Curse

Crom The Pale · Jun 17, 2008, 11:12 PM // 23:12

The split between PvP and PvE skills after 3years of people playing with united skill bars is all the proof that I need to know they are testing concepts in GW for GW2.

Now they can manipulate skills in PvE without having any effect upon the PvP players who have concerns about ranks and tournaments. They will guage the reaction of PvE players and make further adjustments as needed or leave the skill alone. Either way they will know how to tweek GW2 to best suit those who they expect to purchase it.

Edit: the original design for GW was a PvP game with an intro that was PvE. You were only meant to play PvE untillyou maxed out your level, which happend very near the end of the game, and then move onto PvP. Players forced them to rethink this design and they have been adapting it ever since.

Chthon · Jun 17, 2008, 11:25 PM // 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected] page

The core philosophy behind GW design, which is "have fun now" was behind those decisions.

Exactly which part of grinding up to R10 Ursan so that one can get into PUGs is having fun now?

Snow Bunny · Jun 17, 2008, 11:31 PM // 23:31

Mmm....I really do hate to attack Regina on this...but...

"Have fun now", as marketed, stated to me that I wouldn't need Godslaying equipment to be any good at the game, and that my performance would rely on my skill.

"Have fun now" does not in any way translate to "LAWL BLOW SHIT UP"

I also have a very serious question - they state they will not alter certain things - Ursan and Hero allowance past 3, namely. They often cite technical impossibilities as their reason. In the past, they cited that same reason as protestation against the PvE/PvP split, and have since proven the ability to do so.

Where does that leave them credibility wise?

Nightow · Jun 17, 2008, 11:34 PM // 23:34

No but I believe this "Have fun now" part is related to example from before.

Quote:

Because let's face it, No one likes being one of those 5 professions that's stuck in the outpost while the other 5 are in there, actually experiencing the game.

DreamWind · Jun 17, 2008, 11:58 PM // 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

The core philosophy behind GW design, which is "have fun now" was behind those decisions.

Is that the new core philosophy of GW design?? Where was the official announcement of this change in philosophy? Where is it on the advertisements/boxes?

Looking at the Prophecies box and various interviews with founders, I see what was originally the core philosophy (skill>time and competitive). When did it change? Why did it change? These are the answers some people are looking for, because the change in philosophy is the sole reason overpowered crap like Ursan and inbalance exists. In some ways I like the change (if it helped fulfill your original philosophy), but all other ways I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

I don't think you actually understand the design underpinnings behind GW1. The game wasn't designed to be an MMOG. It's obvious that the storyline is linear -- it has a beginning and an end. This is in contrast to MMOGs, where there is no end. I think there is a problem about expectations.

I find this a bit hilarious. The game wasn't designed to be an MMOG (which I agree with), yet all the changes made to the game have pushed it that way? Makes perfect sense!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

Because it is an online game, players expected the same depth as subscription MMOGs. You don't have that with GW1. Instead you have a very flexible game that allows players to become involved in a linear story and also allows for balanced, arena style PvP play. Guild Wars is not an MMOG and for you to expect the same things you expect from MMOGs or even traditional offline RPGs is a little unfair.

Then players expected something from that game that it wasn't meant to be, and you gave it to them. You changed the entire core philosophy to meet the expectations of a group of people who bought the game, even though you had bigger goals in mind to begin with. That linear story was what kept a ton of people buying, but the PvP is what was supposed to keep people STAYING (at least until the next linear story release).

In other words...you say people shouldn't expect the same thing from Guild Wars as other games. I agree completely! So then WHY WHY WHY did you go and give them the same thing that other games offer instead of what made your game unique?!?!

Savio · Jun 18, 2008, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightow

No but I believe this "Have fun now" part is related to example from before.

Quote:

Because let's face it, No one likes being one of those 5 professions that's stuck in the outpost while the other 5 are in there, actually experiencing the game.

The solution would be to design PvE areas where they do contribute significantly, or conversely not design PvE areas where the main goal is to LAWL BLOW SHIT UP. Also, design better professions.

Celestial_Kitsune · Jun 18, 2008, 03:33 AM // 03:33

Here is why no change on Ursan so far:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

Regarding Ursan Blessing. We just had an informal meeting and the designers are currently evaluating what options they have to change the skill, whether to change it, and how much to change it. Why is there a question on whether to change Ursan Blessing, given the amount of vocal player hate of the skill? Isaiah ran a query to get a general estimate of how many people have the skill on their bars, and it was not an insignificant number. If the skill is changed, it will affect a huge number of players. The main issue being debated with regard to Ursan Blessing is the massive impact this will have on the playerbase. Sure, there are a lot of people on the wiki and on the forums decrying Ursan Blessing, but the designers have to weigh this feedback against hard numbers. Any change to this skill, no matter how small, will affect a large number of players. Having said that, they know this is an issue, and they are going to run some tests starting tomorrow. --Regina Buenaobra Image:User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_...t_situation.3F

Here is the game Anet is playing:

Quote:

The game involves setting zones with level ranges, trying to keep them distributed so your servers don't overload ("due to the coding practices of ShadiSoft"), making sure there are enough towns and respawn points, and trying to keep monster and class stats on keel. Your primary metric for success is your forum buzz, you want more positive posts than negative, and the main factor for this is how hard or easy the game is. Here's where the punchline starts getting set-up: no matter how well you do a portion of players will complain the game is too easy, and a portion will complain the game is too hard. However, as long as you've got some content in, and you've got a half-competent balance, people will play, get addicted, and you'll grow, even though your churn rate might only be slightly lower than your growth rate. And you'll make money. You only have to get the basics down and then just let the game run. The implication is that you don't need a good game, you just need an addictive game. It smacks you in the face with a procedural resonance, the derivative names of the rival MMOs are just icing on the cake.

http://playthisthing.com/mmorpg-tycoon

manitoba1073 · Jun 18, 2008, 04:22 AM // 04:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Stop being idiots with DLDU arguments.

the thing is that most players are going to use it because it's available.

Manitoba, if you're not doing a damned excellent job of trolling on purpose, you're quite apparently an idiot.

Here's the thing everyone - judging by what we've seen ANet do with their current game, there are no indicators that they will deviate from that course with Gw2 and make it a stale WoW-lite with no replayability and imbalanced bullshit. It won't be fun, pvp will suck, and it will be yet more money wasted that could have been better spent on a dozen jamba juices.

So for manitoba and all the other fools arguing with Avarre, keep that in mind.

Haha funny post there SB. JFYI, I was playing PvP (GvG, HA) long before you had that twinkle in your eye about the game. I was there playing it before Anet went carebear on PvP. Keep this in mind there are players that know more than you do.

These changes have been the culmulation of what the QQ has been crying for in PvP.

They now have all the reason to be able to make any changes to PvP without having to even have any kind of second thought at all about PvE. You cant be serious in trying to play off as that is a bad thing. The split should have been done the day Anet made it possible to have PvP only character creation.

Buzzer · Jun 18, 2008, 04:27 AM // 04:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Random Chance/Luck factor
40/40 sets, Catapults, probably more that don't immediately come to mind.

It adds very little to the game, and as far as PvP goes it's actually a negative. One of the more minor points, but worth mentioning.

Good post on the whole but I disagree here.

All RPGs need to have some randomness to artificially create interesting outcomes. Could you imagine your axe doing 20 damage on every hit with no crits?

Maria The Princess · Jun 18, 2008, 04:45 AM // 04:45

i agree with everything Avarre has said, i am sad to see so many of my friends being in offline status for months, and i get even sadder to see that the time i spend on this game lately isnt as satisfying as it was even 1 year ago, let alone 3 years.

this is the 1st online game i have ever played, and in the end it still is my favorite, since even after breaks i come back to it. it is just that lately the breaks have been longuer and the stay time shorter.

i know games change as they develop, but i miss that concept of knowing that if you dont know the area, dont expect to beat it at 1st time.

/signed

Avarre · Jun 18, 2008, 05:04 AM // 05:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzer

Good post on the whole but I disagree here.

All RPGs need to have some randomness to artificially create interesting outcomes. Could you imagine your axe doing 20 damage on every hit with no crits?

Luck is generally not a good thing to have in competitive gameplay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

For example, they saw that people who liked PvP wanted to get in the game and play right away without having to spend too much time unlocking skills ("Have fun now" -- remember?),

PvP edition was requested in 2005. It took until the release of NF to remove requirements for PvE characters and even longer to get something resembling purchasable unlocks (and they were ridiculously overpriced). That is not good response time to one of the most major concerns of part of the playerbase. In fact, it is downright embarrassing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

Because it is an online game, players expected the same depth as subscription MMOGs. You don't have that with GW1. Instead you have a very flexible game that allows players to become involved in a linear story and also allows for balanced, arena style PvP play.

Complete non-answer, ignoring just about everything regarding character design and tactical depth. Go Team CR!

As said, in that case why are you trying to MMORPG-ize PvE content while PvP stagnates? You don't need huge content or non-linear gameplay to create depth. Character design and tactical function is just as important - the fact that ANet doesn't recognize this is not good.

Sab · Jun 18, 2008, 05:52 AM // 05:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

One of the main issues we are facing here, which I have talked about time and again, is resources. Our design and programming teams currently spend most of their time on GW2 and some people split that time with GW1 responsibilities.

A bigger issue is the devs not having a clue what they're doing. They have the resources to roll out skill updates, but not the understanding to roll out skill updates that would be good for the game.

Buzzer · Jun 18, 2008, 06:50 AM // 06:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Luck is generally not a good thing to have in competitive gameplay.

Generally, but the game wouldn't work without, for example, hit chance modifiers.

Lord Sojar · Jun 18, 2008, 07:01 AM // 07:01

You know what the arguing in this thread shows? That you all care a lot about Guild Wars and what is best for it. That is something pretty special I think. Arena Net should be proud they have fans like you guys, devoted to their game and its well being.

Do try and keep the personal flames down a wee bit okies? I would hate to see this great thread closed and devolve into a pile of Ursan bitching feces.

This thread is quite different from many other Riverside Ursan complaint threads. It doesn't mention Ursan as being a primary problem, and it is extremely well written, not rude or insulting, and is very mature. Statements such as the one you have written are the opposite of that. Please refrain from posting slander; you simply didn't read the thread or didn't bother to think of it on a deeper level. Most veteran players agree with this thread or have quit and don't care anymore. The truly devoted players commented and agreed.
'

manitoba1073 · Jun 18, 2008, 07:37 AM // 07:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

You know what the arguing in this thread shows? That you all care a lot about Guild Wars and what is best for it. That is something pretty special I think. Arena Net should be proud they have fans like you guys, devoted to their game and its well being.

Do try and keep the personal flames down a wee bit okies? I would hate to see this great thread closed and devolve into a pile of Ursan bitching feces.

This thread is quite different from many other Riverside Ursan complaint threads. It doesn't mention Ursan as being a primary problem, and it is extremely well written, not rude or insulting, and is very mature. Statements such as the one you have written are the opposite of that. Please refrain from posting slander; you simply didn't read the thread or didn't bother to think of it on a deeper level. Most veteran players agree with this thread or have quit and don't care anymore. The truly devoted players commented and agreed.
'

While other truely dedicated and veteran players also disagreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sab

A bigger issue is the devs not having a clue what they're doing. They have the resources to roll out skill updates, but not the understanding to roll out skill updates that would be good for the game.

You mean that some people think would be good for the game and not necessarliy actually good for the game.

RotteN · Jun 18, 2008, 09:14 AM // 09:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzer

Generally, but the game wouldn't work without, for example, hit chance modifiers.

GW has TONS of skills/upgrades that have such chance modifiers. However, boldly claim they couldn't be replaced is bullsh*t.

TCoS ( http://tcos.com/ ) at least claims to have a full combat system that has no chance modifiers at all. I haven't been able to test it fully though since i'm waiting for my #@é#§# download limit to reset to re-install the closed beta client. And even then, i'm not allowed to say anything about it, damn NDA's ...

EPO Bot · Jun 18, 2008, 10:43 AM // 10:43

What if they allowed only one norn blessing of each type in any party? Still pretty cheapass, but allows/forces the use of other builds as well. I think it could be a good compromise: Let the least skilled players use blessing wile the gaming gods walking amongst hordes of noobs (i'm talking to YOU) can use their extremely advanced skilbars to outdamage them.

Bryant Again · Jun 18, 2008, 12:40 PM // 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Firestorm

Changing the functionality of some key skills for pvp and pve would be one example.

The skills in GW2 were stated to have different effects in different circumstances. Meaning that a skill would work one way when you jumped and used it and another way if you crouched and used it. The PvE/P split does little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

I don't think you actually understand the design underpinnings behind GW1. The game wasn't designed to be an MMOG. It's obvious that the storyline is linear -- it has a beginning and an end. This is in contrast to MMOGs, where there is no end. I think there is a problem about expectations. Because it is an online game, players expected the same depth as subscription MMOGs. You don't have that with GW1. Instead you have a very flexible game that allows players to become involved in a linear story and also allows for balanced, arena style PvP play. Guild Wars is not an MMOG and for you to expect the same things you expect from MMOGs or even traditional offline RPGs is a little unfair.

Just wanted to say that I fully agree with this. The only problem is ANet went ahead and turned it more into an MMO anyways, and in a very bad sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

While other truely dedicated and veteran players also disagreed.

I find it a bit hard to be consider a veteran "dedicated" when he thinks it a good idea to turn GW into more of a grindier MMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

You mean that some people think would be good for the game and not necessarliy actually good for the game.

If those "some people" are players who play, converse, and observe how the game is played each and every day then I'd consider their input reliable.

Inde · Jun 18, 2008, 01:50 PM // 13:50

Pumpkin, man I'm going to seem so bitter but I swear I'm just posting a response here:

Guild Wars was never "technically" marketed as an MMOG in Anet's eyes. They stated repeatedly that it was a CORPG. BUT... big but, they are riding the coattails of the MMOG market but still massiver multiplayer on-line game fits the description of Guild Wars (I would challenge someone to argue that Guild Wars is NOT a massive multi-player on-line game. Most people now days see this as a description for the interaction in the game and not a storyline). Guild Wars was trying to be very, very unique and they succeeded in the beginning in that regard. The gameplay, mechanics, were quite different from the other MMOG's on the market. But categorizing your game yourself (as Anet did) technically put it in a place all by itself.... with no competition. So it's a catch, is this either the best and the worst CORPG (thinking about it, it would be forced to be both if it's the ONLY game in this category)? Or you compare it to the games that it's remarkably similar to.

Personally, despite what Anet marketing says... everyone knew it would be compared to other MMOG's. Even Anet knew that. You can't self-categorize your own game and then complain when people try to compare it to similar games on the market today. Especially since no other games have come out into that category as well.

Edit: And... he deleted his response. Fine, I'll address it to Regina then :P

Bryant Again · Jun 18, 2008, 01:57 PM // 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Edit: And... he deleted his response. Fine, I'll address it to Regina then :P

Who, me? If so then dang, I thought it would've been considered off topic : (

edit:...which, interestingly enough, this post turned out to be...