Curse

zwei2stein · Feb 27, 2008, 04:44 PM // 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

It was just an example. Just because you can come up with some random build for it doesn't mean it's not a valid point. Well, I hope someone else got it.

And for what it worths, your build isn't quite fit with the concept I gave. And it's still laughable (no offense to you) that I won't let whoever uses that build to play with me (and I wouldn't dare using such build to waste somebody else's time).

Actually it is valid point: builds get improved, and can be improved.

If person sporting this build started with that 6 spirits + pet you envisioned and eventually went here because he thought about what he was doing and tried to improve, i would like to play with him, because he passed first test of being good player: will to improve. Besides, he has all of normal mode to figure out that it does not really work.

It no longer 100% fits concept, it improved it, as did player. And i want that player in my team because when i tell him to run something more effective, he is likely do it and learn thing or two from it.

That contrasts with PvX build user who things he got best build, runs it and does not really listen anything you tell to him, even if it is valid point and refuses to do as little as changing one skill for different one performing same task.

It matter of attitude: "i know i have issues, i want to fix them (and i play because i want to have fun)" vs "i am bestest thing that happened to you, you noob"

It's not that hard to chose who to play with. Especially when you can compensate for someones silliness.

Seriously, "playing with listening newbie" is quite pleasant experience. Much more than with pro who fears he would be humiliated because party is minute slower.

Anyway, this is not thread about this. reall point is: Secondaries work quite well if you make them work.

LightningHell · Feb 28, 2008, 02:54 AM // 02:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

Comparing MTG to GW is a bit problematic because in GW you only have one way of "winning", and that is through killing the opposition. In MTG its not all about bringing life down to 0.

I believe this is irrelevant, since building a deck is building to win by a specific objective, while building a GvG build, for example, is still building to win by a specific objective. You aren't going to try build a deck to outdamage AND mill your opponent to death at the same time.

Quote:

In respect to your post my analysis tends to the exact opposite of yours.

yes generally you have a smaller commitment to "splashing" in GW but why is that the case?

For me the answer lies in the fact that unlike MTG, if i put a few points into the healing line of my W/Mo (for a easy example) ill NEVER be able to heal myself correctly anyways, i might be able to heal myself a little but its not going to be comparable to a Mo/W speced in healing. Now thats obvious yes i know but lets look at the MTG example.

If i create a Green/White deck and the white is in there solely to gain life, then if i have the mana and the spell is in my hand the effectiveness of my "healing spell" will still give me a 100% efficiency return.

I'm guessing there's a somewhat different approach from the situation from my point of view compared to your point of view; when you say that if you have the mana and the spell is in your hand, then you can play the spell, then yes, you have 100% effectiveness.

However, splashing into White solely for healing, for example, means you are expending resources and lowering your effectiveness to bet on your Renewed Faith, for example. You are lowering your 'efficiency' not in numerical numbers, but in your potential to play. (Worded badly, but I guess you'll get the general gist.)

The main difference, I think, between GW and MtG in terms of profession and color comparison is that you have to have a primary profession in Guild Wars, wheras you can base your deck off two colors in Magic: the Gathering - this is evident in the various combo decks that utilize cards from two colors in a pretty balanced manner, or from UW/UB control decks. In Guild Wars apart from your skills defining your role, you have a primary attribute linked to your primary profession. As such, I think one can only consider comparisons to MtG to the 'splash' level; there are exceptions, of course.

The primary attribute effect is also something that is nonexistent in Guild Wars; hence there is no real deck-type equivalent to stuff like Thumpers and Touch Rangers.

Quote:

Therefore (like you said) "splashing" or using a secondary profession in GW works with very specific low requirement skills under particular conditions, they work because you don't need to invest heavily into those attribute lines to get a worthwhile return. Utility spells are the best example i guess.

Some skills require a substantial attribute investment, and still are used because they are worth the investment. Ward Against Melee/Foes on a Mesmer is a good example.

Quote:

The point that I'm trying to make is that secondary professions in GW have their uses, but in teamplay or in the presence of heroes it becomes disappointing in terms of comparative effectiveness.

Ah, but that is the point. In Guild Wars, having a primary profession has a value to it, unlike Magic: the Gathering.

Quote:

Depends on how the game is made. I'm sure the game could be just as fun and interesting if it was tailored to be monoprofessional.

The secondary profession makes the game more interesting, as professions have clearly defined roles. Using a secondary profession would mean that you are able to use different abilities to augment your own. A monoprofessional game is less interesting as in a character cannot use fundamentally different abilities to augment his/her own. Essentially, it limits tactical options, which are interesting for the game.

Quote:

Seriously, "playing with listening newbie" is quite pleasant experience. Much more than with pro who fears he would be humiliated because party is minute slower.

This has no relation to the rest of my post, but QFT.

Cacheelma · Feb 28, 2008, 02:56 AM // 02:56

No. My point was that, having secondary profession doesn't really give you an opportunity to build a class based on your own "concept" with little concern on its effectiveness, which is something you can do in MtG and probably other games WITHOUT "Cooperative aspect".

And instead, secondary classes in GW are there so you can make a perfect build that works well with your teammates, which most of the time may not be something you have in mind as a concept of your character.

It was an agreement to Torqual's reply that it's because people have to play cooperatively in this game that we can't really "role play" with our own character concept anymore.

THAT was my point, which is why I said it's pointless that you tried to make a build out of my random example character concept; it's just an example. At the end of the day unless you can come up with builds for EVERY SINGLE CONCEPT and they all work well in cooperative play, my point still stands.

Numa Pompilius · Feb 28, 2008, 03:27 AM // 03:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

No. My point was that, having secondary profession doesn't really give you an opportunity to build a class based on your own "concept" with little concern on its effectiveness, which is something you can do in MtG

That doesn't make sense.

What you're actually saying is that MtG allows you to roleplay with a gimped deck because it's a single-player game, whereas GW doesn't allow you to roleplay with a gimped selection of skills because your teammates would object - but surely your point can't be that silly?

So what is your point?

And for the purpose of this discussion please remember that GW isn't MtG, isn't supposed to be MtG, but that GW is, unlike MtG, a multi-player game.

LightningHell · Feb 28, 2008, 05:37 AM // 05:37

Quote:

And for the purpose of this discussion please remember that GW isn't MtG, isn't supposed to be MtG, but that GW is, unlike MtG, a multi-player game.

Two-Headed Dragon.

Quote:

THAT was my point, which is why I said it's pointless that you tried to make a build out of my random example character concept; it's just an example. At the end of the day unless you can come up with builds for EVERY SINGLE CONCEPT and they all work well in cooperative play, my point still stands.

This point is preposterous. You seriously expect that every single concept should have a build that works well in competitive (or at least optimized) play? Conversely, would you expect that you would find every single concept in all competitive play when you take into account all the decks in MtG? Of course not.

Note that I changed 'cooperative' to 'competitive', as the previous word was far too vague for discussion - and the fact that pretty much all of GW is cooperative means that any build you make likely would be cooperative, in one way or another.

Cacheelma · Feb 28, 2008, 06:22 AM // 06:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightningHell

This point is preposterous. You seriously expect that every single concept should have a build that works well in competitive (or at least optimized) play? Conversely, would you expect that you would find every single concept in all competitive play when you take into account all the decks in MtG? Of course not.

Note that I changed 'cooperative' to 'competitive', as the previous word was far too vague for discussion - and the fact that pretty much all of GW is cooperative means that any build you make likely would be cooperative, in one way or another.

I don't use the word "competitive" because it implies PvP game, something I'm not talking about here.

My decks in MtG in which I make based on some random concepts won't win me a championship prize or whatever; it doesn't matter. I can make such deck AND have fun with it without wasting other people's time or anything. It may be difficult to win (of course these decks can win) if I face some better-made decks, but it's still fun (and of course if I want to win I'd just go with some championship decks like how you use the best builds in GW).

Imagine if GW is a solo (as in, only your character) game in which cooperative play is optional (like WoW), I'd be able to make whatever build I want as long as it can get me through the game; I won't hurt anybody. Nobody would care. Everyone can freely runs any build they want. I don't want to say this here but, in WoW, almost every talent build is viable in both solo AND cooperative environments. Something I think it's missing from GW mainly due to the limitation of skill bars (but let's not go there).

I'm not saying this is good/bad. It's just what I thought at first when I heard about GW (and how it's supposed to have a class/skill system similar to a deck of cards in MtG), but after a while I realized it's not true, and I'm explaining what I think makes it not true.

Draginvry · Feb 28, 2008, 07:00 AM // 07:00

Quote:

For me, I found PvE failure occurs far more often with groups who don't know proper pulling and what skills to interrupt.
Whether their builds are better than a henchmen's made little difference except to attempt to make up for poor pulling and interrupting.

I agree. I've played with plenty of people with average or sub-par bars, and we've breezed through missions, even some of the more difficult ones.

People stress skill choice too much. Often, the ability to coordinate as a team is more important. I don't care if you can do 300 damage in 2 seconds. If all you are going to do is Leeroy into every mob that you see, you are not helping my team.

LightningHell · Feb 28, 2008, 08:41 AM // 08:41

The concepts and mechanics of Magic: the Gathering makes it inherently competitive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

/snip

Then you are quite accurate indeed. If you want to talk about GW in MtG terms, it would be a deck that's simultaneously played by 4-8 players at the same time. In that sense, if your group wants to play something completely off the bat but great fun, then it would be equivalent to an MtG player playing a subpar deck that gives him great fun (hi Timmy).

I'm very glad that Guild Wars is based off parties. It makes it that much more interesting and skill-based.

Quote:

People stress skill choice too much. Often, the ability to coordinate as a team is more important. I don't care if you can do 300 damage in 2 seconds. If all you are going to do is Leeroy into every mob that you see, you are not helping my team.

Skill choice, however, is sometimes an indicator of how a person plays.

Besides, we can't do much on forums to educate player skill. So we do the second best thing. (Pretty much directly quoted from Marty

)

Numa Pompilius · Feb 28, 2008, 01:14 PM // 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

My decks in MtG in which I make based on some random concepts won't win me a championship prize or whatever; it doesn't matter. I can make such deck AND have fun with it without wasting other people's time or anything.

First of all, I don't think I've ever seen the word "role-play" used together with MtG before.

Second of all, your beef is apparently that...
a) GW is not MtG, and
b) GW is, unlike MtG, squad-based.

May I perhaps suggest you would be happier, and find it less frustrating, to play MtG than trying to shoehorn GW into becoming MtG?

Might I also point out that for those of us who like to play solo, and perhaps even role-play, there are heroes, henches, and PvE?

Cacheelma · Feb 28, 2008, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Why are you getting all BFB defensive all of a sudden?

I'm not saying the way things are in GW is bad/I don't like it/anything. I'm just TELLING A STORY of what I thought GW was and how I realized later that it's NOT. And then I tried to explain why IT'S NOT LIKE MtG (because GW has cooperative play where "normal" MtG play doesn't) as I thought it would. If I'd thought it's bad I would've QUIT by then.

Clear enough? Or should I wait until you quit the club so you can "see"?

FoxBat · Feb 28, 2008, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

I also ROFL at the concept of MtG being more limited than Guild Wars. There's atleast 150 well-balanced cards every three months, and that's only the secondary sets...

The era of Unlimited and Legends was pretty bad. They've had a decade to perfect the system, and are only just getting it down now. (Mirrodin anyone?)

GW2 will likely be different enough that not all lessons will carry over. Secondaries might be replaced by the notion of race-specific skills for example, with the ability to instead change your primary profession. Who knows at this point.

-Pluto- · Feb 28, 2008, 06:42 PM // 18:42

Quote:

magine if GW is a solo (as in, only your character) game in which cooperative play is optional (like WoW)

Wait... are you saying the pve is not a solo game?

Cacheelma · Feb 28, 2008, 06:53 PM // 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Pluto-

Wait... are you saying the pve is not a solo game?

Not in GW?

At least I can't solo on my characters (and by solo I mean only just me, no heroes or henchmen).

Taurucis · Feb 28, 2008, 07:01 PM // 19:01

I pretty much see no use in a secondary... it's pretty much ignored for one particular skill that makes stuff easier, and/or a rez. There's pretty much absolute taboo for a class playing off its secondary... basically you got all these elitists that squeal "BUT YOU MUST ALWAYS DOWHAT I SAY IS THE BEST!!!" when you try to be creative.

If your creative build manages to synergize correctly, then I don't mind - like my pet warrior with ViM, it works in AB (don't tell me that AB doesn't count as GW, AB is what I do and if it works for AB, I'll use it, and I don't give a f*** about HA or GvG anyways) except that usually I die a lot... but after I die, my target degens to death or Hellreign kills them... I've made killer condition spammer N/W Meleemancers, E/D Dervamentalists... all of them work decently in AB.