Curse

Thom · Mar 21, 2006, 04:24 AM // 04:24

Numbers don't add up. 20,000 players max with access everyday is a bit silly. If non-alliance members could group with alliance members, this would help things a bit. With GvG half party limits, this would leave room for puggers or even half teams. The whole thing could be solved by having a one-two member requirement. Anyone can come to a town, find a lonely alliance member and Pug the Elite mission. If that were the case, people would be standing around forming parties much like in ToA without issue.

Other options: Have a fee for elite missions paid to (and perhaps set by) the controlling alliance. If a alliance had the option of charging 0-8k for entry, top locations would make millions for the alliance. Even if Anet took a cut and the rest wast evenly divided between guilds (or guild members), guilds would have a beautiful pay day for winning. (I'm just throwing out ideas here.)

Ninetail Trickster · Mar 21, 2006, 05:01 AM // 05:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the Nazgul

Anyways, I'm sure that A.Net has everything under control, and that everyone will have pretty much 50/50 access to all the missions, depending on how much faction your Faction can muster.

ANet people aren't stupid. Lord here gets it. Thank you.

50/50 sounds a heck of a lot better than the favor system... now you'll only have to wait a day for your faction to gain control, as opposed to now, where you have to wait threeish days to time it right for Korea to defeat Europe to defeat America to defeat Korea to defeat Europe to defeat Korea to defeat America to defeat Europe to defeat America....

Even if the factions system doesn't turn out, Cantha doesn't have devourers.
Good e-freaking-nough.

dreamhunk · Mar 21, 2006, 06:15 AM // 06:15

I think this could work, all there really needs be is a little more lore and a little rpg story. Anet already said they will add more content for rpg.

But i would still have to play the game where anet can improve I think this is a new style. Because eveything is new and ground breaking. people will not under stand it. I think a wait and see is the way to go. After hearing the interview I have hopes for fractions.

On the bad part there will be a lack of land to explore. I am alos hopeing for the ship ride. you get drive the ship or have some sort of quest on the high seas.

I like the fact there will be alot of quest in this game, and mossions. I hope the rpg is more solid, I am keep my figures cross. Just want to have good old rpg fun.

WasAGuest · Mar 21, 2006, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

I'm with Hanok Odbrook here. My friends and I (we basically only ever play with each other a rare couple hours a week) regularly get screwed on favor. We've had a huge percentage of the time we had set aside to play entirely evaporate because America didn't have favor, so, we simply couldn't do anything...

Some of them went back to WoW for the evening, while I loaded up Civ4 instead, since GW was out of the question.

No, taking up PvP play is not an option.

This is exactly what my guild has done on so many occasions already. Plan on Wednesday to go to FoW on Friday evening. Log in, no favor, we log off. We know it's just a maybe thing, but it's still irritating. When you have something in mind to do, and it gets shot down because of a play style your not into, it just really kills the fun of the game. The way we worked it out, we don't bother with FoW or UW. In our opinion, it's "broken" content, much in the way some of the quest laying about the land are... un-doable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom

Numbers don't add up. 20,000 players max with access everyday is a bit silly. If non-alliance members could group with alliance members, this would help things a bit. With GvG half party limits, this would leave room for puggers or even half teams. The whole thing could be solved by having a one-two member requirement. Anyone can come to a town, find a lonely alliance member and Pug the Elite mission. If that were the case, people would be standing around forming parties much like in ToA without issue.

This completely destroys guild grouping. So, this is not a good thing. I'll wait till my whole guild can go so we can enjoy the content as friends and have more fun doing it then with the PuGs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom

Other options: Have a fee for elite missions paid to (and perhaps set by) the controlling alliance. If a alliance had the option of charging 0-8k for entry, top locations would make millions for the alliance. Even if Anet took a cut and the rest wast evenly divided between guilds (or guild members), guilds would have a beautiful pay day for winning. (I'm just throwing out ideas here.)

The winners already have won and have gotten the rewards for doing so. Giving them monetary rewards would further destroy the economy as the more powerful guilds would have more a reason to join together leaving smaller guilds out. Look at the biggest companies today, they merge constantly to hold ground thus soaking up more and more money. Smaller companies are destroyed and bankrupt... they fade away. Monetary payments to the winners is a huge "No No" IMO. Seems we already have to farm faction points (play PvP to get them) to pay to get into the Elite missions pending our faction (not alliance) controls the city.

WasAGuest · Mar 21, 2006, 04:43 PM // 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

I heared the land mass of Factions is about 2/3 the size of the total landmass in Guild Wars.

quests will actually be more dense together that means no exploring

this from a rideo for games
http://www.gamingsteve.com/podcasts/...2006-03-20.mp3

It goes to explain the rpg in the game and how it works.

I think it might work I am really not sure, I guess there will be rpg after all.

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed hearing it. I laughed a few times (seriously laughed) at hearing the spin on it. My favorite was hearing "players will compete over resources and skirmishes might pop up once in awhile, but it's not direct PvP..." How can players competing against players in any way shape or form not be PvP? It may not be PK (player kililng) but it is players vs players (PvP).
The amount of pre-ascension content is also of note, since he says 80% of the content is based on territory control and takes place after "ascending"; that leaves 20% of the game to be actual PvE based.
I still think it's funny - RTS play style vs other players is not PvP... Pitting your score on a ladder to compete vs other players is not PvP... I also thought it interesting he puts GW into the E-sports type game style. I mentioned the PvP mini games with points being like a sports game previously before even hearing the interview.
This interview does indeed confirm that Factions has little to offer PvE players. Maybe within a month or so of release, Anet will fix that blunder. Untill they do though, I'll not be buying Factions and I'll wait untill Chapter 3 comes out - which according to the interview is scheduled for November. Good stuff there and Oblivion should keep me busy till at least then.

Thanks again for the link, take care all. See you in GWP and chapter 3 (maybe) if you are still hanging around in there from time to time.

Edit: Before some wise guy assumes I'm quiting, I'm not. I'm just not purchasing Factions till Anet learns (figures out) what makes PvEers enjoy the game. I'm in hopes they figure it out with Chapter 3, cause after hearing that interview, they are so far off target with Factions it literally made me laugh. Playing PvP mini games, ladders, points, score boards, RTS based play, skirmishes... all these things are not what PvEers are looking to play and not what I (and others) consider playble or fun content. I see this as wasted time and effort on Anet's side when there could have been major AI updates, more armor, weapons, henchman and pet commands, new "flashy" spell effects, new animations for core classes and their attack skills. All that time and effort thrown away cause they are so far off what makes PvEers fun.
Even in the interview, Jeff Strain mentioned he used to enjoy "griefing" fellow players in Diablo.

-- still laughing at that as well -- /shakes head

Inde · Mar 21, 2006, 07:34 PM // 19:34

I've gone through and cleaned up this thread. That includes flaming, country bashing, personal insults, etc. And all posts referencing the deleted posts have been removed as well. Please try to keep this civil, there's some really good discussion here and I'd like to see it continue, minus the flaming.

Mordakai · Mar 21, 2006, 07:41 PM // 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasAGuest

My favorite was hearing "players will compete over resources and skirmishes might pop up once in awhile, but it's not direct PvP..." How can players competing against players in any way shape or form not be PvP? It may not be PK (player kililng) but it is players vs players (PvP).

He might not consider it direct PvP, because the main conflict could still be PvE with PvP "skirmishes."

But all this is just conjecture, anyway, who knows what the actual missions will be like?

mqstout · Mar 21, 2006, 07:46 PM // 19:46

Quote:

And as I've come to understand it, having read even just the basic FAQ on the Guild Wars official website, the story missions themselves will be accessible all the time. It's the "elite" missions and high-end game content that will be subject to the favor system. See below.

Yes, and since we're already being extra limited in character slots [see other threads], what are we to do? We can't create new characters to enjoy the PvE game... and at least 50% of the time we won't be able to play any of the high-level content. So what exactly -DO- PvE players have to look forward to in Factions?

Quote:

And think about what you're saying here. You're pissed because you expect PvE to play some important part in zone control?

Actually, we're pissed because, again, and even more, we're forced to rely-interact with PvP playstyle. We don't want PvE to be important. We want it to be completely unaffected by PvP.

Quote:

When your expectations are so absurd that you expect to be able to kill Bambi and gain control of a city

No. We want to be able to get to the content (we paid for being able to play) and play it. We don't want to be told "no, you can't go there and play this mission".

Cooperative mission - PvE content.
Elite Missions - PvP-dependent content.
Competitive Missions - PvP content.
Alliance Battles - PvP content.

Alliances: Require interacting with everyone. Bad for those of us who just play amongst ourselves with our small guild of friends.

Mordakai · Mar 21, 2006, 07:49 PM // 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

Cooperative mission - PvE content.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

Elite Missions - PvP-dependent content.

Assumed - I thought that PvE guilds could also access Elite missions. Could be wrong, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

Competitive Missions - PvP content.
Alliance Battles - PvP content.

Sounds right...

If PvE players can access Elite missions, I assume everyone will be happy?

mqstout · Mar 21, 2006, 07:54 PM // 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Assumed - I thought that PvE guilds could also access Elite missions. Could be wrong, though.

If PvE players can access Elite missions, I assume everyone will be happy?

If we can stay completely out of this "factions" warring, yeah. The way everything seems is we can theoretically access them -- if (a) we're part of an alliance (which is very contrarian to PvE style) (b) our alliance is part of the faction that controls the city when we happen to have time to log on to play.

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 21, 2006, 08:13 PM // 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

I've gone through and cleaned up this thread. That includes flaming, country bashing, personal insults, etc. And all posts referencing the deleted posts have been removed as well. Please try to keep this civil, there's some really good discussion here and I'd like to see it continue, minus the flaming.

Thank you. I had to control myself to stop from degenerating to more of the mocking and playstyle bashing introduced here which has no bearing on this situation. We all have a right to play the game that begats the most enjoyment for each of us. If we were all to have the same playstyle, that would make for some very boring gaming indeed.

To get back to the topic at hand. My biggest beef comes from the fact that Anet's fuzzy math equation we should all be familiar with. However, we know because of slot limitations, and the fact that Factions is 20/80 low/high level content that as of this point we cannot in fact play 100% of the content we paid for, whether we merge accounts or keep them separate. Furthermore, by having a lot of the content locked at any one time, that further limits our ability to play the game during the time we have to play it.

Whether it takes 10 months to reach that content or only 10 days is irrelavant. The fact remains, when it comes time for me to reach those areas, I would like to be able to play that content as befits my style. As I have said in other threads, I enjoy some PvP, but I am primarily a PvEer, so to be forced to compete in some form of PvP to access content is a little PIA to me, but I know others who detest it. They are the one's I am speaking up for here.

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

PS:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

He might not consider it direct PvP, because the main conflict could still be PvE with PvP "skirmishes."

But all this is just conjecture, anyway, who knows what the actual missions will be like?

And that is what's so aggravating about the lack and any true details on exactly how Factions will play out. 90% of the debates posted in the Factions area here could be a moot point once we get to see how things will play out. But the fact that the game is just over a month away with no real substantial into on it is the real backbreaker. I was at least able to make an informed decision on purchasing GW long in advance, but I still can't tell whether the $20 I plopped down for two pre-oders (my main account and my sister's account) will actually be a waste of money or not. And in reality, with a whole new dynamic being introduced that will affect the long term play of Factions, how are we really going to get a good basis on the game play with only three days to get through the allowable areas of the world?

mqstout · Mar 21, 2006, 08:17 PM // 20:17

And has noone seen the potential opening up of griefing in this game with "competitive missions"? Groups of people who just perfect playing that mission and doing it over and over, preventing anyone else from being able to complete it succcessfully? Sigh. So much for a nearly grief-free game.

WasAGuest · Mar 21, 2006, 08:23 PM // 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Assumed - I thought that PvE guilds could also access Elite missions. Could be wrong, though.

Actually, confirmed as follows: If you belong to a faction that controls a city, but not your alliance, you can purchase access to the Elite Missions by spending Faction points. These Faction points are earned through the competitive missions (or PvP mini games). If your alliance has control of the city as well, then you are granted the ability to throw parades and other such eye candy.
The faction point system seems in place to stop "faction zerging" or fast faction switching so players can't gain access to the missions without first playing some part in the PvP battles.
The system works for what it was designed to do - gives players faction choices a deeper meaning and makes you care whether your faction wins or not. It also makes the players wishing to gain access to the elite missions partake in PvP battles... thusly, in Anet's words "bring them closer".
However, as these boards will show, it's creating a greater rift amoung the two, not bringing them closer at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

If PvE players can access Elite missions, I assume everyone will be happy?

Actually yes, but I would like to see it be taken a step further. I would like to see less silliness like scoring and points be added to PvE. In PvE, this "stuff" is absolutely useless and gives us nothing at all to show for the time and effort of play.
I mean really, a ladder for score in PvE?

I've stepped in things more useful than that.

All the effort put forth into making these PvP mini games could have gone to much better updates to the game.
PvE needs better AI, better Henchman and Pet control, better chat channels, more dungeons and places to adventure, more of a lot of things. But we get a score ladder?

Coop missions and the amount of times they are completed each day could have been counted towards moving the borders. Instead we get to PvP for points rather than kills.
The whole system is borked beyond anything most of us could have imagined... but, it's just as Anet wanted it. So it's nearly perfect in all it's errors.
Like I said earlier, I (since I don't like PvP) am not buying it. There's little or no content in it for me. Chapter 3 (listen to the interview) is on schedule for November and I'll keep up on that one and see if it's better for my play style... not quiting, just not buying Chapter 2.

gamingsteve.com has the interview for those not knowing.

Edit: Didn't want to double post -

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

And has noone seen the potential opening up of griefing in this game with "competitive missions"? Groups of people who just perfect playing that mission and doing it over and over, preventing anyone else from being able to complete it succcessfully? Sigh. So much for a nearly grief-free game.

Can you also see the future of PuGs in those "missions"? PuG leaders looking for "ladder rank X and above only!" So much for the guildless and casual players...
After saying that, I can see even more how Anet literally "throws" all players together. Your either in an alliance or your on the side lines looking in. I really hope Chapter 3 goes the opposite direction that Factions has gone.

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 21, 2006, 08:38 PM // 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasAGuest

Like I said earlier, I (since I don't like PvP) am not buying it. There's little or no content in it for me. Chapter 3 (listen to the interview) is on schedule for November and I'll keep up on that one and see if it's better for my play style... not quiting, just not buying Chapter 2.

gamingsteve.com has the interview for those not knowing.

Edit: Didn't want to double post -

Can you also see the future of PuGs in those "missions"? PuG leaders looking for "ladder rank X and above only!" So much for the guildless and casual players...
After saying that, I can see even more how Anet literally "throws" all players together. Your either in an alliance or your on the side lines looking in. I really hope Chapter 3 goes the opposite direction that Factions has gone.

Well, we'll miss you Was - you have posted many good points along these threads, so it would have been nice to have more players like you in C2. But that's one of the points I don't get here. I certainly don't begrudge the PvPers their moment to shine in the sun. The new system is a great boon for those players, but since Anet's income is dependent on selling chapters, why would the limit the potential customer base like it seems they are doing with Factions. You are willing to wait to purchase chapter 3, but how many of us will purchase chapter 2, not like it, have loose interest in any future chapters?

I agree with you that Anet should have put in a lot more effort on the strictly PvE side of Factions as they have with the PvP side of Factions, other than offering a larger world to explore. As I have said before, a dynamic world would be worth the time to replay over and over again, but since GW is a very structured and static game, it doesn't matter how big of an explorable area they make it if there's no depth to that area.

I think GW is in the unique position to be a game that successfully merges a structured storyline (Chapter 1) with an openended explorable world (such as Eve Online). Right now, they look to take GW much closer to the Linage II model, which NCSoft themselves acknowledges is a hard core player game, as the PvP type of play style is. GW's success thus far has been with the casual gamer, which has always leaned towards being more PvE oriented. Alienating them just doesn't make sense.

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

WasAGuest · Mar 21, 2006, 09:22 PM // 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

Well, we'll miss you Was - you have posted many good points along these threads, so it would have been nice to have more players like you in C2. But that's one of the points I don't get here. I certainly don't begrudge the PvPers their moment to shine in the sun. The new system is a great boon for those players, but since Anet's income is dependent on selling chapters, why would the limit the potential customer base like it seems they are doing with Factions. You are willing to wait to purchase chapter 3, but how many of us will purchase chapter 2, not like it, have loose interest in any future chapters?

Thanks, I'll still be playing in Chapter one now and then, whenever guildies need me. Though, after sharing what I have, there are several other guildies who are now passing on Factions as well. They are rl friends, so I know it's not nonsence to support my way of thinking. They really are not buying Factions. So, I'll be grouping up with them now and then.
Thanks to Oblivion, I'll be playing something else as well till Chapter 3 comes around and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

I agree with you that Anet should have put in a lot more effort on the strictly PvE side of Factions as they have with the PvP side of Factions, other than offering a larger world to explore. As I have said before, a dynamic world would be worth the time to replay over and over again, but since GW is a very structured and static game, it doesn't matter how big of an explorable area they make it if there's no depth to that area.

this brings me to this. Anyone following my posts knows that I was anticipating Factions with high hopes for more content and awesome game play. With the initial release of info from Gamespot and Gamespy I really started digging to prove those articles wrong. What I found in fact, and as we now know, Factions is PvP based no matter the marketing spin in place by the publisher. - Sorry, but PvP isn't just killing other players, it's players vs players in any manner of situations.
What I also found, and the reason I am willing to wait till Chapter 3 is simply the absolute genious behind the Factions system. All angles have been covered and it does exactly what Anet wanted... for those that enjoy both aspects of the game, it brings them closer.
If that same genious is put forth towards PvE in Chapter 3, I'm sure we will be in for a treat. If Chapter 3 is more PvP based "silliness" (ladders?!?! - lol) in place of PvE content, then by that time, I'm sure other options will be on the horizon.
You're right though, I may be the minority of people willing to wait and see on Chapter 3. If PvEers get hosed in the Factions, I feel most will leave for good. PvEers (myself included) are a fickle bunch and our patience is limited - probably why most of us don't enjoy PvP. A loss would feel like a wasted evening and a win for "points" means as much as a pig fart. Can't see it, but it sure does smell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

I think GW is in the unique position to be a game that successfully merges a structured storyline (Chapter 1) with an openended explorable world (such as Eve Online). Right now, they look to take GW much closer to the Linage II model, which NCSoft themselves acknowledges is a hard core player game, as the PvP type of play style is. GW's success thus far has been with the casual gamer, which has always leaned towards being more PvE oriented. Alienating them just doesn't make sense.

Makes no sence at all to me either. PvEers will be the long term players. PvPers generally move on to the next "pretty engine" as soon as it's released. I know, I used to do that - another reason I don't PvP... major burn out. So without PvE content (ladders excluded - still makes me laugh) to hold players in place, they may leave. - /silliness "I'm wielding a uber ladder rank 8 sword of warding" /silliness off
Anet has empressed me with their "genious" so I'm sure they are aware of this, so we'll see where it takes them.

Also, everyone that hasn't heard the interview really ought too. It does explain how the system works. Becareful though, I feel it's full of marketing spin and Jeff S even claims players vs players in resource grabbing skirmishes isn't direct PvP. If players fighting for resources against each other isn't players vs players (PvP) I apparently don't know what is. So, listen carefully and you'll get the idea of how the system works. It's good stuff, and Factions will rock for those who enjoy PvP. There's no doubting that, for the rest of us though... meh

-- ladders in PvE? just kills me LMAO -- sorry, I know, I have a dry sence of humor.

Edit: spelling and other fun stuff...

Mordakai · Mar 21, 2006, 09:31 PM // 21:31

It's a real shame that Anet seems to be driving away players it meant to bring deeper into the game.

But for those who are totally turned off by all this PvP talk, is there any way you can imagine a PvP scenario you would actually enjoy playing?

or is the thought of playing against other humans that repulsive?

mqstout · Mar 21, 2006, 09:33 PM // 21:33

The thought of playing against other humans is repulsive. I rarely even play with pugs... Just PvE with my guildies (who are all friends I know around town). I'm not competitive. I'm an explorer/tinkerer. I like to try out builds and skills, and wander around the maps looking at the little pretties the devs put in that surely most people haven't bothered to look at.

Siren · Mar 21, 2006, 09:52 PM // 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by mqstout

Yes, and since we're already being extra limited in character slots [see other threads], what are we to do? We can't create new characters to enjoy the PvE game... and at least 50% of the time we won't be able to play any of the high-level content. So what exactly -DO- PvE players have to look forward to in Factions?

I'm sorry, character slot limitation how? You have two new slots if you decide to merge, correct? If you play PvE exclusively, what's the problem? 1 per new profession, if you decide to play both.

I know I'm going to use this weekend to figure out which one I'm going to prefer to play, because I sure as hell haven't been playing all the professions in Chapter 1. I find Elementalist and Monk to be particularly drab in PvE. And look at that. Four slots, four other professions. The slots we have are plenty for anything you want to do.

I've got three well-tuned PvE characters, professions I enjoy playing (Warrior, Ranger, Necro), and those three characters are versatile enough to fill virtually any role required in either PvP or PvE.

That fourth empty slot is my PvP slot, which I usually use to goof off with random Warrior, Ranger, or Necro PvP builds, or utilize my Mesmer where Mesmers truly shine: in PvP. That's not to say they're useless in PvE, far from it. But they truly shine in a PvP environment. Their lockdown potential is really obvious there, because humans can decide not to cast. The A.I. can't.

Because I construct my characters strategically, I have never had a problem with using four slots, and I sure as hell won't have a problem with six. If I were so inclined, I could even play both new professions. But I probably won't be, considering I haven't been feeling Ritualist, just like I never really dug Elementalists or Monks.

Moral of this story is "Play smarter, not harder."

Quote:

Actually, we're pissed because, again, and even more, we're forced to rely-interact with PvP playstyle. We don't want PvE to be important. We want it to be completely unaffected by PvP.

Remember what Hanok's comment was (pity it was deleted). He didn't like PvE getting the shaft when it comes to region control. But PvE (and certainly, any Player vs AI) rarely has ever decided favor, especially in online games, so why expect it now? Wiping out the computer decides which Faction is in control? It's asinine. I enjoy thumping on the A.I. just as much as the next PvEr, but I'm not about to pretend me thumping on the A.I. should affect the game when it comes to region control.

And as it stands now, I don't see this whole "OMG exclusive content! I want it now!!" temper tantrum as being all that realistic. And frankly, if people are offended by me calling it a temper tantrum, that's their problem. I'd love to see lots more content accessible to people. I think the current favor system sucks for the following reasons:

1) Too many regions fighting for control.

2) Not enough content zones.

3) The content zones we do have are based on one requirement.

Now look at what we're seeing for Factions:

1) Two regions fighting for control.

2) An undisclosed number of content zones, but we can reasonably assume there will be plenty.

3) Content zones based on a variety of different requirements.

Based on that...I just don't see accessibility being an issue, unless all of the top guilds in all of the current regions ally together in one Faction. Likelihood of that happening? Slim to none, I think, because the top guilds thrive on competition, like I've said previously.

Quote:

No. We want to be able to get to the content (we paid for being able to play) and play it. We don't want to be told "no, you can't go there and play this mission".

One, I think the "pure PvErs" are making a much bigger deal out of this than is really necessary, and two, it's unfortunate that the previous posts were deleted, because the "I want to kill Bambi and control favor" was exactly the idea behind the previous posts. "PvErs don't have control. PvErs want control." You may not agree with those sentiments, but others here have certainly expressed those sentiments...sentiments brought on by a lack of rational thought.

Previous posts deleted or not, I stand by my points. Those who have problems with people fighting each other to gain control of regions, to "liberate" cities, need to realize that killing the A.I. (as in, killing Bambi) is inconsequential when at war. People need to realize that humans vs humans (PvP) is what decides who controls what in war.

Factions is two nations at war. That's the bottom line.

Some reply with "But we don't want to be limited" and then they're missing the point, yet again, because they're seemingly ignoring the fact that the Factions favor system is incredibly streamlined compared to what we're running now. See above.

I sound rude and all here, but people aren't thinking things through. I don't know which is more tragic: PvP region control or seemingly non-existent cognitive abilities.

WasAGuest · Mar 21, 2006, 10:09 PM // 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

It's a real shame that Anet seems to be driving away players it meant to bring deeper into the game.

But for those who are totally turned off by all this PvP talk, is there any way you can imagine a PvP scenario you would actually enjoy playing?

or is the thought of playing against other humans that repulsive?

Playing against others is to much of a "rushed" feel to it for me these days. Yea, I'm old, cranky and my bones pop when I move... jk, but seriously, there were other ways to bring the two closer and this wasn't it.

To bring them closer Anet should have kept them apart but with similar goals. How would this work?
An Alliance is made up of PvE and PvP players, good ones anyway (according to Anet). Playing a PvE mission with several teams say, 2 groups of 6 maybe, could take on a mission with various points of interest. For example, attacking a city gate vs AI human enemies. One team could unlock the gate(s) via one path and the other team could complete a second part.
During this, or after (could defer depending on the situation) the PvP team(s) could be attacking or defending the same city against actual players.
Neither side would be reliant on each other during this but the end results could easily be tallied every hour or so for victory or loss conditions.
In this, the goals are the same and in a way they are working together, yet they are still playing their prefered game types.
PvP would never have to wait to play in that city as PvEers are constantly going through missions - almost non-stop. PvEers would not be worried about waiting on PvPers or locked missions as they could actually do a PvE mission (not these silly PvP mini games for score) to make a difference.
I'm sure there are other ways as well, but pushing a play type on a very fickle crowd (PvE'ers like me) was a goof beyond the Titanic.

mqstout · Mar 21, 2006, 10:15 PM // 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

I enjoy thumping on the A.I. just as much as the next PvEr, but I'm not about to pretend me thumping on the A.I. should affect the game when it comes to region control.

Neither am I. I don't want PvE to have any bearing on it. I also don't want PvE to be affected by it. Pure neutrality in terms of that lame war I want no part of. As it is set to be, where I can play will be dependant on PvPers. Even WORSE than the current favor system.

Quote:

I think the current favor system sucks for the following reasons:

It does suck.

Quote:

1) Too many regions fighting for control.
2) Not enough content zones.
3) The content zones we do have are based on one requirement.

Not enough? There are too many. ANY are too many. Plus, it's more than just FOW/UW -- quests affected by it happen as early as the Sanitarium in Ascalon.

Quote:

"PvErs don't have control. PvErs want control."

PvEers don't want to BE controlled by PvPers. We care not to excert any control.

Quote:

Factions favor system is incredibly streamlined compared to what we're running now. See above.

Streamlined, perhaps. But it still depends on PvP play! I don't care to have to sit around in those "pvp training" missions on the islands or whatever just to be able to play missions, or have to wait until side XYZ controls a city so I can play there. It's rare enough that have time to log in to play, let alone have to worry whether or not I'll be able to play that night.