Curse

UltimaXtreme · Feb 24, 2006, 11:00 PM // 23:00

pve is training grounds for pvp.

twicky_kid · Feb 24, 2006, 11:04 PM // 23:04

The intent of this game is to bring a balance competative game play on a massive scale. There is no competition in pve.

The game is not entirely pvp that is true but, it is its main focus for chapter 1. Chapter 2 on the other hand you are going to see more of a hybrid of chapter 1.

With seiges on towns and alliances that is bringing the pvp aspect to pve. Since they are going on mtg model you are going to see the mechanics of each chapter change. While the focus on chapter 1 was GvG and tombs the focus of chapter 2 will most likely be pve.

Counting the dist is not a valid way to go. The population of GW is dramaticly shrinking compared to last month in the pvp community. 4 months ago you would see about 15 dist at the random arena. At prime time you might see 5. 2-3 at the team arenas and 5-6 at hero's.

There is a huge insurgance of new players in pve. I go back to places like borlis pass and frost gate and think to myself this place is going to be completely empty because of runners. They have more people then some of the later towns do.

PvP is just the focus of chapter 1. This is going to teach you teamwork through all the other chapters and give you experience. I treat chapter 1 like a big pre-searing.

Loviatar · Feb 24, 2006, 11:17 PM // 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by twicky_kid

With seiges on towns and alliances that is bringing the pvp aspect to pve. .

i dont think you will see any sign of a seige on any town.

i think it will be settled in the arenas for pvp and whatever mission?/joint quest?/cooperative endeavor ? on the PVE side

we will find out eventually

optical · Feb 25, 2006, 12:34 AM // 00:34

if you're interested in PvE you probably should have selected a game that didn't lack everything a Role Playing game should have.

The PvE campaign is dull, boring, tedious, entirely too easy, and filled with people that have no idea what they're doing due to an almost non-existant learning curve. The story makes almost no sense while forcing you to walk through the game in the most linear way possible. PvE falls drastically short of awful.

If they can manage to crank out a decent story line...add some end game content....and remove the entire Worlds at War Favor bullshit...they might be able to save the PvE portion of this game.

twicky_kid · Feb 25, 2006, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

i dont think you will see any sign of a seige on any town.

i think it will be settled in the arenas for pvp and whatever mission?/joint quest?/cooperative endeavor ? on the PVE side

we will find out eventually

They have said you can take over towns for your side and siege it to keep control of it.

There will be a siege of some sort.

Loviatar · Feb 25, 2006, 12:42 AM // 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by twicky_kid

They have said you can take over towns for your side and siege it to keep control of it.

There will be a siege of some sort.

you win in the arenas/pve venture and take control of the designated area at stake.

they said no ganking or pvping in any other than pvp arenas.

this would clearly violate that statement.

pvp will be by choice only and in a open town seige there would be non pvp attacked.

Rayne Nightfyre · Feb 25, 2006, 12:46 AM // 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by optical

if you're interested in PvE you probably should have selected a game that didn't lack everything a Role Playing game should have.

The PvE campaign is dull, boring, tedious, entirely too easy, and filled with people that have no idea what they're doing due to an almost non-existant learning curve. The story makes almost no sense while forcing you to walk through the game in the most linear way possible. PvE falls drastically short of awful.

If they can manage to crank out a decent story line...add some end game content....and remove the entire Worlds at War Favor bullshit...they might be able to save the PvE portion of this game.

Although I agree the PvE aspect could use a major improvement, PvE is what our guild, as well as many others, is centered around. We find PvE very fun and rewarding. So I must disagree with your statement that we should have looked to a different game for true PvE content. And I do hope that ArenaNet's idea of improving PvE is not to simply add the PvP mentality to it.

twicky_kid · Feb 25, 2006, 12:52 AM // 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

you win in the arenas/pve venture and take control of the designated area at stake.

they said no ganking or pvping in any other than pvp arenas.

this would clearly violate that statement.

pvp will be by choice only and in a open town seige there would be non pvp attacked.

thanx for the info

they are very vague on describing the alliances and zone take overs.

This game is intended for pvp. I don't think any game can do both and be a balanced system unless you seperate the pvp and pve.

If you like endless grind this is not your game. Since that's about all pve offers this is not your game.

Maxiemonster · Feb 25, 2006, 01:18 AM // 01:18

I had a conversation today, and this is about how it goes:

Weird guy: "You're a noob"
Me: "I don't even know you.. How do you know?"
Weird guy: "Show me your emote"
Me: "I don't have an emote, I'm a PvE player, I don't PvP"
Weird guy: "You don't play PvP because you're a noob"
Me: "So, what's your logica again? Just because I like PvE better then PvP, I'm a noob?"

And that's about where it ended.. Kinda sad.

Dancing Blade · Feb 25, 2006, 01:28 AM // 01:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxiemonster

I had a conversation today, and this is about how it goes:

Weird guy: "You're a noob"
Me: "I don't even know you.. How do you know?"
Weird guy: "Show me your emote"
Me: "I don't have an emote, I'm a PvE player, I don't PvP"
Weird guy: "You don't play PvP because you're a noob"
Me: "So, what's your logica again? Just because I like PvE better then PvP, I'm a noob?"

And that's about where it ended.. Kinda sad.

You're a noob.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom

There are better PvE games out there, but Guild Wars has a better PvP than any RPG.

I agree, PvE in chapter 1 is satisfactory only for very casual players. I think, though, Anet is going to fix that part of the game somehow in chapter 2.

Akathrielah · Feb 25, 2006, 01:34 AM // 01:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by floplag

ive seen posted many times how it seems that is the focus or primary thing this game is for ... and i felt it was needed to start a thread to say exactly the opposite.

please do not make this game a PvP oriented game and lose site of the PvE RPG aspects that drive this community in general.

This is a PvP oriented game, if you don't like it please go play WoW, EQ2 or any other crappy pay2grind MMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by floplag

im all for enhancements and additions and such to the PvP side of the game .. but lets not forget that PvE in the end is what sells games like this and why many of us are herre in the first place.

just wanted to speak my mind before ANet goes over the deep end leaning to far toward PvP, and not enough the other direction

give us more new areas and storylines .. not just more arenas

The PvP market is far greater than the PvE market. The 5 million or so WoW players isn't even a drop in a bucket when you compare it to FPS market. Different genres you say? You'll be surprise how many people are from FPS where GW is their first "MMO". A PvP oriented MMO definately has a place in this market.

The Purple Pants Guy · Feb 25, 2006, 01:38 AM // 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akathrielah

The PvP market is far greater than the PvE market. The 5 million or so WoW players isn't even a drop in a bucket when you compare it to FPS market. Different genres you say? You'll be surprise how many people are from FPS where GW is their first "MMO". A PvP oriented MMO definately has a place in this market.

<---one of those people "from FPS" where GW is their first MMO

Siliconwafer · Feb 25, 2006, 02:20 AM // 02:20

Quote:

The PvP market is far greater than the PvE market. The 5 million or so WoW players isn't even a drop in a bucket when you compare it to FPS market. Different genres you say? You'll be surprise how many people are from FPS where GW is their first "MMO". A PvP oriented MMO definately has a place in this market.

I wholeheartedly agree (you can add the Strategy market to that too, as well-plenty of competitive RTS players play GW). However, I think GW still attracted a lot of roleplayers because of it's sword, spell and sandal theme.

IMO, A.net should stick to its vision of a largely PvP oriented game. There are plenty of "PvE" MMOs (perhaps not free ones, but still, in GW, you get a lot of PvE for the box price) out there, and GW needs to distinguish itself from the crowd. Don't like where Anet is going? There are plenty who do. I'm sure that successive chapters will draw more of a playerbase suited to this.

Harmony · Feb 25, 2006, 03:09 AM // 03:09

Well, I thought this was a plain silly argument, and apparently I am not alone

Loralai · Feb 25, 2006, 03:13 AM // 03:13

Which is precisely why I posed that question LOL.

calamitykell · Feb 25, 2006, 03:41 AM // 03:41

It's sad that some people think that their style of play is the "official" way to play the game, and anybody who deviates from that even slightly is "playing the game wrong."

Have we collectively gotten that stupid?

Siliconwafer · Feb 25, 2006, 03:54 AM // 03:54

If I played Planescape Torment like an FPS, skipping through the text, killing things, not following the plot, would I be playing the game "wrongly?"
It's a subjective opinion, but I say yes, you would. of course, it's your right to play like that, but there would be better choices out there that would cater to your specific playstyle.

chris_nin00 · Feb 25, 2006, 04:12 AM // 04:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmony

Well, I thought this was a plain silly argument, and apparently I am not alone

Quoted for the truth...
This whole thread is just...

Let's just say I bought the game because it had that cool looking Dragon inside the cover

Arcanis the Omnipotent · Feb 25, 2006, 04:56 AM // 04:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akathrielah

This is a PvP oriented game, if you don't like it please go play WoW, EQ2 or any other crappy pay2grind MMO.

Please, quote that out of something Anet and/or any of its employees have actually physically stated somewhere.

Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Grimm · Feb 25, 2006, 05:21 AM // 05:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by calamitykell

The emphasis around the two uses of "role-playing" added by me. Pay attention to the last sentence. "Designed from the ground up to create the best possible competitive role-playing experience." (Again, emphasis added.)

By role-playing, I doubt they mean experiencing the in-depth character role of farming fame.

Ah, yes and farming for gold and items is very in-depth role-playing, I suppose?

I'm sure you think you're being very clever, but it seems you lack reading comprehension skills or understanding of what "role-playing" means.

If you think any aspect of GW involves any true role-playing you're sorely mistaken. Any type of game that involves playing a character with stats is generally called a "role-playing game", but this is purely convention. The term "role-playing game" is a vague one, but "competitive" is not. GW is called a "competitive online role-playing game". You cannot ignore "competitive" in that. Nor would its competitiveness exclude its being a "role-playing game".

Look at the genre of games called "tactical role-playing games". These games involve little if any actual role-playing, instead focusing on the tactical element. They're tactics games with characters that you develop rather than faceless identical units, just like GW is a competitive game with characters that you develop rather than faceless identical units. Neither involves any actual role-playing. Your "clever" wordplay is like saying that tactical rpgs aren't really tactical because part of the genre name is "role-playing".

Your word games don't work; sorry.