Curse

Bryant Again · Jun 19, 2008, 07:19 PM // 19:19

My question was more "why doesn't balance matter in PvE", but I wasn't specific enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

2. Most people thinks Ursan sucks because it makes the game too easy!

When something makes the game "too easy", it's generally considered overpowered. UB is definitely a bit on the op side, but that coupled with the fact that you increase it's strength through a title adds more to the problem.

Silent Coyote · Jun 19, 2008, 07:58 PM // 19:58

I posted in the other thread so to balance things out I guess I should give an opinion in this one.

Like the original poster I too am extremely grateful that ArenaNet continue to support the game and certainly don't expect it from them, especially now Guild Wars 2 is in the works. I did however post my support for the other thread and I want to try and better explain that - because it seems I must have misunderstood the meaning of the other thread. I thought it was about the removal of depth and a change to the core design, not about wanting Ursan removed.

First depth. A good example of a change which added depth was the addition of heroes. Allowing you to control AI players which used the same basic skills and logic of the game was great. I had a lot of fun messing around in UW with just me, a friend, and a hero monk. Trying to safely flag it in to rez us when we both wiped, and using it as a distraction.

An example of removal of depth would be when Factions came out the changes in design which effectively removed running from the game. Running was an alternative way of playing using the same basic skills and rules of the game which added depth to PvE. It use to be a lot of fun trying out different runs in Prophecies. It only really became a problem when people started offering cheap runs to beginner players and then people started complaining that there was no one left to group with and that they were being forced to take runs too (interesting a similar argument is being used as to why Ursan should go - does ANets lack of action against the skill represent an acknowledgement that maybe they went over the top nerfing running in factions? :P).

So on the face of it I should be pro Ursan (not taking into account if its current form is overpowered or not), my concern however with PvE skills in general, and this PvP/PvE split, is that it represents a change in core design. PvE skills tied to titles changes the game from being about selecting a group of eight skills, the success of which being determined by how well they are suited to the task at hand, to the level of your title determining how successful you will be. The PvP split changes the core design that it was one universal set of skills, the same no matter where you are in the game - instead of adding depth it just adds complexity (as if it wasn't difficult enough for casual players to get into PvP without having to relearn what each skill does).

Now ANet can change Guild Wars one however they like I don't mind as I don't play as much anymore, and I've got my moneys worth from it. I am however looking forward to Guild Wars 2, a game that they refer to as the ultimate Guild Wars. My concern is whether they mean the original Guild Wars design I bought into (the one based on skill selection) or this new design (based on leveling). As if it's based on the former I'm in for a treat, if it's the latter then I think I might give it a miss for all the same reasons I have passed on every other online game ([edit to add] not a ragequit threat, I'm just genuinely not interested in playing a leveling focused game - I will still probably buy GW2 Collectors Edition because I'm an obsessed fanboy like that

).

Targren · Jun 20, 2008, 04:05 AM // 04:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

My question was more "why doesn't balance matter in PvE", but I wasn't specific enough.

When something makes the game "too easy", it's generally considered overpowered. UB is definitely a bit on the op side, but that coupled with the fact that you increase it's strength through a title adds more to the problem.

The flaw in argument 2 is not the "too easy" part. That is entirely subjective. The contradiction lies in the "Most people" clause. You can't say that a majority dislikes a skill, then claim that a majority of the people are requiring it to play with them(stance #3) without some sort of cognitive dissonance going on.

For the record, I do agree that tying any skill's effectiveness to title grinding is a miserable copout. I've thought so since factions (and until two weeks ago, never even had a Lux/Kurz skill).

upier · Jun 20, 2008, 07:00 AM // 07:00

The game is flawed.
But it's despite (or even BECAUSE of certain) flaws that the game is still fun to play.

(Ohh and since I am currently playing Titan Quest - I just wish to thank you guys for the HUGE inventory that we have in GW! I never appreciated it - but after having to warp back to town (TWICE mostly!!) after EACH battle - the GW inventory is like a gift from the gods!)