Curse

Siren · Mar 22, 2006, 04:53 PM // 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

Rpg players have a term for that it is called hack and slash. Rpg player you can say detest that. they want things to have meaning. They like to use their minds in an adenture.
where is the adventure in that

The PvE portion of GW rarely requires anything deeper than a "basic understanding of the game mechanics," though. Most of PvE is not challenging the minds of anybody, nor is it requiring players to use their minds. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to actually be able to have meaning in PvE, or to have what I do in PvE to have meaning.

That's not to say PvP is more meaningful, but the "basic understanding of the game mechanics" is what ultimately prompted me and a few of my buddies to leave our old guild to form a new one. What we wanted to do was build discussion, battle strategy, tactics, on-the-fly adaptation. And that's something we just couldn't get with the casual "whatever happens" philosophy of an inactive and "ploddy" PvE guild.

So I don't know what you're getting at. In the "RPG" portion of Guild Wars, the PvE portion, you don't need to outsmart the computer to beat them. 90% of the time, it's just complete brute force. There's very little hex removal, enchant removal, condition removal, strategic positioning, etc, when it comes to what the A.I. is doing.

Using Necros, Mesmers and Rangers certainly makes the process smoother, but there is a general reason why most PUGs can exist with only Eles, Warriors, and Monks: the monsters in PvE are pretty damned stupid, and outsmarting them (and for that matter, outplaying them) is not only unnecessary, it's impossible. To outsmart something, there has to be some sort of challenging intellect in the first place, and largely...you don't have that in PvE. There are more wars of attrition than strategy.

dreamhunk · Mar 22, 2006, 04:56 PM // 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

The PvE portion of GW rarely requires anything deeper than a "basic understanding of the game mechanics," though. Most of PvE is not challenging the minds of anybody, nor is it requiring players to use their minds. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to actually be able to have meaning in PvE, or to have what I do in PvE to have meaning.

That's not to say PvP is more meaningful, but the "basic understanding of the game mechanics" is what ultimately prompted me and a few of my buddies to leave our old guild to form a new one. What we wanted to do was build discussion, battle strategy, tactics, on-the-fly adaptation. And that's something we just couldn't get with the casual "whatever happens" philosophy of an inactive and "ploddy" PvE guild.

So I don't know what you're getting at. In the "RPG" portion of Guild Wars, the PvE portion, you don't need to outsmart the computer to beat them. 90% of the time, it's just complete brute force. There's very little hex removal, enchant removal, condition removal, strategic positioning, etc, when it comes to what the A.I. is doing.

Using Necros, Mesmers and Rangers certainly makes the process smoother, but there is a general reason why most PUGs can exist with only Eles, Warriors, and Monks: the monsters in PvE are pretty damned stupid, and outsmarting them (and for that matter, outplaying them) is not only unnecessary, it's impossible. To outsmart something, there has to be some sort of challenging intellect in the first place, and largely...you don't have that in PvE. There are more wars of attrition than strategy.

that is reason you have a hard time understanding me. It is ok because that is who you are. But to other rpg players they under stand this very well.

Rpg is not just mecanhics.

SilentAssassin · Mar 22, 2006, 05:19 PM // 17:19

anyways I am a Hybrid person to, I play 60-65% PvE and 35-40% PvP, thats one of the things why I love this game, because you can do alot of different things.

Offcourse after a year playing you've seen kinda everything but with factions this whole gaming experience will come back

WasAGuest · Mar 22, 2006, 05:46 PM // 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharalon

PvP is almost totally unrelated to gaining access to Elite missions. If you listen to Jeff's interview, he makes it clear that the Aliiance Battles (3x4v4 PvP, only available to PvE toonz) will set the borders, which determine how many cities are available for your faction to control. Control of those cities (and subsequent access to Elite Missions) is entirely determined by both Challenge Missions (pure PvE), and Competition Missions, which is touted as being a hybrid but learning heavily towards being PvE orientated. If you want access to Elite Missions, you never have to touch PvP. You don't even need a single PvPer in your entire alliance.

uhh, that's what I said it was. I'll just look at this post and say it again...
"3x4x4 PvP, only available to PvE toonz will st the borders". Yea, PvP in which PvE plays in. When I state PvP, I'm not talking about HoH or GvG type games styles, I'm talking about players playing against players. Whether that's for points or whatever.
Challenge Missions? heh, listen to the interview again. He says that players will be competing for score. The score, in the end, is against other players. Just like an e-sports game. Scoring is against other players, that's not a grasp at something, that's just what it is. PvP with score vs direct kills.
Competitive Missions? More PvP. No matter the spin on it, it's players vs players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharalon

Competitive != PvP. Saying that factions is PvP based is a rediculous statement. They're introducting one new pure PvP gametype (which is accesable to only PvE toonz anyway), while they're introducting a bunch of new PvE focussed stuff (Competition Missions, Challenge Missions, Elite Missions, Outpost Control), as well as an entirely new campaign. What's PvP getting? A few new guild halls from what I've heard, Alliance Battles, and that's about the sum of it. That's all I've seen announced anyway (in no way complaining about this, new skills and classes is more than enough to keep PvP fresh for a while).

Saying that is just what no one wants to hear, so it "offends" people. It is PvP based and in that fact, it's really good. One thing that keeps being said in your post is that PvP made for PvE... uhh, yea, PvP is still PvP. Whether it's a deathmatch, CTF, Domination, Assult, Last Man standing or whatever, it's still PvP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharalon

The entire Faction system is a PvE reward system, gained by playing a lot of PvE maps better than other PvEers.

The entire reward system is to reward those playing PvP and PvP mini games. The Elite Missions are the rewards for PvE for playing PvP. That's the bait, or carrot if you will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharalon

Complaining that you can't access a reward solely due to self imposed limitations seems highly illogical. Saying you can't acces Elite missions because you don't like guilding, and therefore the system sucks, is equivalent to saying you can't get to the Forgemaster for FoW armor because you don't like making groups of 8, therefore you're unfairly being locked out of content. The best rewards are exclusive, and the better a reward is, the more people want it, the more they'll play to try and get it, and the more satisfaction they'll feel when they actually get it. That's going to get more people into those areas and missions. It'll keep them fresh. It'll make the game a great deal of fun for those who choose to get involved. It keeps both the game world and the community at large vibrant and dynamic. That's the whole point.

I didn't build the game, so I imposed no limitations at all. Those designs were in place before I learned about it. I was given no work around or way to truely opt out of the conflict. I do not enjoy PvP in any of it's forms, so I simply am opting out of purchasing the game.
You are right about the exclusive rewards, but the rewards for playing the game I bought in the manner I wish to play it, is not available. Not a bad thing, it just means there's nothing there for me to play if I purchased it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pharalon

Currently there is no reward system in place for PvE guilds. Nothing. You can go out an farm together, but that's about it. There's a lack on incentive for those people to log on each and every day. It's being introduced for the same reasons that the HoH and cash Tournaments are there for PvPers. So they've put in a PvE reward system that gives PvEers what they want: extremely difficult missions, gameworld RP recognition and power, and big loot. Seems perfect to me. The only issue I could see is if 10-20 alliances dominate control, but I'm sure they'll put in mechanisms to makes even smaller guilds have some, if somewhat less regular, access to those rewards. As long as it doesn't become a zerg-fest, i can't see anything wrong.

My guild and yours (if your in one) see this very very differently. We all think the ladder and scoring system is the dumbest thing to hit a RPG in a very long time. We could really care less about someone "top" score. I also think I was 12 years old playing Pacman when score was anything at all of interest to me. My opinion? Yep. That's why I am not purchasing the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom

Our friend here is ignoring the fact that PvE may be more interesting in Factions. Guest's argument is that since the game is more enjoyable for PvP and mixed players, then it MUST be less enjoyable for the PvE crowd. This doesn't follow logically.

Uhh, right. What I said was, Factions is PvP based. There's new PvE content sprinkled on top to maintain sales, obviously. PvEers playing PvP is still PvP gaming. If some PvEers enjoy both, then this game will be awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom

The other thing Guest alludes to is that all games that force PvP have failed. Two reasons this is plain silly. Guild Wars doesn't force PvP and there are no negative consequences of in game PvP. FPS are incredibly popular online and they are exclusively PvP oriented. There is clearly a market for a game like guild wars and factions will be a game like guild wars with some richer cross genre content included as well as more top level PvP areas.

PvP is forced on PvE on so many ways it's crazy. Pharalon even mentioned it many times in his post. PvP build special for PvE players?
It sounds as if people are assuming that some PvEers just don't want to compete against the seasoned PvP players. And while that might be true in some cases, I think the point is being missed all together. Players vs players is a hurried type game experience. Look at all the mission types in Factions. They are all about beating the other team, beating your own score so that you best the other players... rushed. I'm rushed all day, I want to log on and relax. More in a second....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom

Based on this lack of information and logic, Guest claims he won't buy the game. People who value intellegence over baseless passion should really go try out the event this weekend.

Therefore and based on the information that is there, I find the PvE content, the REAL PvE, content to be lacking and not worth $50. $20, maybe, but not $50. People who value common sence and not wishing to go with the crowd should also try the preview weekend and make a choice based on what they find.
I think Factions is a near perfect game for what it does. I mean, seriously, step back and look at it for what it is. Not through fanboy or haters eyes, really look at it. It's utter perfection in all it does.
People who enjoy PvE and PvP are going to love this. It's simply awesome. It does exactly what the devs said it would do, bring those that enjoy PvE and PvP closer. PvP is getting some much needed additions. Faction points aid in the slowing of Faction Zerging/Switching - this makes working with a faction worth the time and effort. I mean, I'm amazed at the amount of work and thought that went into it.
For me, and those like me though, that really despise the rushed feel of PvP and like it to having a cavity or root canal, will probably not enjoy the game. The interview also showed us that there was more content in a smaller area. This means to me, that you will gain level 20 faster and be thrust into the war. Exactly the feel the devs wanted I'm sure. The whole game will be rushed through to get you into the competition.
That's why I am opting out, and I only mention I am opting out as to show that I am not interested in PvP content.
I find that many posts I have made on this topic are considered to be knocking Anet. It is far from the truth though. I stated I feel shafted by the design, but that's not Anets fault. They said from the start what Factions was, they said how it would be. They said it would be about a conflict and players would take place in the conflict. I had held up hope that it would be less PvP and more PvE, and the conflict would be more story based rather than actual conflict... but that is my own fault. I could go back as far as the CGW article and point to page 64 where Flannan was asked about how PvEers would like the new game mechanic. CGW asking shows there was questions and concerns about it even then. When I simply state back what Anet claimed Factions was, some people don't like what they are hearing and feel they should defend Anet. No defense on them is needed. They made the game they said they would, and they did it well. Most game companies claim to make a game that does something, and they fall far short of it. Anet, pulled off what they said they would.

Mordakai · Mar 22, 2006, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Well said, WasAGuest. I understand now where you're coming from.

Thom · Mar 22, 2006, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

RPg's are not competive by nature, it is not about proving who si better. Once you start to compete it no longer becomes a rpg but a pvp

Ummm...RPG means "roleplaying game", a game can be cooperative or competitive--it is defined by multiple players making strategic decisions which determine an outcome (at least that is vaguely how game theory defines it). "Nature" can be considered a player. The fact that a game is an RPG (broadly speaking a game where you play a role and develop a character) does not in itself say anything about the nature of your opponent (AI or real person) or the nature of the game (Competitive, Cooperative or Both). Guild Wars involves RP elements, Cooperative elements, Competitive elements, AI elements and PvP elements. The fact that players of "traditional RPGs" have focused on "men against nature" (which is a form of mixed competition and cooperation) does not invalidate the other forms of RPGing.

Factions will enhance Roleplaying for within PvP without reducing the amount of Roleplaying in the PvE elements. So as a whole, Factions will be a better RPG. Factions is also rumored to have more quest content and more difficult areas, so the level of competition in PvE will increase. The game should be more emersive which is currently a weakness.

The people "screwed" are those whole liked easy, repetitive content (there will be less of this in Factions) and people who like a wide open structure (which is expected since Prophecies never had a wide open structure). People who like easy repetitive content will get some more Prophecies like grind, but not as much. Your open structure RPGers will either embrace the Factions story or hate it. I for one thought the Prophecies story was shallow and linear, and don't understand all of its fans.

I agree with the "pace of the game" point. It looks like there will be more fast paced content. I also agree that the game must be balanced with some slower paced content since even hardcore PvPers like to take a night off to relax a bit (thus the smurfs). I find RA to be rather slow and mindless myself. If there is insufficient PvE content for players like Guest, that would be a shame. while the new mechanics focus on PvP it is hard to judge the totality of the product before it's release. The PvE areas should be more interesting. It is not fair to say content is simply sprinked on top since there will be equivalent numbers of skills to unlock and the like. In order to support the GW experinece there must be significant PvE elements. New interesting monster balance has been a major focus of the game which has gotten less press. Until we actually see the finished product, it will be hard to get a good measure of relative value for PvE players. What is abundantly clear is that the game is a winner for your RPG(PvE/PvP) players and casual PvPers.

I'd urge the PvE-only crowd to wait for release and read the reviews before exiting the game.

Mavrik · Mar 22, 2006, 09:01 PM // 21:01

After reading most of this... I have come to the following conclusion that I will be spending MOST of my factions time in Prophecies...

but being optomistic and everything else... I'll wait till the release to really see whats going on.

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 22, 2006, 09:50 PM // 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Content accessibility never had anything to do with character slots, correct? So why ever bring it up in the first place? You never answered that question.

Oh, what the heck - one more round. I don't remember exactly why I mentioned this, but I believe it was part of a general statement in regards to the percentage of content that is accessable at any one time while in the game. I didn't mean for it to relate directly to the Faction borders, but only in the broader sense of being in addition to not being able to access 100% of the content when your Faction doesn't control certain areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Simple: so you can get an idea for the time pattern when America has favor, so you can plan for it better.

Yeah, that would be great if I could forsee when America would have favor. The times I have to dedicate more than a few minutes to account maintance or checking for updates or favor, does not change, so I have to plan my game time around those larger bulks that I have during the week. I haven't logged in yet for tonight's journey, but let's say America had favor when I was on-line this morning, that doesn't mean we will still have favor when I head in game in a few minutes. I might be able to log back on for 10 minutes tomorrow moring, and find America has favor once again, but that doesn't help me now when I have enough time to do the lengthy stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Did you see me re-iterating how this is an idea best left to...oh, I don't know...console RPGs like KotOR or Fable?

And it would be a trainwreck. You're just not thinking it through. For an online game where people are interacting with each other, those people need to interact on the same stage of action. The game needs to be the same for everyone--from a structural point of view--for the game to work.

Your idea runs counter to that reality. The minute you have an online game being altered by the player experiences--alterations that change the plot of the game, even just for the player--you run the risk of making Christopher Lloyd angry. What I mean by that is, say in a plot similar to GW's, but in an online MMORPG built from scratch, you have a few plot twists. MMORPGs thrive on player-to-player interaction.

But how can you have player-to-player interaction when everyone can't do the same thing, because they've done the plot order differently? This brings me back to my example about D'Alessio Seaboard. It'd be complete and utter chaos, and no mission would ever be possible with a group, ever again. If the changes are visible only to the inviduals, well, then what's even the point of playing online?

That's why I've been repeating that the dynamic plot design you're talking about is best left to console RPGs. There is nothing more to it than that.

I can see I'm not getting my point across totally here. It's not that each character would be confined to a lone instance based on how they went through the game, but work more like the districts do now.

Even now, if you are in Yak's Bend District 1, you can't form a party or interact with any character who is not in that district (aside from using the chat option). If your guild mate was in District 2, you would have to zone to that district (or he to yours) in order to form a party, trade items, etc. The Dynamic system I am talking about would work the same way. Once a character completes the Frost Gate mission, whenever he travels back to Ascalon, he would be visiting the "new" series of districts in which the game world in that area has now changed to reflect the fact that Rurik is dead and many refugees have fled to Kryta. Now he wouldn't be alone, because anyone who has completed FG would likewise be zoned to those same new districts. So one player can play through all of the Ascalon areas, complete FG, then return to a whole new experience in that same area. Now, another player can just skip over everything in Ascalon, complete FG, then return to be in the same place as the previous player.

So yes, if you completed FG, but your guildmate has not, your two characters would not be able to interact outside of chatting, just like being in different districts or towns now, but when your mate completes the mission, then you can zone to the same "updated" district in order to party up. These "updated" areas would not have to be written for every quest or mission, but only for the main plot twists and area shifts. So essentially, there would only need to be code for two different versions of Ascalon - the one as it is right now, and one to reflect the changes after the Northern Shiverpeaks area. This concept would just need to be carried over with the other major stepping stones throughout the game.

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

PS:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

So I don't know what you're getting at. In the "RPG" portion of Guild Wars, the PvE portion, you don't need to outsmart the computer to beat them. 90% of the time, it's just complete brute force. There's very little hex removal, enchant removal, condition removal, strategic positioning, etc, when it comes to what the A.I. is doing.

Using Necros, Mesmers and Rangers certainly makes the process smoother, but there is a general reason why most PUGs can exist with only Eles, Warriors, and Monks: the monsters in PvE are pretty damned stupid, and outsmarting them (and for that matter, outplaying them) is not only unnecessary, it's impossible. To outsmart something, there has to be some sort of challenging intellect in the first place, and largely...you don't have that in PvE. There are more wars of attrition than strategy.

That was exactly my point in a previous post about increasing the AI to make it more dynamic and human like. With a better AI to compete against, it would make getting through most areas in PvE more interesting and challenging, and would even encourage revisiting areas for other than farming because the battles would rarely play out the same way as they do now.

dreamhunk · Mar 22, 2006, 09:57 PM // 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom

Ummm...RPG means "roleplaying game", a game can be cooperative or competitive--it is defined by multiple players making strategic decisions which determine an outcome (at least that is vaguely how game theory defines it). "Nature" can be considered a player. The fact that a game is an RPG (broadly speaking a game where you play a role and develop a character) does not in itself say anything about the nature of your opponent (AI or real person) or the nature of the game (Competitive, Cooperative or Both). Guild Wars involves RP elements, Cooperative elements, Competitive elements, AI elements and PvP elements. The fact that players of "traditional RPGs" have focused on "men against nature" (which is a form of mixed competition and cooperation) does not invalidate the other forms of RPGing.

Factions will enhance Roleplaying for within PvP without reducing the amount of Roleplaying in the PvE elements. So as a whole, Factions will be a better RPG. Factions is also rumored to have more quest content and more difficult areas, so the level of competition in PvE will increase. The game should be more emersive which is currently a weakness.

The people "screwed" are those whole liked easy, repetitive content (there will be less of this in Factions) and people who like a wide open structure (which is expected since Prophecies never had a wide open structure). People who like easy repetitive content will get some more Prophecies like grind, but not as much. Your open structure RPGers will either embrace the Factions story or hate it. I for one thought the Prophecies story was shallow and linear, and don't understand all of its fans.

I agree with the "pace of the game" point. It looks like there will be more fast paced content. I also agree that the game must be balanced with some slower paced content since even hardcore PvPers like to take a night off to relax a bit (thus the smurfs). I find RA to be rather slow and mindless myself. If there is insufficient PvE content for players like Guest, that would be a shame. while the new mechanics focus on PvP it is hard to judge the totality of the product before it's release. The PvE areas should be more interesting. It is not fair to say content is simply sprinked on top since there will be equivalent numbers of skills to unlock and the like. In order to support the GW experinece there must be significant PvE elements. New interesting monster balance has been a major focus of the game which has gotten less press. Until we actually see the finished product, it will be hard to get a good measure of relative value for PvE players. What is abundantly clear is that the game is a winner for your RPG(PvE/PvP) players and casual PvPers.

I'd urge the PvE-only crowd to wait for release and read the reviews before exiting the game.

I glade you under stand me

on this one, not alot of players do. I think what would help GW become more RPG based is add choice to the game. Yes more free structure. Meaning add creatures that are imposible to kill. Make so that you think about how to beat the monster with out hack and slash. There needs to be more of rpg elements in it to make a RPG. Add some fun thinking stuff where groups have slove a puzzle to open a door. Add everything you can think about in an adventure would have. Make more group interaction with content. Meaning make it so people have make group choices. As well as have each player how she or he has played effect the group.

As for people saying they play pvp/pve, Unreal tourment has a pve. It doen't make it an RPG. I still think there is still alot of players who still don't understand.

I really don't see how rpg can become compative, but it remains to be seen. I am not really under standing you when say elements. what kind of elements are talking about? I also the think that pvp and rpg shouldn't affect rpg of the game.

I would also say that there things Rpg players want that pvp don't. One doesnot have to look far on foums and other fourms to see that. I also think pvp should be a choice not force. How meny people here want a compitive game. how meny people want to be competive is what anetshould be asking.

Siren · Mar 22, 2006, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

Oh, what the heck - one more round. I don't remember exactly why I mentioned this, but I believe it was part of a general statement in regards to the percentage of content that is accessable at any one time while in the game. I didn't mean for it to relate directly to the Faction borders, but only in the broader sense of being in addition to not being able to access 100% of the content when your Faction doesn't control certain areas.

But how a profession plays doesn't relate to the Favor system. Your comments on the character slots thing don't relate at all to the Favor system. Thus, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place in this thread. lol

Quote:

Yeah, that would be great if I could forsee when America would have favor. The times I have to dedicate more than a few minutes to account maintance or checking for updates or favor, does not change, so I have to plan my game time around those larger bulks that I have during the week. I haven't logged in yet for tonight's journey, but let's say America had favor when I was on-line this morning, that doesn't mean we will still have favor when I head in game in a few minutes. I might be able to log back on for 10 minutes tomorrow moring, and find America has favor once again, but that doesn't help me now when I have enough time to do the lengthy stuff.

Is it really that difficult to see patterns, or at least trends?

And plus, this is irrelevant to Factions anyway, like I've been saying all along, because there are only going to be two "regions" in Factions, so the "party lines," as it were, aren't going to be so unpredictable. It's not going to be A, B, C, D, and E going at it. It'll only be A and B going at it.

Quote:

I can see I'm not getting my point across totally here. It's not that each character would be confined to a lone instance based on how they went through the game, but work more like the districts do now.

Even now, if you are in Yak's Bend District 1, you can't form a party or interact with any character who is not in that district (aside from using the chat option). If your guild mate was in District 2, you would have to zone to that district (or he to yours) in order to form a party, trade items, etc. The Dynamic system I am talking about would work the same way. Once a character completes the Frost Gate mission, whenever he travels back to Ascalon, he would be visiting the "new" series of districts in which the game world in that area has now changed to reflect the fact that Rurik is dead and many refugees have fled to Kryta. Now he wouldn't be alone, because anyone who has completed FG would likewise be zoned to those same new districts. So one player can play through all of the Ascalon areas, complete FG, then return to a whole new experience in that same area. Now, another player can just skip over everything in Ascalon, complete FG, then return to be in the same place as the previous player.

So yes, if you completed FG, but your guildmate has not, your two characters would not be able to interact outside of chatting, just like being in different districts or towns now, but when your mate completes the mission, then you can zone to the same "updated" district in order to party up. These "updated" areas would not have to be written for every quest or mission, but only for the main plot twists and area shifts. So essentially, there would only need to be code for two different versions of Ascalon - the one as it is right now, and one to reflect the changes after the Northern Shiverpeaks area. This concept would just need to be carried over with the other major stepping stones throughout the game.

Then what's the point of playing online? If there's going to be a chance (a damn good chance, I think) that guildies won't be able to group with each other due to some inane and absurd dynamic adventure system...why should they even bother playing in the first place? You want this system to enable freedom for the players, correct? Play the story how they want to, and not get penalized for it.

But what you're not realizing, I think, is that you're not enabling player freedom at all. If anything, you're restricting their freedoms. A friend of theirs skipped the Northern Shiverpeaks, and went straight into Maguuma, while they got a run down to Drok, and already beat the game. But under a dynamic system, if they wanted to group, they'd be shit out of luck.

What kind of message would you be sending there? "Oh well, too bad. You should have thought about that before. If you want to play together, you both have to play the game exactly the same way with brand-new characters."

Freedom? No. It's not freedom.

P.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok

That was exactly my point in a previous post about increasing the AI to make it more dynamic and human like. With a better AI to compete against, it would make getting through most areas in PvE more interesting and challenging, and would even encourage revisiting areas for other than farming because the battles would rarely play out the same way as they do now.

Yeah, I think the A.I. still needs to get beefed up a lot. That's why I'm saying that it doesn't take very much brainpower now to steamroll through PvE in its current state. And people are getting offended by me saying that, but it's the God-honest truth. lol. PvE, in its current form, requires very little actual skill. I'm not saying that from lack of experience, either, you know? I've been through the thing on half a dozen characters, and beaten every mission at least once. I've gone through Thunderhead Keep more than once, because it's so unbelievably easy with a half-competent PUG.

But I don't think shoving in the dynamic plot system you're suggesting will help that, if that's what you're getting at.

Pharalon · Mar 22, 2006, 10:12 PM // 22:12

I'm not really sure I understand the logic behind saying that as soon as any competition becomes involved in a PvE map, it becomes PvP. Is Elona Reach not a PvE map? There are exterior constraints on that map (a timer set by the developers), which turns it into a time based competition set by the developers. Challenge maps sound the same except the "timer" (high score, whatever the mechanic will be) is set by other players, not the developers. In fact, they sound even less "competitive" than Elona Reach, in that you don't fail the mission if you don't beat that benchmark score. You just get a lower score. Even if you're totally uninterested in the score you'll get, I don't see why you can't just run the mission as a standard PvE map, and enjoy it without worrying about anyone else. If you really believe that PvE maps where you compete against other PvEers are PvP maps, I don't think this discussion is going to get very far at all.

Quote:

Uhh, right. What I said was, Factions is PvP based. There's new PvE content sprinkled on top to maintain sales, obviously.

I think if you believe that, you'll be missing out. I haven't seen any indications that there will be less pure PvE content in Factions than there was in Prophecies. I certainly wouldn't refer to it as "sprinkled on top".

Sam Stormwind · Mar 22, 2006, 10:19 PM // 22:19

I really dont like the idea of top guilds controlling stuff. Im not in a top ranked guild so i will never have this option available to me. I would like all of the games content to be openly available to everyone. Hmmm just thinkin bout 12v12 and how many minions could be raised that would be absolutely mental.

mqstout · Mar 22, 2006, 10:38 PM // 22:38

No, Elona Reach is not PvP. There is one team -- MY team. Success or failure is determined strictly by our tactics and how we do. There is absolutely no competition with another team of human players involved in whether we succeed or not.

It is bad other people not playing with me/on my team are affecting my gameplay. That's one of the reasons I chose Guild Wars -- that it was 100% instanced; that PvP was entirely separated from the game content; that I could play the game without dealing with people who devote too much to it/are obnoxious/grief-causing.

Zehnchu · Mar 22, 2006, 10:41 PM // 22:41

I play more PvE then I do PvP, so I’m looking forward to Factions and the way the game mechanics are set up. It will be interesting seeing how everything will work and work together. Since this is a beta event there’s still room for improvement till the game is released.

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 22, 2006, 10:43 PM // 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Is it really that difficult to see patterns, or at least trends?

And plus, this is irrelevant to Factions anyway, like I've been saying all along, because there are only going to be two "regions" in Factions, so the "party lines," as it were, aren't going to be so unpredictable. It's not going to be A, B, C, D, and E going at it. It'll only be A and B going at it.

Well, being able to see trends and being able to use those trends are different things. In reality, my "bulk" times to play are Tuesdays, Wed nights, and every other weekend. Now if the trend is that America usually has favor on Mondays, Wed. mornings, and every other weekedn opposite mine, that doesn't do me a whole lot of good if I can't be in game long enough during those times. That is my worry with the Factions system. Certainly it looks like it should be better than favor, but until the rubber meets the road, we don't really know if it will truly end up that way or not. I just don't want to reach the point in the game where I want to do the elite stuff only to have my Faction not have the favor when I have the hours to spend going through those missions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Then what's the point of playing online? If there's going to be a chance (a damn good chance, I think) that guildies won't be able to group with each other due to some inane and absurd dynamic adventure system...why should they even bother playing in the first place? You want this system to enable freedom for the players, correct? Play the story how they want to, and not get penalized for it.

But what you're not realizing, I think, is that you're not enabling player freedom at all. If anything, you're restricting their freedoms. A friend of theirs skipped the Northern Shiverpeaks, and went straight into Maguuma, while they got a run down to Drok, and already beat the game. But under a dynamic system, if they wanted to group, they'd be shit out of luck.

What kind of message would you be sending there? "Oh well, too bad. You should have thought about that before. If you want to play together, you both have to play the game exactly the same way with brand-new characters."

Freedom? No. It's not freedom.

Again, missing my point slightly. It's not that the FG mission is the sole determiner of the new districts, but any point beyond that area in the storyline. Even with your friend skipping over the N Shiv area, the fact that he went to areas that fall into place in the point of the story following Rurik's death would trigger the new code. It doesn't matter that he did not do the FG mission, it matters that he reached a point in the storyline where Rurik was killed - he just didn't see it happen. In this way, someone could run through the storyline chronologically, doing every possible mission and quest, complete the end game, and return to the "second" Ascalon. Now, his friend fresh out of Pre-Sear gets a run to Droks and completes the end game - he does nothing in between - and by doing so he will still end up in the same "second" Ascalon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Yeah, I think the A.I. still needs to get beefed up a lot. That's why I'm saying that it doesn't take very much brainpower now to steamroll through PvE in its current state. And people are getting offended by me saying that, but it's the God-honest truth. lol. PvE, in its current form, requires very little actual skill. I'm not saying that from lack of experience, either, you know? I've been through the thing on half a dozen characters, and beaten every mission at least once. I've gone through Thunderhead Keep more than once, because it's so unbelievably easy with a half-competent PUG.

But I don't think shoving in the dynamic plot system you're suggesting will help that, if that's what you're getting at.

I don't get that either. Even Thom said (and many others as well) that the storyline ain't the greatest. The AI barely qualifies as such, and the static nature of the game world make rerunning the early missions and areas quite the bore. Any PvEer should be able to see that. This is the reason more dynamic games like Oblivion and Gothic 3 are hottly anticipated - I just hope that kind of dynamic (yet slightly structered) environment makes its way into the free fantasy MMO scene. Certainly I haven't done the best job of describing how it would work - it was just something I threw out there as an example, but I am sure that with enough time and the proper knowledge, the system can be made to work in some reasonable fashion

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

Siren · Mar 22, 2006, 10:45 PM // 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

No, Elona Reach is not PvP. There is one team -- MY team. Success or failure is determined strictly by our tactics and how we do. There is absolutely no competition with another team of human players involved in whether we succeed or not.

Do you really believe the other players are going to have such a direct impact on your success? You're nuking the computer, for crying out loud. For such an experienced PvE player, you should have no problem with that, regardless of who may or may not be doing the same thing you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

Well, being able to see trends and being able to use those trends are different things. In reality, my "bulk" times to play are Tuesdays, Wed nights, and every other weekend. Now if the trend is that America usually has favor on Mondays, Wed. mornings, and every other weekedn opposite mine, that doesn't do me a whole lot of good if I can't be in game long enough during those times. That is my worry with the Factions system. Certainly it looks like it should be better than favor, but until the rubber meets the road, we don't really know if it will truly end up that way or not. I just don't want to reach the point in the game where I want to do the elite stuff only to have my Faction not have the favor when I have the hours to spend going through those missions.

With only two sides going at it in Factions, with multiple teams fighting for one of two sides, don't you agree that it's silly as hell to base the anti-Factions argument on the problems with the multiple-side Favor system of Prophecies?

Quote:

Again, missing my point slightly. It's not that the FG mission is the sole determiner of the new districts, but any point beyond that area in the storyline. Even with your friend skipping over the N Shiv area, the fact that he went to areas that fall into place in the point of the story following Rurik's death would trigger the new code. It doesn't matter that he did not do the FG mission, it matters that he reached a point in the storyline where Rurik was killed - he just didn't see it happen. In this way, someone could run through the storyline chronologically, doing every possible mission and quest, complete the end game, and return to the "second" Ascalon. Now, his friend fresh out of Pre-Sear gets a run to Droks and completes the end game - he does nothing in between - and by doing so he will still end up in the same "second" Ascalon.

I know that the FG mission wouldn't be the sole determiner of the new districts. That's why I brought up D'Alessio Seaboard. That's why Sanctum Cay would be preposterous. There's dynamic stuff going on right now. A player who got a run to Southern Shiverpeaks, for example, can fight Titans if a fully played character has Defend Droknar's Forge, but that's more a glitch with the quest system than anything else, and a glitch that should be corrected eventually. Perhaps if it's something as simple as those Titans don't spawn when everyone in the party doesn't have the quest.

Quote:

That I don't understand. Even Thom said (and many others as well) that the storyline ain't the greatest. The AI barely qualifies as such, and the static nature of the game world make rerunning the early missions and areas quite the bore. Any PvEer should be able to see that. This is the reason more dynamic games like Oblivion and Gothic 3 are hottly anticipated - I just hope that kind of dynamic (yet slightly structered) environment makes its way into the free fantasy MMO scene.

Exactly why I don't understand why PvErs get upset with me when I describe PvE's current state.

Also, the trick to improving PvE is not to introduce dynamic environments in the sense that you're suggesting. The trick to improving PvE is to make it challenging, or give players options for mission difficulties. Like level 24 Charr in the Fort Ranik mission. Stuff like that. Basically an arcade mode, rather than "new plotline!!" mode.

mqstout · Mar 22, 2006, 10:48 PM // 22:48

"Do you really believe the other players are going to have such a direct impact on your success? You're nuking the computer, for crying out loud. For such an experienced PvE player, you should have no problem with that, regardless of who may or may not be doing the same thing you are."

But never possibly nearly as well as the other teams who are just doing the mission over and over again to affect borders/control and have time to practice every day doing so and continually refer to strategy guides and whatnot rather than just experiencing the game and going at it whenever you have a few horus.

Siren · Mar 22, 2006, 10:58 PM // 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

"Do you really believe the other players are going to have such a direct impact on your success? You're nuking the computer, for crying out loud. For such an experienced PvE player, you should have no problem with that, regardless of who may or may not be doing the same thing you are."

But never possibly nearly as well as the other teams who are just doing the mission over and over again to affect borders/control and have time to practice every day doing so and continually refer to strategy guides and whatnot rather than just experiencing the game and going at it whenever you have a few horus.

But that's not something from the PvP/PvE dichotomy. Dedication to playtime and practice, etc, is not something exclusive to one side or the other. There are casual PvPers, who play PvP for fun, instead of winning. And there are disturbingly dedicated PvErs, who play more to "pwn" others...that "HAH I have better stuff than you" or "My build for THK is better than yours" or "I can do X amount of things solo...can you?" mentality.

mqstout · Mar 22, 2006, 11:01 PM // 23:01

Sure, there may be casual PvP players and dedicated PvE players... But when PvE becomes PvP because it's competitive, you have to be a dedicated player in order to be able to play the game, and that's just not right, or what the game set out to do.

Pharalon · Mar 22, 2006, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Quote:

No, Elona Reach is not PvP. There is one team -- MY team. Success or failure is determined strictly by our tactics and how we do. There is absolutely no competition with another team of human players involved in whether we succeed or not.

Which is exactly the same as challenge missions. Except you get given a score at the end, which has absolutely no effect on your gameplay whatsoever, unless you and the people you play with actually care about that score.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

But never possibly nearly as well as the other teams who are just doing the mission over and over again to affect borders/control and have time to practice every day doing so and continually refer to strategy guides and whatnot rather than just experiencing the game and going at it whenever you have a few horus.

Does it matter that you're not doing it as well as others? Aren't you just doing that mission to "experience the game". If that's truely the case, shouldn't you be able to do a challenge mission when you want and not worry about your score, or a competition mission and not worry about beating the other team and just nuke the hell out of the NPCs?