of PvE. Is the main goal to reach max level or to complete the story line? How are those two linked together?

Another question we can't answer yet is just how much will a players level effect the characters power/performance. Will the foes we fight in game be tied to their location (as in GW) or tied to the level of character fighting them?

There is just far too much that we do NOT know about GW2 for anyone to make a solid argument one way or another.

EagleDelta1 · Dec 26, 2008, 06:03 AM // 06:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Another question we can't answer yet is just how much will a players level effect the characters power/performance. Will the foes we fight in game be tied to their location (as in GW) or tied to the level of character fighting them?

My guess is, based off earlier interviews & information, is that they'll be tied to location since ANet is aiming for a primarily persistent world. It'd be very difficult to set enemy strength to level if you've got ppl from a wide range of levels in the same persistent location at the same time

Codin The Great · Dec 26, 2008, 06:42 AM // 06:42

it should never stop so i can become immortal muwahahahahaha!

ensoriki · Dec 26, 2008, 03:06 PM // 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

This is somewhat true...which is why unlocks and the PvE barriers to PvP (like gold) have always been a big blow to the game and most players have always complained about them.

Time spent playing is not part of time>skill though, as long as the time spent increases skill or is spent trying to increase skill. The very definition of grind is that there is no skill neccessary...it basically becomes mechanical repetition.

I see nowhere were it says it is restricted to PvP.

True and this is a good thing. So why change it?

If this is true, I am so glad I am not buying the game.

The problem is that the very definition of skill>time means grind shouldn't exist. Grind is the exact opposite of skill>time. It is time>skill.

You are right about the free online play part though. Brilliant marketing by Anet...but its flaws have obviously been exposed over time.

Theres grind in a lot of games that have skill.
Doesn't matter.

You dont take your level 18 character into Pvp and expect your going at full performance.
However the fact that the level cap is easy to meet means that
1) It does not take long for everyone to be at an even playing field.

Which is good because in many games, not only is the level cap high, the exp you get is ridiculously low.
If anything pve should just slightly ready you for pvp.
So if theres grind, it's for good reason.

2) Skill > Time, doesn't mean you don't need to put in time.
Some will disagree with my examples but say.
Gunz online, a good person can get their shots, k style well, dodge the shots.
A skilled person can beat a less skilled person with higher levels. However levels make you better in terms of equipment.
If your skilled you'll win (unless the difference in skill is low), but time will make you even better.
If you want GW to be like your out of the box console/PC fps, where you just get in and play, well good for you, but that doesn't keep the average person interested for long. Which is why a balance in where time is required (if your a pve character, or for skill unlocks in pvp) but not overcentralizing, and that skill can prevail, is necessary.

Sorry if my sentence structure is horrible.

Bryant Again · Dec 28, 2008, 12:57 AM // 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I just think its funny. In the Ursan threads me and you were together that "don't like it don't use it" was completely stupid, but now I got people all over me using it here.

Because doing the millions of hours of grind doesn't get you anything and you don't miss out on anything when you don't do it. Ursan's situation was different.

I put an emphasis more on the gameplay itself. As long as you can't beat everything within the campaigns without any thought or actual builds - replacing that instead with "grinded up titles and stats - I'm good. As long as it still requires actual input and coherent build organization to complete the most challenging and difficult areas in the game, I'm fine.

What Ursan did was completely change what was required of you to succeed in the game. Good games require skill, and Ursan promoted little: it completely threw out team and profession organization, was linked to a title putting a *very* huge emphasis on "time", and overall required little knowledge besides "don't pull big groups".

I don't see the introduction of all this new "grind" terribly damaging because there was already "grind" at the start with high-end armors and rare weapons, and the "grind" that's been implemented into Guild Wars is pretty much the same as those achievements in a lot of those 360 games.

I don't find titles to be a problem because they a very short extension for the game for a segregated and selected group of players, while Ursan provided a different and drastically simpler way to play the game in its entirety. Ursan changed the gaming landscape, titles added more to that landscape.

You claim Guild Wars is different from those other games because they didn't change. That's because most of them couldn't change, at least not in the way Guild Wars is able. Super Smash Bros Melee and Brawl included a trophy system, but the previous Smash titles didn't. XBox Live didn't implement achievements until the 360 came out. These games did in fact "change".

As you've already stated, it's the fact that Guild Wars has changed - period - that's of concern. Not that it changed into something good, not that it changed into something bad, but that it just changed. Not only that but it was implied that ANet would never implement any of these types of systems - and this brings us to the subjective matter of interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yes there is...optional grind where skill isn't needed.

Like Lucky? Unlucky? Sweet Tooth? Party Animal? Oh noes, tha game is ruind.

Meanwhile, the HoM is recognizing non-goldsink related tasks - completing any of the campaigns, collecting rare suits of armor, earning numerous mini-pets, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So take out all grind and be done with it.

"Grind" according to whom? You? Not everyone is going to have the same definition.

Over the holidays, one of my good friends from my horde guild in WoW was asking about GW. He asked if it had the same form of grind WoW had, with all of the rep grinds and etc. I told him that yes, there was a system very very similar to WoW rep grinds with the Factions and EOTN groups. But then I mentioned the fact that all gear and weapons are equal, regardless of rarity and whatnot. After I gave him a long description and explanation of how gear works in GW, he easily said "oh...but that's not grind".

"Grind" to him meant having to do exceedingly tedious tasks repeatedly in order to get to the "good stuff". An example of that would be requiring you to be a Sunspear Castellen before you're even allowed to leave the starting isle in NF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

More like perfectly relevant to this thread. Throughout all I see are people either saying "don't like it don't use it" or "why not". Both are equally as bad. I can say "why not" to ANYTHING. Anything in the world! A more legitimate argument for adding grind or raising the level cap would start with "WHY". "Why not" is a waste of time.

Then here: Why leave the level cap at 20?

If it's because "it works" then what specifically about it "works", and why wouldn't a higher cap work just as well? How would that imply that a higher cap wouldn't work?
If it's because it didn't want an emphasis on leveling, then why have a level at all?

There are just as many reasons for having a level 20 cap as there are for having an X cap. Pretty much all of them subjective and dependent on how it's set up.

A lot of people here are saying they want the level cap to be high and to take a while to max. Why they want that isn't fully shown, but it's unfair to assume they all want it to "take longer to grind out". Some might just want it as a marker to show how long and far they've progressed through the game.

Avarre · Dec 28, 2008, 03:10 AM // 03:10

I wouldn't mind if they removed the leveling mechanic altogether and purely focused on zone design.

Crom The Pale · Dec 28, 2008, 04:49 AM // 04:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

I wouldn't mind if they removed the leveling mechanic altogether and purely focused on zone design.

I am certainly not opposed to this idea, but how would you integrate character development without levels?

Would every character start off with "max stats" and only aquire new skills as they progressed through the story?

I tend to think that the 'no level' aproach would blur into the 'infinate' level aproach.

cellardweller · Dec 28, 2008, 05:36 AM // 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then here: Why leave the level cap at 20?

If it's because "it works" then what specifically about it "works", and why wouldn't a higher cap work just as well? How would that imply that a higher cap
wouldn't work?

Hasn't this question been answered already? The earlier you reach the level cap relative to the end of the game, the more content is available to actually play in once you have completed the tutorial/leveling up part of the game.

Bryant Again · Dec 28, 2008, 05:59 AM // 05:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

Hasn't this question been answered already? The earlier you reach the level cap relative to the end of the game, the more content is available to actually play in once you have completed the tutorial/leveling up part of the game.

You're right, we have been over this - to which I said, that would be assuming way too much.

It's all about how it's set up. When you played Baldur's Gate or Nights of the Old Republic, was your thought always "I need to get to the cap to experience the actual game"?

Like Zwei said, the level cap doesn't matter if they make the game start at 1. This is what we saw in Proph and saw abandoned in the later releases due to so many people already at level 20.

cellardweller · Dec 28, 2008, 08:09 AM // 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You're right, we have been over this - to which I said, that would be assuming way too much.

It's all about how it's set up. When you played Baldur's Gate or Nights of the Old Republic, was your thought always "I need to get to the cap to experience the actual game"?

Like Zwei said, the level cap doesn't matter if they make the game start at 1. This is what we saw in Proph and saw abandoned in the later releases due to so many people already at level 20.

And have you played kotor or bg more than 3 or 4 times? Games like no replay value because they are built around the progression. GW on the other hand lets you do play the same missions an unlimited amount of times because it is built on being repeatable. You're suggesting taking a superior model and reducing it to the level of traditional rpgs.

Bryant Again · Dec 28, 2008, 01:28 PM // 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

You're suggesting taking a superior model and reducing it to the level of traditional rpgs.

No, not really. You again are assuming too much.

I merely brought up KotOR and BG as examples where leveling shouldn't be a priority. If everything's done right, if everything is set in place, we shouldn't even care about leveling at all.

That said, I don't see how Guild Wars contains more "replayability" than the previously mentioned RPGs.

Crom The Pale · Dec 28, 2008, 02:14 PM // 14:14

I have to agree with Bryant in one aspect.

When you have a high level cap that can be attained it doesn't mean you must in order to finish the game. Take a look back at almost all of the Final Fantasy games. The higher your level the easier it became to complete the game, but you never had to reach max as the only option to completing the game.

When the level cap becomes a nessassary goal in order to complete the game then it is GRIND, and that is something GW is trying to avoid.

In Prophicies you could complete the game without ever reaching level 20. That is the model that many wish GW2 to follow, regardless of whether the cap is at 20 or 200.

Avarre · Dec 28, 2008, 02:44 PM // 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Would every character start off with "max stats" and only aquire new skills as they progressed through the story?

Sure, why not. The entire leveling mechanic becomes obsolete as soon as players hit level 20 content, which is pretty early. There's no reason enemy strength can't be scaled by skillbar quality and the level concept removed entirely. For the most part, difficulty changes weren't linked to levels but to other modifiers in GW1 anyway.

Quote:

I tend to think that the 'no level' aproach would blur into the 'infinate' level aproach.

Maybe, but I know which of the two is simpler.

Crom The Pale · Dec 28, 2008, 03:51 PM // 15:51

There is a reason that no levels is simple. This looks very much like the formula of a First Person Shooter. Your only change to the character you play is the weapons/skill you have equiped.

If skills/items are only awarded as mission completion rewards then you would have a game that is entirely focused upon completion of the story.

So in fact characters would still have levels, just no number representing that level for others to see. Your level would be equal to what skills/items you had for that character.

Dante the Warlord · Dec 28, 2008, 04:49 PM // 16:49

Im all for lvl 50 caps with factions capping. But I am also for lowering the rewards for gaining in level.

cellardweller · Dec 29, 2008, 12:13 AM // 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

No, not really. You again are assuming too much.

I merely brought up KotOR and BG as examples where leveling shouldn't be a priority. If everything's done right, if everything is set in place, we shouldn't even care about leveling at all.

I don't think that saying a gaming model that provides for a couple of hundred hours worth of enjoyment rather is inferior to one that is still fun after six thousand hours.

Quote:

That said, I don't see how Guild Wars contains more "replayability" than the previously mentioned RPGs.

Guildwars has more replayablity because difficulty is static - this allows for player driven goals rather developer driven goals. In kogor or bg2 the only thing to do is to overcome the obstacles provided by the developer. If I go into a gw dungeon twice it is the same difficulty which means I have the ablity to build my own goals in terms of beating other players or even my own times - leveling in any form kills that totally because any two attempts at the same task are incommensurable.