Curse

MithranArkanere · May 13, 2008, 12:20 AM // 00:20

No. I am not.

Original Skill
E:5 C:1 R:15
Spell. Steals 50 Health. (Attribute line A)

Are NOT functionality changes:
Original Skill
E:10 C:2 R:7
Skill. Steals 60 Health. (Attribute line B)
None of those is a change of what the skill does.

IS a functionality change:
Original Skill
E:5 C:1 R:15
Spell. Heals 50 to user, deals 50 damage to target. (Attribute line A)
This is a functionality change.

Yichi · May 13, 2008, 12:30 AM // 00:30

action/reaction is all inherent in all forms of functionality. If skill "x" deals 10 damage and heals the user for 10 health, than thats the functionality of the skill. Period.

By making the skill 10 damage on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday... and 15 Damage on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday (skill is disabled on Sunday

) than essentially, you have changed the functionality of the skill.

So yes you are wrong.

SerenitySilverstar · May 13, 2008, 12:31 AM // 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper22

1) It's just stupid. Why should my LoD heal for less when I'm facing players compared to facing monsters.

Because facing people, you're on an equal level. When facing monsters their level, armour, HP etc are higher - you need to be stronger to combat them.

Quote:

2) It causes more confusion. With two different forms of skills, this forces people to remember both function for PvE and PvP and this could get confusing when switching between the two.

Inherently, humans don't like change. But they get used to it. Plus, a little research never hurts. Use the wiki.

Quote:

3) GW should not be two separate games. If anything anet should encourage people to play both.

They do. In game - Titles, weapons, emotes, minis, Zaishen chest. Outside - tournaments with real world monetary rewards.

Stealthc · May 13, 2008, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

They are going to do what they are going to do because there is no other way to do so in GW1. Not because some people are against this or another agree with this.

What is not going to be different is FUNCTIONALITY of skills. If they change a certain functionality, the functionality will be changed for both PvP and PvE version of the skill.

Now does that affect gameplay?

NO.

In PvP people has 200 attribute points, and thuse their max damage and average attributes are mostly the same.

But in PvE, monsters may have more than 400 attribute points, so a skill that would give 20 armor and reduce 100 damage from an enemy attack to 75 damage, may have 40 in PvE and reduce a hit of 400 damage to 200?
In PvE you are not fighting in equal footage. NEVER. Monsters may have more Health, way more energy, more attributes, more skills, Monster skills, and Player just get PvE skills, and keep the same limitations as in PvE.
The only limiations hostile NPCs have in PvE is thir puny AI.

Since the measures are different, it's logical than some figures may perfectly be different.

Players get a brain. If you don't know how to use that, stop playing.

Axel Zinfandel · May 13, 2008, 12:47 AM // 00:47

I find it funny that everyone thing it's going take a massive adjustment of playing style and build changing to adapt to these changes.

I mean, be serious, It's not like they are going to change every skill to "Kill target enemy". What's the worst that can happen?

And don't point out Ursan :P

Shadow · May 13, 2008, 12:59 AM // 00:59

The problem is they listen too much to "us" as we don't know what we're doing, or what we want.

Sniper22 · May 13, 2008, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by SerenitySilverstar

Because facing people, you're on an equal level. When facing monsters their level, armour, HP etc are higher - you need to be stronger to combat them.

Inherently, humans don't like change. But they get used to it. Plus, a little research never hurts. Use the wiki.

They do. In game - Titles, weapons, emotes, minis, Zaishen chest. Outside - tournaments with real world monetary rewards.

Kk there was already an argument about this but... to show the guy my opinion...

1) You aren't on an equal lvl in PvE. You're ABOVE them. Mobs lack any knowledge so they have to be balanced out with extra power or it will be way too easy - note why hard mode improved enemy hp/lvl/casting time/few skills/etc, but it didn't improve enemy AI.

2) I have other things to learn.

3) Titles are specifically PvE or PvP, not both. I don't know what you mean by weapons. If that's the zaishen title/chest you're talking about, then people will find it easier to farm gold to buy it rather than do the pvp. Um minipets? lol.

nirhan shadowmauler · May 13, 2008, 01:21 AM // 01:21

i just want to see protective bond useable in pvp again. seriously.

El Presidente · May 13, 2008, 01:28 AM // 01:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle222

Do you feel that Anet listened to you (not matter the time it took, im speaking about the fact that they do pay attention)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow

The problem is they listen too much to "us" as we don't know what we're doing, or what we want.

Staying on topic ~

I'd bet they listen to us more than we think they do; however, acting on/implementing our every wish/demand as to what each player (or even the majority) deems as their priority is another story...

Some ideas just plain suck; others ~ well, no matter how good they are and/or how much they make really sense, it involves time constraints, cost, feasability, resources/manpower allocated to this game's priorities, GW2, etc. before Anet decides if/when any idea will be put in game...no matter how many threads (on the same topic) are created and /signed.

Lyonette · May 13, 2008, 01:33 AM // 01:33

honestly, imo, i'd wait till anet starts doing this skill updates to see how well they listened before getting all excited about the intial annoucement

bryann380 · May 13, 2008, 01:52 AM // 01:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper22

GW should not be two separate games. If anything anet should encourage people to play both.

Not everyone cares much about PvP. I'm one of them. Why should I be "encouraged" into doing something that I don't want to?

Kakumei · May 13, 2008, 01:52 AM // 01:52

The update is great for people who play one or the other to the point of exclusivity, but for people who play both this is nothing more than a big annoyance.

I've been vocal about this never occurring for years. Anet sure as hell didn't listen to me.

Gattocheese · May 13, 2008, 01:58 AM // 01:58

I was semi-vocal about this. I wanted seperation between skills. I think its the best solution. Of course i wish they would of done this maybe a year or two ago, because now i am moving on to AoC. Of course i may log on just to see which skills they buff, it might make things a lil more fun again.

Navaros · May 13, 2008, 02:06 AM // 02:06

Anet sometimes implements changes the players want, however, they are very selective about what they act on and what they neglect. The single most game-breaking thing wrong with GW, no Auction House, has been complained about ad infinitum (and rightly so) since the beta and they did virtually nothing in regards to that. Just let the grievous flaw stagnant (and no, the "party search window" is not even close to a suitable substitute for an Auction House).

Savio · May 13, 2008, 02:25 AM // 02:25

The main problem with ArenaNet is that they don't know what they want to do, so game changes go in every direction. It's hard to find a single cohesive goal behind their changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navaros

The single most game-breaking thing wrong with GW, no Auction House, has been complained about ad infinitum

With the way Guild Wars was and is, an auction house hasn't ever been absolutely useful or necessary.

Haskell · May 13, 2008, 02:50 AM // 02:50

It's always a bad decission to listen to people who have zero clue about gamedesign.

It's more likely that the leaddesigner said: "Whatever..."

Mac Sidewinder · May 13, 2008, 04:03 AM // 04:03

I still don't know why some people actually think that anet listened to anybody. They haven't listened up to now on very many things so why start now? I honestly think this is a design test for GW2 to see if it will work. Why screw up your new game with concepts that you're not sure of. GW2 will be coming out soon and does it really matter if they mess GW up a little trying things out? Pretty soon most people will be playing GW2 anyway.

R.Shayne · May 13, 2008, 04:59 AM // 04:59

If they are listening that has to be the slowest response time I have seen. If they are listening to us then how come we still have to resort to ecto to make trades? If they are listening to us then how come a better trade system has not been implemented?

I don't expect them fix all the skills they have nerfed to an unusable state thus the separation of PvE / PvP is too little too late. I hope I am wrong.

I just don't have much faith in a company that would ignore customers for so long. I compare "Izzy" reign over PvE as shooting yourself in the foot every week and not learning from it.

I would like to use some of the old skills that were nerfed with some of the new skills. Wonder what would happen if they fixed [Protective bond] so that it no longer stops being maintained when you reach zero energy?

Mewcatus · May 13, 2008, 05:11 AM // 05:11

For those who wish to continue to play with PvP based Skill rules system in PvE. ( AKA pre-patch ).

Go to this thread and make an active vote for it.
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10287497
An idea to have an additional toggle for which skill system to use.

Now, that solves alot of problems, doesn't it ?
1. Those who desire the reversion, gets it.

2. Those who wishes for a minimal difference bond between PvP and PvE, gets it.

The only ones left who would be unstatisfied are those with a desire to dictate that how others should play. ( AKA the Dominators ).

C2K · May 13, 2008, 05:34 AM // 05:34

I doubt most people actually complained about PvE and PvP using the same skillset, but those who did were certainly the loudest and most obnoxious to make Anet force their hand.