Curse

Quintus · Jun 30, 2005, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malchiel

Deleted by Scaphism

Wow, what a constructive, thoughful, and insightful reply. I, and I believe everyone else who will read this, have just learned a lot. Thank you for letting me see your point of view. I hope to see more posts from you like this in the future. [/Sarcasm]

(PS. Please refrain from quoting long posts like that. It destroys the continuity of the topic.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indigo

And what about the PvE players who want to PvP with their PvE characters, as is intended in this game? What about those guys? Why should they be on an unequal footing in PvP simply because they want to spend the time and "adventure and unlock"? Why should they pay for the PvP players need to shortcut?

They can make it so that when you enter a PvP staging area, you temporarily recieve all skills, runes, and weapon upgrades for the matches you participate in, and when you leave the staging area, you lose the skills, runes, and weapon upgrades you didn't have already.

kaya · Jun 30, 2005, 06:33 PM // 18:33

hey arredondo... just a thought. maybe if you switched the time you use to complain in theese forums and used that time for getting Faction, or exp you might just have all the skills and runes you need. i havn't put too many hours into this game... but i can still get what i need for my pvp characters. it's worth a try dood.

Epinephrine · Jun 30, 2005, 06:35 PM // 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by stumpy

The only thing this has in common with CS is in fact the ability to play against eachother ... but the dynamics are completely diferent ... if you do not understand this then please do not try to patronize me with a narrow vision because you are not thinking this through.

Actually, I play DoD, but there are many similarities between CS/DoD and GW. As a player ranked in the top fraction of a percent in DoD I think I know something about the game:

Commonalities:

Knowledge is power: You should know the map layout, plan tactics and be able to recognise what your opponent is using instantly and react. I need to recognise the sound on my enemies fire and orient on it, I need to know what weapon he is using before I see it, I need to assess primary threat and drop it fast - when sniping, you have to pick your target. These are all shared with GW.

Team work and communication: I must play the role assigned me - I provide cover fire, I rush, I serve as a decoy, I kill. I must keep others aware of what is going on in a quick, precise manner. Don't clog the channel with garbage. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

Adaptability: Things went wrong. Nobody EVER puts a machine gunner there! I thought htere were only 2 of them Lots of sudden changes, a grenade took out my backup. The ability to reassess situations fast, to decide on a new and appropriate tactic is another important feature these games share. I need to know that my plans may not work, to have contigenciesa and be able to adapt to a changing battlefield.

Terrain. All FPS and GW as well use terrain and visibility to influnce game play - using this to your advantage is a shared trait.

Don't get all that attitude stumpy. I've played a lot of games in my days, and while I haven't had that much PvP time in GW it's not out of fear - I just don't have what I need to bring in yet. You are wrong about gear not making a difference, you admit it - that's good. I agree with you that it doesn't matter in many fights; that's fair - those aren't the ones I'm worried about. You are wrong if you think there are noshared skills between the games,that you can't learn a lot from one to pass to the other. Perhaps playing some good DoD would help your GW? You'd be surprised at how similar they are once you get past the dragons machine guns, ghostly heroes and grenades.

I think we probably have similar views about a lot of this stuff. I just don't see why you need to connect the PvP with the PvE - for those who want tohat connection, there can be RP PvP. For those who want the PvP, and want Guild Wars to be taken seriously as a PvP game - something that can be out there in the cyber olympics and such - there is the PvP area.

Malchiel · Jun 30, 2005, 06:38 PM // 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quintus

Wow, what a constructive, thoughful, and insightful reply. I, and I believe everyone else who will read this, have just learned a lot. Thank you for letting me see your point of view. I hope to see more posts from you like this in the future. [/Sarcasm]

(PS. Please refrain from quoting long posts like that. It destroys the continuity of the topic.)

They can make it so that when you enter a PvP staging area, you temporarily recieve all skills, runes, and weapon upgrades for the matches you participate in, and when you leave the staging area, you lose the skills, runes, and weapon upgrades you didn't have already.

This topic has been beaten to death. I sick of hearing it. Sick of even seeing it exists at all.

All the opinions that can and useful has been debated and heard, there's nothing new in this post.

Really just shut up.

Quintus · Jun 30, 2005, 06:40 PM // 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malchiel

This topic has been beaten to death. I sick of hearing it. Sick of even seeing it exists at all.

All the opinions that can and useful has been debated and heard, there's nothing new in this post.

Really just shut up.

If you dislike the topic so much, why do keep on bumping it the the top of the page?

Arvydas · Jun 30, 2005, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quintus

If you dislike the topic so much, why do keep on bumping it the the top of the page?

so that we know he dislike this thread, just like others who want us to know they dislike the update.

really. the reason, as i mentioned b4, was human nature. they want to be heard. they have demand. they didnt get what they want. so they post more than those who got what they want or didn't really care.

stumpy · Jun 30, 2005, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

Actually, I play DoD, but there are many similarities between CS/DoD and GW. As a player ranked in the top fraction of a percent in DoD I think I know something about the game:

Commonalities:

Knowledge is power: You should know the map layout, plan tactics and be able to recognise what your opponent is using instantly and react. I need to recognise the sound on my enemies fire and orient on it, I need to know what weapon he is using before I see it, I need to assess primary threat and drop it fast - when sniping, you have to pick your target. These are all shared with GW.

Team work and communication: I must play the role assigned me - I provide cover fire, I rush, I serve as a decoy, I kill. I must keep others aware of what is going on in a quick, precise manner. Don't clog the channel with garbage. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

Adaptability: Things went wrong. Nobody EVER puts a machine gunner there! I thought htere were only 2 of them Lots of sudden changes, a grenade took out my backup. The ability to reassess situations fast, to decide on a new and appropriate tactic is another important feature these games share. I need to know that my plans may not work, to have contigenciesa and be able to adapt to a changing battlefield.

Terrain. All FPS and GW as well use terrain and visibility to influnce game play - using this to your advantage is a shared trait.

Don't get all that attitude stumpy. I've played a lot of games in my days, and while I haven't had that much PvP time in GW it's not out of fear - I just don't have what I need to bring in yet. You are wrong about gear not making a difference, you admit it - that's good. I agree with you that it doesn't matter in many fights; that's fair - those aren't the ones I'm worried about. You are wrong if you think there are noshared skills between the games,that you can't learn a lot from one to pass to the other. Perhaps playing some good DoD would help your GW? You'd be surprised at how similar they are once you get past the dragons machine guns, ghostly heroes and grenades.

I think we probably have similar views about a lot of this stuff. I just don't see why you need to connect the PvP with the PvE - for those who want tohat connection, there can be RP PvP. For those who want the PvP, and want Guild Wars to be taken seriously as a PvP game - something that can be out there in the cyber olympics and such - there is the PvP area.

Perhaps but I am not coming from a DoD background and did not speak on it. I was referring to the majority of other posts that continually base this to be similar to CS (and yes I was in the top percentile on the ladder for as long as I can remeber ranked around 114ish -117 changes from logging.)

All of those things state above can actually be related to almost any game ... for one ... hockey ... ???? now why the heck would you say hockey ... teamwork, knowledge, adaptability to opposition, and terrain ... you cant score from behind the net.

That is a very vague comparison to give to guildwars ... perhaps it is similar in DoD ... but my point here is that UAS all will not give the poster FTW ... regardless of whether people like it or not ... this game takes time initially ... *most games do* my comparison ... the dynamics of guildwars is far from many first person shooters is .... this game is more skill based ... how can you counter a grenade ?

EDIT ***********

can all the people that are not actually posting any information either join in on this conversation or stop posting? No need for useless bumps or posts beaten ... we are having a discussion and I want to hear input please.

Quintus · Jun 30, 2005, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arvydas

so that we know he dislike this thread, just like others who want us to know they dislike the update.

really. the reason, as i mentioned b4, was human nature. they want to be heard. they have demand. they didnt get what they want. so they post more than those who got what they want or didn't really care.

The fact of the matter is that he is adding nothing constructive to the discussion, though. I wouldn't mind it if he would post something like: I don't like this topic. Here is why: Examples. And here is what you can do to make it better: Suggestions. As of now, however, all he is posting is "really just shut up." and the like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumpy

can all the people that are not actually posting any information either join in on this conversation or stop posting? No need for useless bumps or posts beaten ... we are having a discussion and I want to hear input please.

I apologize, and I will stop posting...now.

tuPadre · Jun 30, 2005, 06:51 PM // 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalia

Hmm, well, since my original post was deleted, let me see if I can rephrase it.

To answer the thread-starter's question, the "reason" is that the same person(s) keeps starting negative threads.

Dalia

Agree, is the same guy over and over and over and over....

Vorlin · Jun 30, 2005, 07:03 PM // 19:03

I've yet to play Guild Wars (will be buying it this Friday), but I've played Muds and other online Games involved PvP for over 10 years now, so I can make some generic comments on this issue.

First, the basic complaint of the original poster has been voiced in every PvP game I've ever played that involved skills and gear: the people who spend the most time collecting honing skills and collecting gear have an advantage in PvP. For many people that's -exactly- how it should be: the more dedicated you are to the game the better your odds of victory in the game.

But let's take the side of the original poster and state that is shouldn't be this way (at least in GW). Let's say a special arena is made to ensure skill/gear equality (will call this arena Fairland, for easier reference). What happens then?

I'll tell you what happens: the complaints about inequality simply shift to another topic. For instance, people start complaining that gamers who spend a lot of time playing GW have a chance to experiment with more skills and class combinations, this gives them an advantage in Fairland. So the call is put out to make it so everyone who fights in Fairland has -exactly- the same gear and skills for any given class combo. Will this end the controversy? No, it won't. Then people will complain that those who have better links have an edge in combat, why should they be rewarded for a fast link when that isn't a PvP skill? So then Fairland is implemented with an artificial lag (no command goes through faster than, say, 500 ms). Will -this- end the controversy? No, it won't. Then people will (rightfully so) claim Fairland sucks because it's so boring and predictable. And round and round we go.

I've actually seen Muds destroyed when the implementors start chasing 'fairness'. You can end up with a fair game that isn't worth playing anymore.

So I'll disagree with the original poster in this thread (even while understanding and sympathizing with the complaint) for two reasons: one, because I've seen what happens when 'fairness' becomes the focus of a game. And two, because I -do- believe that time spent in the game should reward the gamer. And it seems to me (from reading various posts) that the imps of GW are really dedicated to making sure that the time you spend to unlock your character and gain gear is as non-farming non-treadmill as possible.

Remember, this is still a very young MMORPG, it normally takes a year (and often two) before you start getting the balance and playstyle that the imps want.

Also, just as a generic note, remember that every game has a playstyle, and if GW doesn't fit yours then past a certain point it's not viable to critique it, you need to find a game that fits you. Suggestions to tweak a game are one thing, but when you find yourself making suggestions that require an overhaul of the entire philosophy of the game then you are probably playing the wrong game.

Arvydas · Jun 30, 2005, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorlin

Also, just as a generic note, remember that every game has a playstyle, and if GW doesn't fit yours then past a certain point it's not viable to critique it, you need to find a game that fits you. Suggestions to tweak a game are one thing, but when you find yourself making suggestions that require an overhaul of the entire philosophy of the game then you are probably playing the wrong game.

well said.

To Quintus: didn't you see the sacarsm

The Ages · Jun 30, 2005, 07:18 PM // 19:18

Quote:

EDIT --- to UAS and UAR is not going to make you a better player ...

Even if it dont make the player better it does allow the player to preform at there max Capacity, It might be fine by you to fudge up a build and make do with skills upto Lions arch but some of us dont wish to be limited in this way.

The new system is good, Though I do feel it needs some Tweaks in the Cooperative & Team arenas as I spent from around 6pm(W) till 2:30pm(TH) to get 2600 Faction Points. Thats over 10hours in Team/Coop Arenas for two unlocks, I Dont care if it is random arena that is just way to long compaired to PvE (Not to mention I Still have to PvE Just to get all the venders)

Epinephrine · Jun 30, 2005, 07:23 PM // 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorlin

Also, just as a generic note, remember that every game has a playstyle, and if GW doesn't fit yours then past a certain point it's not viable to critique it, you need to find a game that fits you. Suggestions to tweak a game are one thing, but when you find yourself making suggestions that require an overhaul of the entire philosophy of the game then you are probably playing the wrong game.

Hmm, while I appreciate your concern, there won't be any whining about practice effects from the crowd pushing for "Fairland" as you call it. At least from here. The point of most PvP that ISN'T in an MMO is equality of starting conditions - MMOs are the only genre in which it is expected that time spent playing is directly realted to success.

Practice is not the same as time spent playing, and the linear relationship is lost as some poeple learn better than others, and are more skilled. The main objection is that this should be about skill, not gear.

As to your comment about the game "fitting" you; the reason I play GW and not any other MMO is that the game was advertised as being about skill, not hours spent. If that were truly the case, I'd not have acomplaint - I ask of the crowd that wants gear to be earned how that relates to ANet's "skill, not time spent" mantra.

My suspicion is that ANet started the game out like a typical MMO in order to bring that crowd over. They probably figured that they'd get more players from that genre than from an FPS/RTS background, in which there is no reward for time spent other than what you can learn from playing. The shift toward a skill based rather than gear based combat will hopefully happen, as they talked about their goal in that regard for years - I doubt they'll leave it as is, but will slowly make it more and more PvP. To those who want an MMO, please, go play one. GW was meant to be a step away from MMOs,a CORPG, in which time spent didn't matter but skill did. Give us back the game we waited for.

arredondo · Jun 30, 2005, 07:26 PM // 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorlin

Will -this- end the controversy? No, it won't. Then people will (rightfully so) claim Fairland sucks because it's so boring and predictable. And round and round we go.

Your slippery slope argument fell completely apart right there. In football, FPS games, one-on-one fighting games.... ANY competitive activity, everyone starts with full access to basic gear. At no time do people call these contests boring for being repetitive simply because all players begin with equal access to the needed tools. Neither would that happen to Guild Wars. The game will center purely on skill and strategy. Effective builds will constantly be created and refined, while counter builds will also evolve just as much.

Post back in a month when you've played PvP and support your same logic.

Imp · Jun 30, 2005, 07:44 PM // 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

You don't ask chess players to "earn" their access to a Bishop.

but chess players learned how to use the bishop, I bet you 10 bucks if you could use every skill in the game in pvp, right when you started the game, or anyone else for that manner, you would be overwhelmed and not have any idea how to use the skills.

Vorlin · Jun 30, 2005, 07:49 PM // 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

Your slippery slope argument fell completely apart right there. In football, FPS games, one-on-one fighting games.... ANY competitive activity, everyone starts with full access to basic gear. At no time do people call these contests boring for being repetitive simply because all players begin with equal access to the needed tools. Neither would that happen to Guild Wars. The game will center purely on skill and strategy. Effective builds will constantly be created and refined, while counter builds will also evolve just as much.

Post back in a month when you've played PvP and support your same logic.

Your analogy is incorrect. In football the 'unfairness' is in the quality of players on each team. That's why people watch, -because- it's unfair. Who would watch any sport if all you saw were clones fighting their opposite number? "Today at Wimbledon, Venus Williams vs. Venus Williams! Feel the excitement!!"

And if you'd read my post carefully you'd have realized that there are no more builds in Fairland, everyone has the same build and skills for the same class (otherwise it isn't fair, people with more game knowledge can pick better skill/attribute combos, this rewards playtime which you are against). So there is no refining, there are no counter-builds.

And what I posted isn't an argument or a theory, I've -seen- it happen twice pretty much exactly as I described it over the years I've played PvP. Very few things are more dangerous for a game than when players stop focusing on gameplay and start focusing on fairness. Look how unhappy it's made you and so many others, for instance.

***************

To Epinephrine, you can take anything too far. Obviously you can't have skill without time spent, someone who's PvP'ed for weeks/months is going to be better than someone playing their character in PvP for the first time. And this is how it should be. Otherwise you might as well have two characters each armed with one rock, each throws their rock, then a random number generator decides the winner. That would be a game where time spent playing would be meaningless.

***************

(Note: the following is generic, not directed specifically at the above two posters)

A lot of these arguments boil down to this: please remake GW to my exact specifications so I can always be at my best and only do the things I want to do when I want to do them, and noone can ever beat me by gaining power doing something I don't want to do. When you phrase it that way, it doesn't seem all that reasonable an argument, does it?

Pandora's box · Jun 30, 2005, 08:15 PM // 20:15

When Anet takes away things players like (e.g. by nerfing) there will always be complaints. A successfull company gives the players what they want. Sometimes that's not possible because things players like may cause conflicts in gameplay. Like some players have fun in a 'rich' environment where items drop whilst walking around

and others want a hard fight and only rewards when you prove to be skilled. Its hard to satisfy everyone. Yet one thing will always cause trouble: changing the rules of a game that allready has started. People like to be sure on what conditions they are playing, no matter if its pvp or pve.

Note: Sometimes I have the feeling that those who flame most have other concerns than just playing a game... Ebay??

Zeru · Jun 30, 2005, 08:23 PM // 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorlin

(Note: the following is generic, not directed specifically at the above two posters)

A lot of these arguments boil down to this: please remake GW to my exact specifications so I can always be at my best and only do the things I want to do when I want to do them, and noone can ever beat me by gaining power doing something I don't want to do. When you phrase it that way, it doesn't seem all that reasonable an argument, does it?

Yes it does, considering we were playing that way 2 months ago

Anet could end soooo many pvp problems by just making a patch called: "April Beta without the UAS." UAS isn't needed, I don't support it either. But when you see all the hardcore players leaving because a game turned from brilliance to brilliance hidden under a mountain of hay, you know something is up. And to boot, the Pve system would be eons better too considering the beta pve skill selection was great compared to what it is now.

The community atmosphere between the beta and now...it's just sad really.

Sir Maddox · Jun 30, 2005, 08:27 PM // 20:27

I wonder the validity or informative value of the following statement, but alas:

I would say the reason we see more negative comments about updates is because the people who are happy with them are busy playing the game and enjoying, whilst those that aren't come here to vent.

Quintus · Jun 30, 2005, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeru

Yes it does, considering we were playing that way 2 months ago

Anet could end soooo many pvp problems by just making a patch called: "April Beta without the UAS." UAS isn't needed, I don't support it either. But when you see all the hardcore players leaving because a game turned from brilliance to brilliance hidden under a mountain of hay, you know something is up. And to boot, the Pve system would be eons better too considering the beta pve skill selection was great compared to what it is now.

The community atmosphere between the beta and now...it's just sad really.

If they did this, Anet would quickly become my favorite game company ever. I would devote my entire existence to them and their needs. (Well maybe I wouldn't go that far, but it would create a renewed love for the game from me.)