Curse

Carinae · Apr 20, 2008, 07:20 PM // 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

I could replace it, yes, by tweaking the prot monk or by maybe going and getting Save Yourselves or some Paragon skills, I just don't have the motivation. I just don't care anymore.

Ah. I think I've found your problem.

Angelic Upstart · Apr 20, 2008, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

They've claimed that Guild Wars is dying since the first farming nerfs. 3 years later, it's still around.

Agreed, but i wouldnt say it was in very good health though.

Red Sonya · Apr 20, 2008, 07:47 PM // 19:47

Quote:

PvE has a viable customer base that would allow it to survive alone. PvP doesn't.

Totally agree 100% if it weren't for the pve players there wouldn't be much of a pvp community to support Anet and NCsoft would shut it down just like they did "Auto Assault" last August.

BlackSephir · Apr 20, 2008, 08:22 PM // 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Totally agree 100% if it weren't for the pve players there wouldn't be much of a pvp community to support Anet and NCsoft would shut it down just like they did "Auto Assault" last August.

But of course the idea that these evil, evil pvp players MAY actually play also pve is too hard to understand?
Oh, right, it's you sonya.
Nvm then.

R.Shayne · Apr 20, 2008, 08:23 PM // 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

Because other competitive games have this problem, right?

What pvp only games are you thinking of with the above comment?

Dr Strangelove · Apr 20, 2008, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

But of course the idea that these evil, evil pvp player MAY actually play also pve is too hard to understand?
Oh, right, it's you sonya.
Nvm then.

PvPers are a devious bunch. There's only around 100 of them, but they bounce from game to game, balancing skills, mocking honest god-fearing PvErs, and eating babies.

Carinae · Apr 20, 2008, 08:40 PM // 20:40

PvP and PvE are a real paradox.

PvE unquestionably benefits from the coonstant skill balances produced on the PvP side of the fence. However, at a fundamental level, PvP is undermined by each class having different abilities and skills. How do you balance Class X's ability against Class Y's different ability? At some point, someone is going to find a way to leverage Class Y to gain a benefit, and then rebalancing against THAT strategy disrupts the rest of the equasion.

It would seem TRUE PvP balance can only be achieved in a format where everyone has an identical character with identical skills.

PvE, on the other hand, seeks inequality. They WANT unique skills and abilities, and don't care in the slightest if things are a bit out of kilter, so long as classes are roughly appealing and useable.

It's a paradox.

I don't know what the answer is.

Savio · Apr 20, 2008, 09:07 PM // 21:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

What pvp only games are you thinking of with the above comment?

First-person shooters, strategy games, fighting games. Part of the reason Guild Wars initially interested me was because Arenanet was founded by the same people who made Starcraft. It was different and it had lots of potential.

Then Arenanet threw away that potential because making another MMO clone seemingly makes more money than being different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carinae Dragonblood

It would seem TRUE PvP balance can only be achieved in a format where everyone has an identical character with identical skills.

True, but diversity is much more interesting than absolutely perfect balance. Being able to make choices is part of the game.

R.Shayne · Apr 20, 2008, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

First-person shooters, strategy games, fighting games.

I was looking for an actually game title?

Chthon · Apr 20, 2008, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carinae Dragonblood

PvP and PvE are a real paradox.

PvE unquestionably benefits from the coonstant skill balances produced on the PvP side of the fence. However, at a fundamental level, PvP is undermined by each class having different abilities and skills. How do you balance Class X's ability against Class Y's different ability? At some point, someone is going to find a way to leverage Class Y to gain a benefit, and then rebalancing against THAT strategy disrupts the rest of the equasion.

It would seem TRUE PvP balance can only be achieved in a format where everyone has an identical character with identical skills.

PvE, on the other hand, seeks inequality. They WANT unique skills and abilities, and don't care in the slightest if things are a bit out of kilter, so long as classes are roughly appealing and useable.

It's a paradox.

I don't know what the answer is.

Well, the "right" answer comes in two parts:

First, you do away with the idea of class altogether and use a totally different mechanism to enforce limitations on character breadth. (Really, the only point behind having a concept of "class" in a MMO is to limit character breadth to prevent you from making a healer/melee/AoE nuker/beastmaster that's good at each of those things.)

Second, you make a PvE game that plays like PvP -- party-sized groups of non-stat-pumped, intelligent foes with interlocking team builds. That way a balance change (1) has a positive monster-nerfing effect in PvE that (somewhat) balances out the negative build-wrecking effect balance changes have now, and (2) doesn't accidentally land on a staple skill that PvEers are using to abuse the AI or counteract stat-pumping or population-pumping because those wouldn't be central to this sort of PvE.

The problem of course is that making GW a no-class game would require a complete rewrite; and so would adding team builds to monsters; and so would enhancing the AI to the point that abusing the AI wouldn't be the outright best tactic for PvE; and stat-pumping couldn't be removed without making the game ridiculously easy unless the monsters got the AI and build improvements. And the odds of a-net putting in that much work on GW1 at this point is pretty much zero.
Out of the options that are realistically left on the table, completely scrapping GW1 PvP may be the least-bad choice.

Magikarp · Apr 20, 2008, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Well, the "right" answer comes in two parts:

First, you do away with the idea of class altogether and use a totally different mechanism to enforce limitations on character breadth. (Really, the only point behind having a concept of "class" in a MMO is to limit character breadth to prevent you from making a healer/melee/AoE nuker/beastmaster that's good at each of those things.)

Second, you make a PvE game that plays like PvP -- party-sized groups of non-stat-pumped, intelligent foes with interlocking team builds. That way a balance change (1) has a positive monster-nerfing effect in PvE that (somewhat) balances out the negative build-wrecking effect balance changes have now, and (2) doesn't accidentally land on a staple skill that PvEers are using to abuse the AI or counteract stat-pumping or population-pumping because those wouldn't be central to this sort of PvE.

The problem of course is that making GW a no-class game would require a complete rewrite; and so would adding team builds to monsters; and so would enhancing the AI to the point that abusing the AI wouldn't be the outright best tactic for PvE; and stat-pumping couldn't be removed without making the game ridiculously easy unless the monsters got the AI and build improvements. And the odds of a-net putting in that much work on GW1 at this point is pretty much zero.
Out of the options that are realistically left on the table, completely scrapping GW1 PvP may be the least-bad choice.

this isnt Fury.. and for a good reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carinae Dragonblood

PvP and PvE are a real paradox.

PvE unquestionably benefits from the coonstant skill balances produced on the PvP side of the fence. However, at a fundamental level, PvP is undermined by each class having different abilities and skills. How do you balance Class X's ability against Class Y's different ability? At some point, someone is going to find a way to leverage Class Y to gain a benefit, and then rebalancing against THAT strategy disrupts the rest of the equasion.

It would seem TRUE PvP balance can only be achieved in a format where everyone has an identical character with identical skills.

PvE, on the other hand, seeks inequality. They WANT unique skills and abilities, and don't care in the slightest if things are a bit out of kilter, so long as classes are roughly appealing and useable.

It's a paradox.

I don't know what the answer is.

atm, i think PvP balance is really being based on poor alternatives to shift meta-counter-shift-counter tactics. its basically mega rock-paper-scissors, and because of that, the slightest gimmick, or manipulation of skills+abilities causes that slight teeter in what people think is balance, when in reality its critical control of various skills, and exploiting those skills.

while i feel like there could be a solution so close at hand.. tbh.. kids are just too smart these days, and will always find that loophole for the extra upper hand... then someone will copy it, paste it in wiki, and everyone will be doing it... getting the upper hand on any and everyone not getting on the band wagon... then the nerfing begins...

paradox is right my friend...

LifesRestorer · Apr 20, 2008, 10:47 PM // 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

I was looking for an actually game title?

Counterstrike

Lagg · Apr 20, 2008, 10:49 PM // 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carinae Dragonblood

It's a paradox.

I don't know what the answer is.

The answer's quite easy.

- PvE skills need to die.

- Better end-level PvE content needs to be generated.

- Every single PvP skill in the game needs to be rebalanced.

- Every single primary attribute in the game needs to be rebalanced.

Putting this into practise, however, is close to impossible.

I'm not doubting ArenaNet's ability, only their will to do so.

There's no time and there are no resources available, so we get patchwork.

I do feel sorry for ArenaNet.

They've cut up their diamond in the rough so badly that it can't even pass for a cheap zircon imitation anymore.

And after all this is said and done, they've only got a seriously pissed playerbase with impossibly high expectations for Guild Wars 2 to look forward to.

No wonder Gaile passed up on that position...

R.Shayne · Apr 21, 2008, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

Because other competitive games have this problem, right? Had ArenaNet not done such a good job of driving away PvPers, there would be enough of a PvP playerbase to sustain their own game.

Arena Net didn't stop me from playing pvp, the pvp community did that all on their own. When factions came out I tried an alliance battle and I was subjected to a large amount of foul language for interrupting an elementalist and necro and all other further attempts into pvp has resulted in similar experience with very, very, few times I have actually encountered nice people in pvp. Has nothing to do with thin skin or taking it to heart, has to do with the fact I play games to relax, not to be cursed at.

Guild Wars is not known for the great community but pvp seems to have a higher ratio of jerks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Developer Updates

In order to reduce the possible negative impact on PvE play, we will be reverting the changes on May 1st. For future tournaments, we aim to focus on changes that will not impact PvE play at all.

With this statement I think Arena Net has finally taken a stand to say they will no longer upset the majority of their customers, about dang time I am no longer considered a second rate citizen. When I try a different build I want it to be because I want to try, not because I was forced to try it. You can ask people that play with me on-line, I do try new builds and work out my own build.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LifesRestorer

Counterstrike

Counter Strike started as a mod for Half-Life which has pve. The retail version of counter strike "Stand Alone Game" included a pve part that was added before release. I don't know about the x-box version.

Yichi · Apr 21, 2008, 02:57 AM // 02:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

Arena Net didn't stop me from playing pvp, the pvp community did that all on their own. When factions came out I tried an alliance battle and I was subjected to a large amount of foul language for interrupting an elementalist and necro and all other further attempts into pvp has resulted in similar experience with very, very, few times I have actually encountered nice people in pvp. Has nothing to do with thin skin or taking it to heart, has to do with the fact I play games to relax, not to be cursed at.

Guild Wars is not known for the great community but pvp seems to have a higher ratio of jerks.

AB is truly the best expierence to judge a useful pvp expierence...

Savio · Apr 21, 2008, 03:15 AM // 03:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

Guild Wars is not known for the great community but pvp seems to have a higher ratio of jerks.

People are like this in competitive games. It doesn't suit some people, but those are a minority (and I don't know why they're playing competitive games in the first place). It has nothing to do with the downfall of PvP.

Quote:

Counter Strike started as a mod for Half-Life which has pve. The retail version of counter strike "Stand Alone Game" included a pve part that was added before release. I don't know about the x-box version.

The point is not that it has a PvE portion, it's that it was able to do well financially as a PvP-centric game.

Master Sword Keeper · Apr 21, 2008, 03:36 AM // 03:36

Well i keep on suggesting how to convert PvE and Pvp skills into seperate files, am i not being recognised?

Yea i got upset until i saw that they were only TEMP.

but on the subject of ursan balancing or some say breaking teams... as long as you have a monk with HB you'll be okay.

Quote:

No wonder Gaile passed up on that position...

hmm now that you mention it...

Kashrlyyk · Apr 21, 2008, 07:44 AM // 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

People are like this in competitive games. It doesn't suit some people, but those are a minority (and I don't know why they're playing competitive games in the first place). It has nothing to do with the downfall of PvP.

It explains why PvP has a lot less people playing it, which is the reason why GW PvP would not survive on its own. I think the number is around 150.000 players paying monthly to make a online game viable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

The point is not that it has a PvE portion, it's that it was able to do well financially as a PvP-centric game.

It is a shooter! It is much simpler than a "RPG" game, drawing in much more players.

Avarre · Apr 21, 2008, 08:05 AM // 08:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

It is a shooter! It is much simpler than a "RPG" game, drawing in much more players.

Irrelevant. One of the best-selling games is Starcraft, which has very complex competitive play and an immense online community.

The point you should be making is that GW PvP is almost entirely based on organized teams with defined roles, which makes it harder for people to simply grab the game and join in. You can't PuG GvG/HA in the same way you can make random teams in Counterstrike or Starcraft, and with classes balanced for team play rather than on individual strengths you certainly can't play alone at a balanced level (RA).

R.Shayne · Apr 21, 2008, 01:58 PM // 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

It has nothing to do with the downfall of PvP.

Community has everything to do with pvp downfall. When someone tries pvp and they are immediately subjected to that kind of language for doing nothing wrong then I am pretty sure they don't want to come back for more. I have played pvp in other games and never had to deal with this type of language or subjected others to this type of language. PvP elitest did it to themselves and now they can deal with diminishing player base.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

The point is not that it has a PvE portion, it's that it was able to do well financially as a PvP-centric game.

You said other games have survived as pvp only or considering pvp balance only, I just want to know what game you are referring too.