Curse

Kashrlyyk · Jun 07, 2008, 10:56 AM // 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by samifly

Not really seeing any evidence that GW would have failed if they stuck to their original vision. or that it has failed at all. they have simply drifted away from it.

They could have tried forcing people to play PvP, that was their idea to make a PvE game, that you finish once and then you start with PvP, which should be about "skill" and not equipment.
But the "crushing majority" never started PvP! They didn´t share the vision of ANet and therefore it failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

I do not know how to argue with these assertions because they blatantly disagree with logic and reality.

You personal logic and reality doesn´t count! Remember "crushing majority" that does not play PvP!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaern Majes

You have it partly right it should read "the designers SHOULD BE more qualified to make good, rational decisions." But if thats the case why are so many people leaving the game? I know quite a few people who have switched over to other MMO's.

I don´t know for how long those people have played the game, but I myself took a one year long break from the game, because it got boring. So it doesn´t necessarily mean that the game is bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaern Majes

Being in the minority doesn't make you an elitist, get off your high horse lest you fall from it.

I know, but being in the minority and believing that YOUR way to play, is the only right one, does!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaern Majes

Changing the game just make people happy does NOT mean its a good change. It might be smart from a business perspective but if you ruin the game in the process, well lets just say thats not "smart".

I don´t see how you can say the game was ruined, if a huge number of players still enjoy playing it? Oh, it was ruined for the small minority, my bad. I don´t care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaern Majes

First, the no monthly fee rocks and will always be a major selling point, but hey guess what? IT WAS PART OF THEIR ORIGINAL "VISION." *gasp*

Not so much the vision, more like the business modell, but close enough, so touché.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaern Majes

The combat system used to be fun, until you had resort to 3 buttons to get a group for anything....

I don´t play with other players and I very much still enjoy the combat system. You need a better guild/alliance.

DarkNecrid · Jun 07, 2008, 11:30 AM // 11:30

Quote:

But the "crushing majority" never started PvP! They didn´t share the vision of ANet and therefore it failed.

that's because they were uneducated idiots who failed to notice basic advertisizing.

ps: you're still wrong, a huge majority of people PvP'd back then. There used to be more distracts in Heroes Ascent than Lion's Arch at times.

Greedy Gus · Jun 07, 2008, 12:17 PM // 12:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

They could have tried forcing people to play PvP, that was their idea to make a PvE game, that you finish once and then you start with PvP, which should be about "skill" and not equipment.
But the "crushing majority" never started PvP! They didn´t share the vision of ANet and therefore it failed.

You don't seem to notice that if that's true, then the crushing majority bought the game anyway even if the content was directed at loftier goals. A-net should have taken their money, continued to put out this online RPG without a monthly-fee (obviously what enticed people who didn't care about pvp or quality competitive gameplay), and kept their vision for quality. Instead they raced to the bottom to try to appease the whining masses (the crushing majority that bought the game even without understanding or caring for the original design goals), moving the brand toward mediocrity in the process.

Guild wars would have been a financial success regardless of direction. What changed is its perception by the higher level playerbase (people who post on forums, run community sites, etc.) as WoW-lite after the A-net management got dollar signs in the eyes.

DreamWind · Jun 07, 2008, 12:38 PM // 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

They could have tried forcing people to play PvP, that was their idea to make a PvE game, that you finish once and then you start with PvP, which should be about "skill" and not equipment.
But the "crushing majority" never started PvP! They didn´t share the vision of ANet and therefore it failed.

I think you are strongly underestimating the amount of people who PvP or used to PvP. But that isn't the point.

The idea was never to FORCE people to play PvP. The idea was to BLEND the two sides in a way that you could easily go from PvE to PvP. The idea was not to split the two sides completely. The vision NEVER meant you had to quit PvE.

When people talk about the original vision, they are talking about skill>time and being a competitive game (with no monthly fees). Both of those are advertised on the original game and stated many times by the Anet founders, and both of those are all but gone today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

I don´t know for how long those people have played the game, but I myself took a one year long break from the game, because it got boring. So it doesn´t necessarily mean that the game is bad.

It isn't bad, but you never responded to the point. Anet has shown us that they either don't know much or don't care about balance, and things like Nightfall/UB/EP prove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

I don´t see how you can say the game was ruined, if a huge number of players still enjoy playing it? Oh, it was ruined for the small minority, my bad. I don´t care.

It wasn't ruined, it just got worse than it used to be. I bet if you took a large poll you'd find that most people liked Guild Wars better in the old days. That isn't just PvP players...that would be from everybody PvE included. All the changes made to the game are starting to make it feel like "just another MMORPG" to me. Anet should have pressed what was unique for them (their original vision). They would have had just as many players if not more.

The only difference of Guild Wars for me today is no monthly fee, and if you tacked a monthly fee on to Guild Wars, I bet almost nobody would play it. That says a lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

You don't seem to notice that if that's true, then the crushing majority bought the game anyway even if the content was directed at loftier goals. A-net should have taken their money, continued to put out this online RPG without a monthly-fee (obviously what enticed people who didn't care about pvp or quality competitive gameplay), and kept their vision for quality. Instead they raced to the bottom to try to appease the whining masses (the crushing majority that bought the game even without understanding or caring for the original design goals), moving the brand toward mediocrity in the process.

Guild wars would have been a financial success regardless of direction. What changed is its perception by the higher level playerbase (people who post on forums, run community sites, etc.) as WoW-lite after the A-net management got dollar signs in the eyes.

Excellent post.

Symeon · Jun 07, 2008, 01:22 PM // 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Quote:

Not really seeing any evidence that GW would have failed if they stuck to their original vision. or that it has failed at all. they have simply drifted away from it.

They could have tried forcing people to play PvP, that was their idea to make a PvE game, that you finish once and then you start with PvP, which should be about "skill" and not equipment.
But the "crushing majority" never started PvP! They didn´t share the vision of ANet and therefore it failed.

I don't think ANet ever wanted to "force" players into PvP, but they hoped players would naturally progress from PvE into PvP. That part may not have worked out, but it didn't mean the whole original vision failed. In fact, they moved away from this idea to strengthen the main part of that vision, skill > time, with the introduction of PvP characters.

Now try arguing with the bolded part, or even, provide evidence that moving away from the original vision actually brought the game any more success.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I bet if you took a large poll you'd find that most people liked Guild Wars better in the old days. That isn't just PvP players...that would be from everybody PvE included.

You'd have to make that poll for people who started before any of the new Chapters, because anyone who started later wouldn't know what 'the old days' were actually like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

You don't seem to notice that if that's true, then the crushing majority bought the game anyway even if the content was directed at loftier goals. A-net should have taken their money, continued to put out this online RPG without a monthly-fee (obviously what enticed people who didn't care about pvp or quality competitive gameplay), and kept their vision for quality. Instead they raced to the bottom to try to appease the whining masses (the crushing majority that bought the game even without understanding or caring for the original design goals), moving the brand toward mediocrity in the process.

Guild wars would have been a financial success regardless of direction. What changed is its perception by the higher level playerbase (people who post on forums, run community sites, etc.) as WoW-lite after the A-net management got dollar signs in the eyes.

Very well put.

Mouse at Large · Jun 07, 2008, 02:15 PM // 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sab

No one is using the "because it's fun" argument because it's a terrible argument..

Oh dear, I must have missed the memo that went round about the motivation for playing games. In that case I'll just carry on playing because I enjoy it until someone explains to me what other reason there should be for doing all this............................

Bryant Again · Jun 07, 2008, 02:17 PM // 14:17

The thing with saying "ANet did this to be more of a success", is that Guild Wars was doing just fine waaaay before all of this crap: 3 million mark, 4 million mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse at Large

Oh dear, I must have missed the memo that went round about the motivation for playing games. In that case I'll just carry on playing because I enjoy it until someone explains to me what other reason there should be for doing all this............................

Regardless of "how fun it is," there's still an integrity that has to be maintained in the game. The "because it's fun" argument is rather weak because I can use that same argument to justify having five billion hit points.

Phaern Majes · Jun 07, 2008, 02:51 PM // 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

I know, but being in the minority and believing that YOUR way to play, is the only right one, does!

If you actually read my post and tell me where I say its my way or the highway then I'll give you props. However if you actually read my posts you'll see that I state everyone is intended to their opinion. I don't care how Anet makes their game, if I don't like it I have no issue playing another game. What I find offensive is your "holier than thou" attitude. If you don't care about what anyone here thinks then why even bother posting? You are your own definition of elitist. You've done nothing but mock and label those who dislike the way the game is now as the elitist minority. So we dislike it, so what? Get over it. What are you afraid of that Anet might actually listen to us?

We dislike it and we state why. Did I say I know the perfect solution? Did I say I could solve all the problems if everyone plays the way I like to? No I did not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

I don´t see how you can say the game was ruined, if a huge number of players still enjoy playing it? Oh, it was ruined for the small minority, my bad. I don´t care.

The game is ruined for me personally. As I stated I have other games to play. I'd love for Anet to "fix" things, yes they would be "fixes" for me. Would everyone be happy, no. Do I expect or demand the changes? No. But I feel my dislikes of the game should be stated, and I have that right to post them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

I don´t play with other players and I very much still enjoy the combat system. You need a better guild/alliance.

Well I'm glad your single solo foray through Guild Wars should dictate how everyone else should play. Isn't that exactly what you've been preaching against? That the minority shouldn't rule. The majority of the players do in fact group up, maybe not always but they do. A decent number of players don't belong to a good guild/alliance. I'm done with your hypocrisy, and "I don't care what you think, but you should all listen to me attitude."

Seriously

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Oh, it was ruined for the small minority, my bad. I don´t care.

EPIC fail.

Mouse at Large · Jun 07, 2008, 03:26 PM // 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Regardless of "how fun it is," there's still an integrity that has to be maintained in the game. The "because it's fun" argument is rather weak because I can use that same argument to justify having five billion hit points.

No - the true statement is should read "regardless of "how fun it is," in my opinion there's still an integrity that has to be maintained in the game."

Please admit the possibility there could be an equally valid contradictory opinion

Tyla · Jun 07, 2008, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

YOU, ELITISTS, ARE NOT IMPORTANT FOR THE SUCCESS OF GUILD WARS, NIETHER IS PVP!

I'm just going to mark you as "Idiot" for labeling people who PvP as "Elitists". And once you prove how the vision failed, because last time I checked, it didn't. My proof is the good reviews off players themselves, most of which are likely to have quit given the direction this game turned towards.

Clarissa F · Jun 07, 2008, 03:37 PM // 15:37

They were doing fine with sales before this big dynamic change. They still had over 2 million sales before the introduction of PvE skills, very good for the MMO field(yeah, I know it's a CORPG). As was said before, they new players aren't the ones that cried for change. Including that moron on 1up, they were players who had played the game for many months, yet were either too lazy to work on their game, or too bad at time management to do elite areas. There is nothing wrong with not getting the knack for a certain game. Hell, you could be great at this game and suck balls at Halo. However, it doesn't mean that Halo should be dumbed down for you, and neither does it mean that there should be a win button so you can access areas that are supposed to be for people who gained the skill to play the game well.

A lot of people who used to be great PvE players, and gave good advice on these and other forums, left the game because of this dynamic change in the meta. In an MMO, where a community can be important, this isn't a good thing. It's a sign that the game has been changed. If people are willing to leave a game that is free to play for subscription games(AoC, LotRO, WoW), that is a sign your formula isn't working.

Symeon · Jun 07, 2008, 03:39 PM // 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse at Large

No - the true statement is should read "regardless of "how fun it is," in my opinion there's still an integrity that has to be maintained in the game."

Please admit the possibility there could be an equally valid contradictory opinion

So in your opinion (or an opinion that you say is valid) all the game's integrity can just be thrown out; everyone can have 5 billion hit points, 10 billion damage skills, and dupe items/gold freely? Ok, totally valid opinion.

Melody Cross · Jun 07, 2008, 03:52 PM // 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

A lot of...personally motivated things...

You seem to be posting from some precieved belief that you--and you alone--are the best qualified voice for the majority on this thread. If I am incorrect about this, I appologize beforehand. However, this remains my preception after reading your posts.

Allow me to administer a reality check: you are not the majority. You are a single voice.

You may speak for your friends. You may speak for yourself, your guild, even your alliance if they so choose to let you. But you do not speak for me. You do not speak for my guild, or most of the guilds/alliances I have ever been in. Those guilds who might nod their heads at what you say, I tend to leave, and leave quickly.

The crushing majority speak for themselves, and its easy to hear them. You go to trade cities and count the districts. You go to newb areas and see how many characters are being created and leveled.

The crushing majority speak by remaining a majority of active players. When they dwindle, when they leave, I--and I would hope Anet as well--worry.

There are fewer districts in Kamadon than there used to be.

Beyond remaining aware of that trend, attempts to speak directly to the mob always end in failure. We are not Legion; we are a few million people with differing opinions about everything ranging from preffered in-game professions to political beliefs.

You are not the crushing majority. And you are not their champion. Speak for yourself or (I hesitate to say this because I believe that all have a voice, but by speaking for the majority, you presume to speak for me) shut the hell up.

sph0nz · Jun 07, 2008, 06:10 PM // 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

I would agree. I would say that the designers "are more qualified to make good, rational decisions and changes" than you or Avarre or Yichi et al.. And I would say that changing the game to keep the majority happy is a much more rational and good change than listening to the very, very, very small number of idiotic "elitists", that apparently can not understand that GW would most likely have been shut down a long time ago, without that majority.

That may be true, but you're acting as if ANet always makes the best decisions possible; appealing to authority isn't going to make your argument better. Furthermore, I do agree that businesses should generally act with a utilitarian ethic. However, in this case it is clear that the "majority" was ignorant, and catering to an ignorant majority is a bad decision. We are talking about a business that is essentially democratic in its decision making, which can be a good thing as long as the majority of players aren't ignorant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Or to put it bluntly: YOU, ELITISTS, ARE NOT IMPORTANT FOR THE SUCCESS OF GUILD WARS, NEITHER IS PVP! And at the end of the day, I rather have ANet continue business, because they changed their naive vision, then fail by sticking to it.

Roughly 1855 people online in the forum. 10 care about the vision.
Roughly 1200000 players, which mean roughly 7000 cry about the deviation from the vision. I think ANet will survive, if you leave.

Why should anyone stick to a vision that failed?

No monthly fee and a fun combat system, that made the game fun for most players. But not their idiotic vision!!!! Please, stop being such an arrogant idiot. You sound like a die hard fanboy of DnD 2nd ed., that cries because they changed it into DnD 3rd ed.. I don´t care for your theoretical problem, that they left their vision.

I lol'd. Let me remind you that Guild Wars has one of the best PvP systems among MMOs (LOL GUILD WARS ISNT AN MMO). Furthermore, the original intention of ANet's plan was that PvErs would go play PvP at some point, but since that didn't happen they introduced meaningless titles. Oh wait, ANet gave them meaning when they created shitty PvE only skills and inherent title benefits (Reputation titles, Lightbringer), and made requirements on these titles for progressing through the game. Adding grind requirements to progress through the storyline exactly contradicts their original premise.

This game has degraded itself over time.

Sab · Jun 07, 2008, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse at Large

Oh dear, I must have missed the memo that went round about the motivation for playing games. In that case I'll just carry on playing because I enjoy it until someone explains to me what other reason there should be for doing all this............................

Did you actually fail to read my post, or did you intentionally quote it out of context because your argument fell apart?

super strokey · Jun 07, 2008, 07:48 PM // 19:48

I dont think that the game has really gotten worse over time its just that its a 3 year old game and we expect more is all, well the more will be GW2 hopefully so lets not be too worked up.

Also i hate the "they should force pvp more" argument. Some people just dont like pvp so forcing some one to do it isnt really going to help the game

aB- · Jun 07, 2008, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by sph0nz

I lol'd. Let me remind you that Guild Wars has one of the best PvP systems among MMOs (LOL GUILD WARS ISNT AN MMO). Furthermore, the original intention of ANet's plan was that PvErs would go play PvP at some point, but since that didn't happen they introduced meaningless titles. Oh wait, ANet gave them meaning when they created shitty PvE only skills and inherent title benefits (Reputation titles, Lightbringer), and made requirements on these titles for progressing through the game. Adding grind requirements to progress through the storyline exactly contradicts their original premise.

This game has degraded itself over time.

Agreed 100%. I don't know why ANet changed from the skill>time advertisement that they were originally pushing. At the beginning when prophecies was just out it was easy to get max damage equipment and armor, even if they didn't have perfect damage modifiers. Then SF and greens were added and it became easier to have perfect gear; everyone was on a level playing field and could get items without much grind.

Fast forward to now, and the grind required for some titles is simply ridiculous. Take faction farming for example. To achieve the max title it takes 12,500 HFFF runs. Even at a good one run per minute that's 208 hours of constant running. What was ANet thinking? The only practical way to obtain this title is through HFFF running which is incredibly monotonous and "grindy." There's no skill involved. The only thing that matters for this title and the skills related to it are hours spent. Nevermind any of the other titles that give benefits for hours played over skill...

I'm not really frustrated at how much grind is required, but over how the direction of GW has changed so much from being a skill>time game to just a huge grindfest in PvE

Mouse at Large · Jun 07, 2008, 10:54 PM // 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sab

Did you actually fail to read my post, or did you intentionally quote it out of context because your argument fell apart?

Nope - I didn't quote you out of context because my arguement fell apart. I quoted one part of your response because, in my opinion it posited an opinion as a fact.

Speaking personally, this thread reminds me (sadly) of others I've seen on different boards where one faction sets itself up as the defenders of "orthodoxy" and condems all contrary viewpoints.

In my opinion if someone believes something to be the truth, then however much they try to convince me of the validity of their position, unless I'm personally swayed by their empirical evidence, I'll remain unconvinced/undecided.

Once again, in my opinion, this whole arguement is becoming circular. Personally speaking, I'll carry on playing as long as I enjoy it. When it stops being fun, I'll do something else. At the moment, playing this game is still enjoyable to me. I have only used Ursan three times in about 30 months and 3,500 hours of playtime. I've never used Ether Renewal at all. If other PvE players like those skills - so be it. As far as I can see, to date, their use of them does not affect me directly or make the game less enjoyable for me.

Ultimately the choice of whether to continue playing this game with or without Ursan, Ether Renewal or any other skill that has been introduced/nerfed/buffed since game inception is down to me.

Eventually I'll move on to something else, however, at the moment I'm happy enough with the product Anet is providing, so I'll continue.

That's my opinion and my choice. Everyone else is free to make their own.

Thank you and goodnight.

DarkNecrid · Jun 08, 2008, 04:18 AM // 04:18

Opinions can be wrong, so I don't see why you have to bold it all the time, it means very little.

It's my opinion Adolf Hitler was the best guy to walk the earth and the Holocaust never happened.

See?

Completely wrong.

Sab · Jun 08, 2008, 06:50 AM // 06:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse at Large

Nope - I didn't quote you out of context because my arguement fell apart. I quoted one part of your response because, in my opinion it posited an opinion as a fact.

Speaking personally, this thread reminds me (sadly) of others I've seen on different boards where one faction sets itself up as the defenders of "orthodoxy" and condems all contrary viewpoints.

In my opinion if someone believes something to be the truth, then however much they try to convince me of the validity of their position, unless I'm personally swayed by their empirical evidence, I'll remain unconvinced/undecided.

Once again, in my opinion, this whole arguement is becoming circular. Personally speaking, I'll carry on playing as long as I enjoy it. When it stops being fun, I'll do something else. At the moment, playing this game is still enjoyable to me. I have only used Ursan three times in about 30 months and 3,500 hours of playtime. I've never used Ether Renewal at all. If other PvE players like those skills - so be it. As far as I can see, to date, their use of them does not affect me directly or make the game less enjoyable for me.

Ultimately the choice of whether to continue playing this game with or without Ursan, Ether Renewal or any other skill that has been introduced/nerfed/buffed since game inception is down to me.

Eventually I'll move on to something else, however, at the moment I'm happy enough with the product Anet is providing, so I'll continue.

That's my opinion and my choice. Everyone else is free to make their own.

Thank you and goodnight.

My entire post was a statement of fact because I did not inject any opinion into it. More specifically, I am stating as a *fact* that the argument "because it's fun" is a bad argument. If you happened to have read past the first sentence you would have seen my reason. I cannot help but think you intentionally cut off the rest to build yourself a nice straw man to beat down.

I did not even say which side I supported, for all you can tell from that post, I could very well find imbalanced skills fun and simply arguing to build a stronger case for our side.

While this is off the topic, sticking "in my opinion" in front of every sentence is redundant. Intelligent readers can assume subjective statements are opinion ("x" is fun), while objective statements are fact (ANet made "x" sales). This is only a problem when someone explicitly states an opinion as a fact or vice versa ("'x' is fun and that is a fact", or, "in your opinion ANet made 'x' sales"). Otherwise, calling people out for not using "imo" is like calling people out for misspellings. It adds nothing to the discussion, and it further suggests that one does not have much of an argument to begin with.