Curse

Kashrlyyk · Jun 08, 2008, 03:22 PM // 15:22

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.

And GW2 would then be what?? The successor of that boring game from the company, that doesn´t care for the majority?? They want to sell GW2 to that majority, because catering to the very small crowd, that cares about "vision" or "integrity" doesn´t keep you in business.

BTW I just read an interview with Jeff Strain, where he states, among other things (like "skill>time"):

"We give every player a great time, be it players, that like to fight against others, against AI or that like to mix it." (really bad translation from me!)

So I don´t see how the game was "directed towards loftier goals".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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

No, I am not! I am quoting a community relations manager, who said that before the release of Nightfalls!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

...
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.

In PvP skill over time is very much still true. But in PvE the majority didn´t accept that and ANet listened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

.. Anet should have pressed what was unique for them (their original vision). They would have had just as many players if not more....

If your vision is rejected by the masses of your customers, the worst thing you can do is try to press it.

In fact let´s put a reality check in here: " ANet wants to stay in business, nothing else matters, not vision or integrity! Listening to the majority will keep the company running, even if it means to throw away the vision!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Symeon

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.

PvP characters where included a months or two after release! At a point in time, where noone could have said, if the transition to PvP were accepted by the players or not. They listened to the majorly/pure PvP players back then. Which at the start may or may not have been the majority of the playerbase, but today the majority are the PvE players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Symeon

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.

Leaving the vision gave us the PvE skills, that many PvE players wanted, which was one of the major selling points of GWEN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melody Cross

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

I know that. The majority is currently happily playing the game, without caring for integrity or the opinion of the forum people. Everyone that posts on this forum is part of a minority, compared to the amount of players that have bought Guild Wars.

But that is my point, the perceived problem is only a problem to such a small insignificant part of the playerbase, that the whole discussion here is just ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaern Majes

If you actually read my post and tell me where I say its my way or the highway then I'll give you props.

I am so not talking to you personally. It is more a general view on those minority.

Symeon · Jun 08, 2008, 06:58 PM // 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

And GW2 would then be what?? The successor of that boring game from the company, that doesn´t care for the majority?? They want to sell GW2 to that majority, because catering to the very small crowd, that cares about "vision" or "integrity" doesn´t keep you in business.

The majority would clearly buy Guild Wars 2 because it has no monthly fee, just like they did with Guild Wars. That's what keeps ANet in business, not their choice of which player types to cater to. So, ANet can make Guild Wars 2 a decent game and not care about people who want it to be a WoW clone - it will still sell.

The vision that ANet once had did not just matter to some players, it mattered to them. I have a small slither of hope that this vision may be revived with Guild Wars 2.

Quote:

BTW I just read an interview with Jeff Strain, where he states, among other things (like "skill>time"):

"We give every player a great time, be it players, that like to fight against others, against AI or that like to mix it." (really bad translation from me!)

So I don´t see how the game was "directed towards loftier goals".

Apparently you didn't take in the part in which he stated other things (like "skill>time"). Those were the loftier goals of the game. It can still be fun for different types of players, but ANet doesn't have to 'cater' to any of them specifically for this to be true.

Quote:

In PvP skill over time is very much still true. But in PvE the majority didn´t accept that and ANet listened.

But they shouldn't have listened, because there was no need to.

Quote:

If your vision is rejected by the masses of your customers, the worst thing you can do is try to press it.

Those masses already bought the game despite disagreeing with ANet's vision, therefore they should have no effect on whether ANet continue to pursue it or not.

Quote:

PvP characters where included a months or two after release! At a point in time, where noone could have said, if the transition to PvP were accepted by the players or not. They listened to the majorly/pure PvP players back then. Which at the start may or may not have been the majority of the playerbase, but today the majority are the PvE players.

I didn't say that ANet introduced PvP characters because players weren't progressing from PvE into PvP; I said ANet did this to reinforce the skill > time principle. Naturally, this meant that they left the idea of progression from PvE to PvP, which wasn't going to work anyway, by the wayside.

Quote:

Leaving the vision gave us the PvE skills, that many PvE players wanted, which was one of the major selling points of GWEN.

PvE skills aren't even mentioned on the EotN box, so clearly ANet didn't think they were a major selling point. Perhaps you'd like to bring forward some evidence that PvE skills improved ANet's sales? I've already got my evidence that the game was doing well without them:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

3 million mark, 4 million mark.

Quote:

The majority is currently happily playing the game, without caring for integrity or the opinion of the forum people. Everyone that posts on this forum is part of a minority, compared to the amount of players that have bought Guild Wars.

Forum posters may be a minority, but unlike the 'uncaring' majority, they offer ANet valuable criticism and ideas for the game's improvement. This is especially true of the distinct few who have large amounts of knowledge/expertise in the game.

Quote:

But that is my point, the perceived problem is only a problem to such a small insignificant part of the playerbase, that the whole discussion here is just ridiculous.

Don't like it, don't read it.

Nightmares Hammer · Jun 08, 2008, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Symeon

...

This post is epic. Very epic indeed. So epic, in fact, that it makes me want to High-Five you in Real Life.

Skye Marin · Jun 08, 2008, 08:02 PM // 20:02

The "Don't Like, Don't Use" argument is pretty weak, however...

1) Nerf skill bars, and the next most popular and potent will arise. If Anet unbuffs these skills, it would just be a waste of their time, and would take away what some folks did some serious grinding for.

2) Player discrimination has always been around, whether it is rank, skill bar ping, or profession discrimination. There isn't anyway to change this, except suck it up and get a better rank, or join groups that don't care about rank. A team with a Mo/E with Flare doesn't stand a very good chance in HM DoA, however a supported conset r10/10 Ursan does. It doesn't make me elitist to prefer one over the other, it just makes me practical.

Turtle222 · Jun 08, 2008, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skye Marin

The "Don't Like, Don't Use" argument is pretty weak, however...

1) Nerf skill bars, and the next most popular and potent will arise. If Anet unbuffs these skills, it would just be a waste of their time, and would take away what some folks did some serious grinding for.

2) Player discrimination has always been around, whether it is rank, skill bar ping, or profession discrimination. There isn't anyway to change this, except suck it up and get a better rank, or join groups that don't care about rank. A team with a Mo/E with Flare doesn't stand a very good chance in HM DoA, however a supported conset r10/8 Ursan does. It doesn't make me elitist to prefer one over the other, it just makes me practical.

fixed

agree though

Melody Cross · Jun 08, 2008, 09:33 PM // 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

The same nonsense, not even bothering to repackage it

...If there is one thing Ensign and I agree on....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Don't argue with idiots. The bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

Back to the topic at hand. I do not want a trend of overpowered skills destroying the integrity of builds, HM play or anything else. The question before us now--whether we wanted the split or not--remains one of balance. Just throwing overpowered skills and builds at the problem will not solve it. Games become boring that way, and people who do not like this trend will obviously complain. Nerfs to previously overpowered PvE only skills should also be addressed, since the umbrella of PvP protection has now ceased to exist. Simply put: we won't need them; they should be relegated to elite status and not to godhood.

In short: Izzy, you have not made your job easier. You just made it twice as hard or more. But Anet still better do it, and do it well. For the integrity of PvE play, imbalanced skills cannot be allowed to remain. I—and others here from the look of many posts—expect proper PvE balance out of this skill split, not tossing overpowered garbage into our lap, hoping we will accept the cookie and not ask for bread.

Guild Wars was a game of substance. Be it perceived as vision, or in any other form, the idea of a game that presented a challenge to play was the draw for me. I don't want a no monthly fee WoW. I want the intelligent design that GW's skill makeup can—and in the past did—give me.

Balance the damn skills. Don't break them worse.

GGs

BlackSephir · Jun 08, 2008, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Symeon

Don't like it, don't read it.

I'm gonna use it whenever I can when someone jumps out with "omg another ursan qq thread" or something like that.

SmokingHotImolation · Jun 08, 2008, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by lots of retards

DUN LIKE IT DUN USE IT!!!111!

So you guys wouldnt care if they made the skill "Invulnerability"
"invulnerability":
for 1...78..341874 seconds youre completely invulnerable. Ends prematurely if you get laggs. End effect: all monsters die, and drops endless stacks of ectos. [Norn title track]

Please see the bigger perspective. please.

DarkGanni · Jun 09, 2008, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddie the reaper

You complain when skills get changed for PvP, you complain that skills need to be seperated, you complain when skills are nerfed for PvE and you STILL complain when skills are buffed for PvE.

Seriously, stop QQ'ing, if you don't like it, don't run it, don't play with people who run it, if they want to run it in PvE it's not hurting anyone else, yes, maybe they're bad at the game and they need it to win, but fair enough. Play with your Guild and Alliance, I don't see why you would want to PuG anyway.

I play with H/H, none of this bothers me.

When people complain about things, and then complain when they get what they want, I hardly think it's fair to blame the people who gave it to you.

It's getting really REALLY annoying...

/Bow

Couldn't agree anymore with what you said.

Some people in this game enjoy dropping the stone on their own foot. Why, I will never understand that.

SmokingHotImolation · Jun 09, 2008, 12:09 AM // 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkGanni

/Bow

Couldn't agree anymore with what you said.

Some people in this game enjoy dropping the stone on their own foot. Why, I will never understand that.

I couldnt disagree more.
The reason why alot of people "QQ" over PvE changes, is that theyre completely ridiculous. Before, they nerfed something in PvP and by that they made something completely useless in PvP.
That problem kinda got solved when they split PvE and PvP.
Oh.. but wait - did they just buff shadow form? And made ER stronger than it was before the original nerf?
Call me a QQ'er, i dont care. What i care for is this game.

Cacheelma · Jun 09, 2008, 05:12 AM // 05:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingHotImolation

Please see the bigger perspective. please.

They're called blind fanboi for a reason you know.

DreamWind · Jun 09, 2008, 06:43 AM // 06:43

King Symeon addressed many of the points I was going to make, but I'll respond a little more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

And GW2 would then be what?? The successor of that boring game from the company, that doesn´t care for the majority?? They want to sell GW2 to that majority, because catering to the very small crowd, that cares about "vision" or "integrity" doesn´t keep you in business.

They should sell GW2 to the majority that will buy a game designed with the loftier goals in mind. The majority will buy the game regardless just as they did with GW1 (at least Prophecies and maybe Factions).

Blizzard is a genius at this type of marketing. This is something the Anet founders should know. For example take Starcraft 2. Blizzard is marketing the PvE side of the game. They know that making the game look flashy and nice with a cool story and good PvE will capture a ton of people. But the true video game fans know that the loftier goals of PvP will decide if the game is a success or not. Tons of people will buy the game regardless.

That is the path Guild Wars was taking and should still be on...but it isn't. Now it has been pushed into mediocrity, and people are just hoping that GW2 will somehow ressurect those loftier goals. It is even worse with Guild Wars because the game was MARKETED with loftier goals in mind, so many people bought the game for that reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

BTW I just read an interview with Jeff Strain, where he states, among other things (like "skill>time"):

"We give every player a great time, be it players, that like to fight against others, against AI or that like to mix it." (really bad translation from me!)

So I don´t see how the game was "directed towards loftier goals".

That translation is bad I agree. If you can't see how the game was directed towards loftier goals then there is nothing I can say. Maybe this video will help a little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmnEWvo1Ugw

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

No, I am not! I am quoting a community relations manager, who said that before the release of Nightfalls!

Show me the quote where he said nobody plays PvP...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

In PvP skill over time is very much still true. But in PvE the majority didn´t accept that and ANet listened.

Anet listened to the whining majority who wanted super overpowered garbage, even though it destroyed their game. PvE is utterly destroyed right now balance wise. It is a bloody joke for Gods sake! Anybody sane can see it. PvP is not far behind.

You STILL didn't respond to the point either. Anet either doesn't know how to balance or doesn't care about balance. Since this thread is about balance, you have to pick one of the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

If your vision is rejected by the masses of your customers, the worst thing you can do is try to press it.

In fact let´s put a reality check in here: " ANet wants to stay in business, nothing else matters, not vision or integrity! Listening to the majority will keep the company running, even if it means to throw away the vision!"

The masses still bought the game based on the vision, and will still buy the game in the future. King Symeon explained it very well.

Watering down the game just ruins the quality of the product and lies to the consumer who bought the product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Leaving the vision gave us the PvE skills, that many PvE players wanted, which was one of the major selling points of GWEN.

It was? Show me on the box. King Symeon already showed that sales were huge long before GWEN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

I know that. The majority is currently happily playing the game, without caring for integrity or the opinion of the forum people. Everyone that posts on this forum is part of a minority, compared to the amount of players that have bought Guild Wars.

By your logic, you are the minority...your opinion is the minority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

But that is my point, the perceived problem is only a problem to such a small insignificant part of the playerbase, that the whole discussion here is just ridiculous.

Inbalance of the game is clearly a problem. Whether or not the majority sees it is irrelevent. Inbalance is still a major problem. The future direction of the game is still a major problem.

zwei2stein · Jun 09, 2008, 06:47 AM // 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

They're called blind fanboi for a reason you know.

To be fair, we are all here kinda FanDumb

tmakinen · Jun 09, 2008, 07:15 AM // 07:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

To be fair, we are all here kinda FanDumb

Zwei2stein wins the thread

Although the particular subspecies that is most abundantly vocal in this thread is not explicitly listed in the linked article, the comparison is uncanny.

Lopezus · Jun 09, 2008, 08:59 AM // 08:59

Quote:

Forum posters may be a minority, but unlike the 'uncaring' majority, they offer ANet valuable criticism and ideas for the game's improvement. This is especially true of the distinct few who have large amounts of knowledge/expertise in the game.

That's so funny, but hey do people actually really belive this ?

DarkNecrid · Jun 09, 2008, 09:16 AM // 09:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lopezus

That's so funny, but hey do people actually really belive this ?

Yes?

Do I really have to name 10+ people on these forums who have basically contributed more to the community than anyone else with their expertise?

tmakinen · Jun 09, 2008, 09:45 AM // 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Do I really have to name 10+ people on these forums who have basically contributed more to the community than anyone else with their expertise?

I would be impressed to see a list of names of 10+ people on these forums who have contributed more to the game than anybody else (including the devs).

On one hand, there are people who had a vision and created an actual game that is the best selling product in its particular niche. On the other hand, there are people who say that the first group succeeded just by accident, and it's these self-proclaimed experts who know better how to run the business. Guess which of the two gets my respect?

Cacheelma · Jun 09, 2008, 10:26 AM // 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

On one hand, there are people who had a vision and created an actual game that is the best selling product in its particular niche. On the other hand, there are people who say that the first group succeeded just by accident, and it's these self-proclaimed experts who know better how to run the business. Guess which of the two gets my respect?

I doubt either of them care.

Esan · Jun 09, 2008, 10:28 AM // 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

On one hand, there are people who had a vision and created an actual game that is the best selling product in its particular niche. On the other hand, there are people who say that the first group succeeded just by accident, and it's these self-proclaimed experts who know better how to run the business. Guess which of the two gets my respect?

Yet, accidental successes are not unheard of in popular media, or we would not have such a term as "one hit wonder". A better measure of Anet's business acumen would be the success of GW2.

Even if we limited ourselves to GW1, each release subsequent to the original Guild Wars has received lower critical ratings, with EotN receiving some downright hostile reviews. It's hard to say which campaign had the most first sales because that figure is never released by Anet, but I would wager that Prophecies brought the most new players to Guild Wars. One might see a trend over four releases and validly extrapolate to the future, even though I myself don't find this torment-in-a-teacup du jour all that compelling. In all honesty, I find these Johnny-come-lately complainers amusing; I myself became jaded at Factions' release when I saw the genesis of the ridiculous faction-farming mechanic that continues to plague the game today even though its essential nature has changed a bit.

upier · Jun 09, 2008, 10:44 AM // 10:44

So if I understand correctly - everyone that is so completely and utterly disgusted by the current state of PvE will NOT buy GW2 BECAUSE of the same reason (=the current state of PvE in GW1)? (And just because of that!)
Right?