Curse

MisterB · Feb 20, 2008, 09:33 AM // 09:33

No more Edge bombs in PvE or PvP, Spirit Bond didn't change in PvP at all, but had a counter to stop PvE "abuse," and I am unsure if Prot Bond was used in PvP. I just don't remember. It's dead, now, certainly.

I don't really have a comment for the PvE vs PvP debate. They never end well. No %s from me.

Longasc · Feb 20, 2008, 10:56 AM // 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

without PvE, Guild Wars PvP could have easily become one of the greatest competitive games of all time.

People already adressed your other points, and I just want to comment on this one.

It could probably have become a pvpers wet dream, but are you sure ANet would even have survived without carebears/PvE players???

In another thread someone even stated, it is always 90% carebears and 10% PvPers in MMOs. I think he is quite right.

How about that

90% balancing for PvP - 10% for PvE
99% new content for PvE - 1% for PvP

I remember the idea that was rampant a few years ago, that pvp is "fun, unlimited endgame content" - GW was probably developed with a similar mindset. It did not really work out that way.

I hope GW2 would focus on one aspect, or that they find the egg of Columbus and make great pve and pvp in one package.

So far I see both PvE and PvP suffer because of the other

enter_the_zone · Feb 20, 2008, 12:21 PM // 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterB

[skill]Protective Bond[/skill]
[skill]Spirit Bond[/skill]
[skill]Edge of Extinction[/skill]

How about a dozen? That enough?

SB was nerfed solely because it was too powerful in PVP, not because of it's use in 600ing or other farming. Demonstrable by the fact it's still used. It made monks un-killable in PVP without some kind of shutdown. EoE was a similar case, sac necros were dominating HA using EoE.

Also, can you say PVE Skill? There was no consideration of balance when those were added, as demonstrated by Ursan and Seed of life.

Clear enough for you?

Wildi · Feb 20, 2008, 12:23 PM // 12:23

without PvE, Guild Wars PvP would be successful like fury
oh wait.. fury died

DreamRunner · Feb 20, 2008, 01:13 PM // 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by enter_the_zone

SB was nerfed solely because it was too powerful in PVP, not because of it's use in 600ing or other farming. Demonstrable by the fact it's still used. It made monks un-killable in PVP without some kind of shutdown. EoE was a similar case, sac necros were dominating HA using EoE.

Also, can you say PVE Skill? There was no consideration of balance when those were added, as demonstrated by Ursan and Seed of life.

Clear enough for you?

EoE was also nerfed because it destroyed witmans folly.

All the spite and bitterness I get from people in-game are PvE people complain about PvP or how PvP people were like this or that.

Another one joining them isn't showing anyone anything.

DreamWind · Feb 20, 2008, 01:58 PM // 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimEye

We are in discussion if GW was intended to be PVE or PVP for the simple reason ANET itself seem to be sending mixed signals.

Anet CREATED this PvE vs PvP divide and refuses to acknowledge it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimEye

I have always been wary of "COULD HAVE BEEN" and stating as if it is a reality.

Point is, "could have been" never happened so arguing about it could go either way, and both could be right and wrong at the same time.

Yes "could have been" never happened, but "PvP being amazing" did happen. It just isn't that way now. I would be willing to bet in a global poll that a large majority of people would agree that PvP today is pathetic in comparison to what it used to be. I can only imagine where Guild Wars would be today if PvP never went through all the changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by longasc

It could probably have become a pvpers wet dream, but are you sure ANet would even have survived without carebears/PvE players???

No I don't...at least not at the very beginning when Guild Wars was an unknown brand name.

As I said before, PvE was needed to bring the players to PvP. PvE and PvP were never meant to be as seperated as they are now. In the ideal Guild Wars, PvE would be played, but PvP would be the endgame (like it used to be).

Instead we have PvE takes over, PvP players frustrated about it, and Anet creating that divide. This divide should never have happened! I'm not even convinced Anet realizes what they had in their hands.

Esan · Feb 20, 2008, 02:00 PM // 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

PvE and PvP take away from each other!
[...]
without PvE, Guild Wars PvP could have easily become one of the greatest competitive games of all time.
[...]
Guild Wars could have easily been the next Starcraft, or Counterstrike, or even greater than those
[...]
but Anet selling out to PvE made it so it will NEVER be considered that way again.

These are just assertions. Writing your opinions in boldface does not magically make them valid.

Avarre · Feb 20, 2008, 02:02 PM // 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by enter_the_zone

SB was nerfed solely because it was too powerful in PVP, not because of it's use in 600ing or other farming. Demonstrable by the fact it's still used. It made monks un-killable in PVP without some kind of shutdown. EoE was a similar case, sac necros were dominating HA using EoE.

I do believe you are mistaken.

Grasping Darkness · Feb 20, 2008, 02:11 PM // 14:11

gw has lots of pvp and pve so it's 50/50 to me. knit picking this subject is the zzzzz

Longasc · Feb 20, 2008, 02:13 PM // 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

As I said before, PvE was needed to bring the players to PvP. PvE and PvP were never meant to be as seperated as they are now. In the ideal Guild Wars, PvE would be played, but PvP would be the endgame (like it used to be).

Instead we have PvE takes over, PvP players frustrated about it, and Anet creating that divide. This divide should never have happened! I'm not even convinced Anet realizes what they had in their hands.

Yep, we have two very different game modes that still share the same skillset.

The problem with the idea that PvE brings players to PvP is that it did not work out. Why?

PvPers and PvEers alike often claim it is because of rank discrimination, because higher level PvP is harder to get into and many things like that. Hm... maybe!

But I think the assumption that people would hunger for pvp and really get enticed to play pvp after having played pve was totally wrong, and has it not proven to have utterly failed?
PvPers wanted to start right away, and PvE players just played PvE and not as many as ANet thought got into PvP.

Having tons of PvE players to basically raise funds for PvP cannot really be a desirable model, and this division is not good for the game.

How will GW2 do it better, lessen the gap between PvE and PvP?

WoW did it better!

World of Warcraft has PvE and PvP servers, the majority being PvP servers (60% roughly, counting RP-PvP and stuff like that)
WoW does not suffer such a divide between pvp players and pve players, even very casual PvE gamers play battlegrounds (!).
Even I as a PvE player have not felt annoyed by constant fighting on PvP servers (I was on EU Azshara most of the time), rather the opposite, I wished sometimes that there would be more action than a few random rogue attacks.

Mending the gap between PvE and PvP would be very nice, sometimes it feels like two factions playing the same game so differently like they are in two totally different worlds contained in the same game.

I am sure many people would not know much of the other side if there would not be the forums...^^

Esan · Feb 20, 2008, 02:34 PM // 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

Mending the gap between PvE and PvP would be very nice,

but quite impossible. Three years is a long time to form set opinions. You cannot teach a PvE player to like a PvPer, nor can you teach a PvPer to respect a PvEer. Like all other forms of social change, the only way for the rift to heal is to wait for the current generation of players to die.

pfaile · Feb 20, 2008, 02:36 PM // 14:36

"wait for the current generation of players to die."

I'm not ready to die yet.

Avarre · Feb 20, 2008, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

but quite impossible. Three years is a long time to form set opinions. You cannot teach a PvE player to like a PvPer, nor can you teach a PvPer to respect a PvEer. Like all other forms of social change, the only way for the rift to heal is to wait for the current generation of players to die.

I would agree with this if I could think of anyone who was a 'PvPer' by the definition of 'only plays PvP'. Every person I know that plays PvP plays PvE, or has played and gotten tired of PvE.

There are no 'PvErs and PvPers', just those that play everything and those that only play PvE. The condescending nature people perceive from 'PvP players' is mainly because these people, playing both sides of the game, can see how absurd a great amount of the PvE complaints are.

Stockholm · Feb 20, 2008, 03:00 PM // 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by maraxusofk

if gw never had pve or any other dull concepts, the developers could have easily spent all their time balancing the game instead of releasing overpowered skills like they did with nf and do better balances. if there was only a gvg ladder and no ha (which is b/c once many ppl hit fame they will be too bored from ha grind to consider gvg), there might be a bigger dedicated crowd.

And how would this be financed (if there is no PvE, smaller numbers sold) ?
Monthly fees?
Everything they do cost money, just imagen how much a programmer gets paid /hour and then calculate how many games they need to sell to pay for that hour. What it comes down to they would not have had more time to spend on skill balance, unless someone stepped up and PAID for their time.
95% of the people I play with would not have bought GW without the PvE part. Time is money.

Avarre · Feb 20, 2008, 03:06 PM // 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stockholm

And how would this be financed (if there is no PvE, smaller numbers sold) ?
Monthly fees?
Everything they do cost money, just imagen how much a programmer gets paid /hour and then calculate how many games they need to sell to pay for that hour. What it comes down to they would not have had more time to spend on skill balance, unless someone stepped up and PAID for their time.
95% of the people I play with would not have bought GW without the PvE part. Time is money.

Well, most serious PvP players would have been willing to pay a monthly fee for a solid Guild Wars PvP format, as it has the most potential (still) of games currently out for that format of play.

enter_the_zone · Feb 20, 2008, 03:17 PM // 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

EoE was also nerfed because it destroyed witmans folly.

All the spite and bitterness I get from people in-game are PvE people complain about PvP or how PvP people were like this or that.

Another one joining them isn't showing anyone anything.

You're entirely missing the point. The fact that the balances are "primarily" or only pvp based is actually largely a good thing imo. PVE doesn't really need balance, if it did, mobs would have full skillbars and solo farming would be utterly impossible.

But claiming PVE is given much (or any) consideration in balances is being willfully stupid.

Frankly, ANet realised that they don't really need to worry about specifically balancing PVE, so they don't. I have yet to find a valid argument why they should. "They ruined my favorite farm" does not constitute a valid argument.

Stockholm · Feb 20, 2008, 03:19 PM // 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Well, most serious PvP players would have been willing to pay a monthly fee for a solid Guild Wars PvP format, as it has the most potential (still) of games currently out for that format of play.

I can understand that, but is there enough players that serious to make it viable for a company? maraxusofk made it sound like A-Net could have had the same staff on payroll without the PvE part as with. That would mean rhoughly 75K-100K players paying a monthley fee just to break even (unless the fee is over $20/month). Running a company is expensive, specially if you have skilled staff you have to pay top salerys or they get recruited.

As it is now they can fall back on NC-Soft for money projected against sales of the last project. And only because of the amount of games sold so far.

Longasc · Feb 20, 2008, 03:24 PM // 15:24

The assumption is that the number of PvP players with or without paying a fee would be enough to support GW is something I dare to doubt.

In fact I would rather say they could throw PvP and all hardcore PvPers overboard and still make much more profit than the other way around. They are a minority!

PvE players seem to take a lot and still do not quit and buy the latest chapter, despite all whining about skill nerfs and this and that. I am still playing GW despite the latest PvE skill stupidity and silly "grind as the game" stuff added mainly with GW:EN. ANet is capitalizing on that, this makes me fear for quality PvE in GW2 that hopefully is not just another stupid grinder.

Bryant Again · Feb 20, 2008, 03:30 PM // 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by enter_the_zone

You're entirely missing the point. The fact that the balances are "primarily" or only pvp based is actually largely a good thing imo. PVE doesn't really need balance, if it did, mobs would have full skillbars and solo farming would be utterly impossible.

Since the AI in this game is horrible, I actually consider the monsters fairly balanced. They make up in strength for what they lack brains. Not to mention you asked where, if ever, they make a balance with PvE in mind (but that was already answered.)

enter_the_zone · Feb 20, 2008, 03:47 PM // 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Since the AI in this game is horrible, I actually consider the monsters fairly balanced. They make up in strength for what they lack brains. Not to mention you asked where, if ever, they make a balance with PvE in mind (but that was already answered.)

12 skills, 9 of them PVE only skills. I think that fairly proves my point that

a) PVP is the overwhelmingly large factor in all balances

b) this is not as bad a thing as most PVE players seem to think it is.

PVE is nowhere near the correct use of "balanced". If it was, 8(human, hero, hench)v8 (mobs) would be a roll of the dice every time and not what it is now (a forgone conclusion, 90% of the time).

Solo and duo farming would also have been utterly destroyed.

Rather than saying PVE is balanced, let's say it's challenging enough to serve it's purpose.