Curse

Alfrond · Mar 03, 2007, 05:43 AM // 05:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by B Ephekt

I think the point is that MMO-type games offer a lot of depth and strategy to pvp (although GW is the first to get pvp right). FPSes are fun - I've played them online since Quake 1 - but they get old after a while. And really, if you've been playing FPSes for any decent amount of time, cleaning up pubs gets boring as hell.

Plus, I always found pve in this game to be notably bad.

Guild Wars is already a pvp-focused game though.

Please, lets not get into arguments about whether Guild Wars is pvp or pve based. Lets just all agree to disagree and go play the part of Guild Wars we like best, okay?

Shmanka · Mar 03, 2007, 09:01 AM // 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Eh, I could have made another picture to more clearly show the real story, but my point still stands.

No it doesnt...

Kashrlyyk · Mar 03, 2007, 10:08 AM // 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

Hahaha wow

Wiki builds are terrible

Then go here: http://www.gw-tactics.de/charactercreator/

Maybe that is better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oink The Pig

..... It's true that few dedicate the energy to learning both sides of the game, and note that he even says that few "are successful at both," which sounds like an acknowledgement that PvP'ers can have trouble with PvE, as well as vice versa. .....

And the next sentence is: "One reason is the difficulty in learning PvP when you're accustomed to PvE."
So he is talking about people that are "accustomed to PvE", ergo experienced PvE players, which most likely will know everything he likes to "teach" them. I can understand that people are offended by that.

"the shining feature of the game." This with the description of his career at the end of the article, creates the impression, that he hasn´t played that much PvE. Which of course means, that he can´t be talking about the "PvP'ers can have trouble with PvE"-thing.
I know, this is an assumption, it is just said so little about him in the article.

@Gaile Gray: Double droprates or XP, is not an event for me, that is changing one variabel from 1 to 2.

But there are events like christmas or new years. I can´t see how PvP'er can complain about those, since they both had PvP arenas included. So are there some real PvE only events? Events where PvP-charakters can´t participate at all?

Stockholm · Mar 03, 2007, 03:52 PM // 15:52

The article is less insulting to a PvE player than the insults he/she resives when trying to PvP as an unranked player.

Wtf Its A Monk · Mar 03, 2007, 04:12 PM // 16:12

this article is a discrase for both pve players and pvp players a like.....all it does is preach intolerance and take jabs at players who want to stick with one side rather than another.....i think that anet should be ashamed for letting this hurtful state of the game on there page and i think that we as the community should look past it and continue doing what we like to do rather than what one asshole at anet wants us to do

Bread Fan · Mar 03, 2007, 08:55 PM // 20:55

The only thing that is a disgrace is your spelling and grammar. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the article. It seems the extremely sensitive, low self-esteem players were offended by it.

DreamWind · Mar 04, 2007, 12:52 AM // 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

No it doesnt...

Prove it wrong. I have given logical reasons for my stance while being given no good reason that people should have been offended. Saying "you are wrong" doesn't do anything and makes your post worthless.

I completely agree with above poster that only sensitive or low self esteem people were offended by it. PvE vs PvP rage is the only reason it was ever discussed...I thought I proved that like a bunch of pages ago.

DIH49 · Mar 04, 2007, 04:55 AM // 04:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

No it doesnt...

Actually yes it does. The logic is unequivocal.

Kashrlyyk · Mar 04, 2007, 06:24 AM // 06:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bread Fan

The only thing that is a disgrace is your spelling and grammar. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the article. It seems the extremely sensitive, low self-esteem players were offended by it.

Don´t insult people, just because you don´t share their oppinion.

Kuldebar Valiturus · Mar 04, 2007, 06:25 AM // 06:25

Arguing whether something is offensive to someone, or not, is a useless endeavor because you can't argue with an emotion and you can't debate with a feeling.

Some people base the positions they take on reason, others on emotion.

DreamWind · Mar 04, 2007, 07:12 AM // 07:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Don´t insult people, just because you don´t share their oppinion.

I could have the opinion that the sky is red or that gravity doesn't exist but that doesn't mean I am right. Same thing applies here...just because people thought the article was offensive doesn't mean it was, especially since there is so much logic to the contrary.

Quote:

Some people base the positions they take on reason, others on emotion.

QFT.

Pakana · Mar 04, 2007, 08:32 AM // 08:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

What got you interested in PvP (or why aren't you interested)? Did you struggle with these issues and if so, how did you overcome them?

I have played PvP only a few times. The reasons I didn't get interested was:

1) It took HOURS to make the teams and builds. While I know that's sensible, that's also kinda boring.

2) Teams kicked me out right away when I told I don't have PvP experience. They aimed for success. There's no room for newbies.

3) There's no goal for me in PvP. I don't care about the titles in PvE either. I don't care about fame. I can solo farm UW with much better results should I need money (which I haven't needed for a year).

4) PvP changes too much and there's too much special match rules and goals. I don't have time to follow all those changes. Casual PvP-playing isn't an option.

5) Aspenwood is just so much more fun!! Teams are random and the fight is always unpredictable. And you don't need to wait all day to get to the battle. And you can get in with what ever build!

Kashrlyyk · Mar 04, 2007, 10:25 AM // 10:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I could have the opinion that the sky is red or that gravity doesn't exist but that doesn't mean I am right. Same thing applies here...just because people thought the article was offensive doesn't mean it was, especially since there is so much logic to the contrary.

Gravity is a fact, no matter your opinion. But whether the article is offending or not, is not a fact, it is subject to the individual point of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray, 27-02-2007, 03:45

I'm really sorry to see that some players are upset about the State of the Game article. I know that Adam, the writer, had absolutely no intention of denigrating or putting down any members of the community, be they PvE players, PvP players, or simply those who don't play the game yet but are reading to learn about it. Not everyone cares to play both types of gameplay. That's perfectly ok. The article is intended to provide some insight for or about those who do.

Most of the State of the Game articles are written by our external reporters, all of whom were selected for their knowledge of the game, particularly PvP. The articles are not intended as straight reportage. They are solicited and offered as "editorial" articles and the subjects they cover can be, at time, controversial. They can be, and will be, occasionally colored with a personal view, and that really is one of the strengths of the series as a whole.

However, we may have erred in not making our intentions and our objectives as clear as we could. People may have read this article, or that article, and been a little surprised to find the expression of opinion. And I guess that could cause some to get concerned. I think the opinion is ok, as long as it engenders healthy discussion and as long as the content isn't offensive. So if you were offended by the statement about Healing, or if you found any other commentary to be unappealing, please accept our apology. That's not the intention of the author, I'm sure, and is certainly not the intention of the company.

We're going to add a leader to the articles to make their editorial nature clearer. However, I really want to make it more personal that those cold corporate disclaimers: "The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the management." I mean, that's true and all, but we want it to be clear where the writers are coming from, and what they bring to their pieces.

The publication of SotG articles on the website doesn't show any special prejudice for or against a particular section of the player base. We have PvP articles; we have PvE articles, and we have a whole bunch of content that appeals to both. The State of the Game articles are intended as PvP-focused articles; that's why they're in the Competitive Section. We've thought of offering SotG articles from a PvE experience, but the metagame for PvE doesn't change and evolve as much or as visibly as the PvP metagame does, so it doesn't seem likely that we can offer the same sort of article for PvE. Your ideas about more coverage for PvE are more than welcome, of course.

So I hope this explains the situation better as far as this article and as far as the series is concerned. Thanks for reading.

Highlightning is by/from(?) me.

http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forum...&postcount=224

DreamWind · Mar 04, 2007, 10:38 AM // 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forum...&postcount=224

Meh...I posted in that thread and my post never got a good response. It effectively shut the thread down. I find it really interesting that an apology was offered there but not offered here though. Since gwonline is mostly pve players, an apology must have been offered there to appease the ridiculously large amount of offended people. Quite honestly, anybody who is smart enough should know better.

Sigh what is this world coming to...what is Anet going to have to apologize for next?

Bread Fan · Mar 04, 2007, 10:41 AM // 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pakana

I have played PvP only a few times. The reasons I didn't get interested was:

3) There's no goal for me in PvP. I don't care about the titles in PvE either. I don't care about fame. I can solo farm UW with much better results should I need money (which I haven't needed for a year).

That's the thing. I could care less about guild wars economy. I don't have a single set of fissure armor. Some players get the gratification in having "l33t" armor or weapons as I enjoy shutting down another player/team. All to their own.

P.S - I still think the "extreme sensitive" players that were offended by an on line article need proffesional help.

Shmanka · Mar 04, 2007, 10:41 AM // 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Sigh what is this world coming to...what is Anet going to have to apologize for next?

Not balancing 80% of the skills for PvP and PvE.

Zorglubb · Mar 04, 2007, 10:52 AM // 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Gravity is a fact, no matter your opinion.

FWIW the latest quantum unification theories consider that gravity does not exist, and is merely an illusion of some other dimensional effects.

The whole issue here is not really as much about "PvP vs PvE" itself, than about what aspects of the game turn "PvE to PvP" into a "PvE vs PvP" affair. The lack of casual PvP options, progression, ingame documentation and PvP attitude are very much factors which have been discussed here.
Another key aspect IMO is probably that of PvP rewards, thinking back, PvP has been going downhill ever since they were introduced (faction, Gladiator points) or people became aware of them (/rank). Faction and PvP toons creation improvements also introduced a separation between PvP and PvE that contributed to the problem.

TabascoSauce · Mar 04, 2007, 02:21 PM // 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I could have the opinion that the sky is red or that gravity doesn't exist but that doesn't mean I am right. Same thing applies here...just because people thought the article was offensive doesn't mean it was, especially since there is so much logic to the contrary.

I am a big fan of logic myself. While you may (or may not) have crafted flawless logical arguments, if a person feels insulted they cannot be logically proven to be wrong. Insult is an emotion.

FWIW, I think that the article was an editorial, and based on the concept behind editorials the author should have a free hand to post an opinion.

I am thinking that the placement of the article was unfortunate. If this editorial was intended for relatively new players, which seems a reasonable conclusion, who themselves want to transition from PvE to PvP, then maybe that editorial web "column" is not the right venue, as people who are not 1) needing of the advice and/or 2) receptive to the advice, will be the majority of viewers.

An indefensible but demonstrable example would be to post bird-watching articles in a bird hunting magazine. While a percentage of readers will appreciate the bird watching tips, most "hunters" who specialize will view it as insulting when no offense was meant, or a waste of space when articles devoted to their interests could be there.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

DreamWind · Mar 04, 2007, 03:09 PM // 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

Not balancing 80% of the skills for PvP and PvE.

Finally something we can agree on. Now if only Anet would stop wasting time apologizing for things that don't require it (like sotg), maybe they would get somewhere with the real problems.

Quote:

I am a big fan of logic myself. While you may (or may not) have crafted flawless logical arguments, if a person feels insulted they cannot be logically proven to be wrong. Insult is an emotion.

I suppose you are right. That just goes back to people using emotion instead of logic to determine their positions. Big fat nono in the real world.

Stockholm · Mar 04, 2007, 03:23 PM // 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bread Fan

The only thing that is a disgrace is your spelling and grammar. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the article. It seems the extremely sensitive, low self-esteem players were offended by it.

Not all people here have English as first language, so comments like that is very offensive and unneccesary. IMO