Curse

tuPadre · Jun 30, 2005, 08:34 PM // 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Maddox

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.

Very true

Divinitys Creature · Jun 30, 2005, 08:48 PM // 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorlin

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.

We have more information than you realise. We know from times in Betas, during the last two there was Unlock all Skills and before that skill traders used to sell elites and you could buy skill charms and necklaces with no need for skill points. You could craft skill charms for friends or sell them. PvP was very dynamic and there were no BoTMs, builds of the month. People would make a build it would get countered, it was very fluid and fun. People complained very little indeed those times. It was all about outwitting your opponent, with betetr player skill, strategy, formation, tactics, timing, and communication.

Loviatar · Jun 30, 2005, 08:50 PM // 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

In football, FPS games, one-on-one fighting games.... ANY competitive activity, everyone starts with full access to basic gear. .

they do and they are called templates

options with extra effort

arredondo · Jun 30, 2005, 09:02 PM // 21:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorlin

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.

Wow amigo, you need a refresher course on logic. It just so happens that Venus actually took out Maria Sharapova today at Wimbledon. Did she do it with a better racket? Better shoes? A ball made specifically to highlight her strengths? No... it was skill, tactics, strategy and abilities edged her to the win.

"Gear" is a given equalizer in serious competitive activities. Would tennis be better served if every new pro had to start with a Nerf racket from Toy's R Us? If every pro started with flip-flops and "earned" a pair of sneakers once they won 100 matches? These activities are 100% skill based, not gear based. That's what Guild Wars needs to be as well by getting right to the point and allowing PvP players to start each match fully equipped and ready to go.

Just because one person has better abilities than the other is not an issue. Venus may be better than Conan O'Brian at tennis, but they can at least go on the court with the exact same equipment. Skill, tactics and strategy alone will separate them. Venus vs. Maria? Same thing. In Guild Wars, a UAS and UAR system allows this logical approach to competition.

We all have the same gear, but our team makeup, skills, abilities, tactics, builds Attribute point distribution, classes, etc. will be vastly different and forever changing. It is in this that "fun" is maturing in competitive activities. Not in grinding for equalizing equipment.

Zuggy · Jun 30, 2005, 09:03 PM // 21:03

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.

All the PvP characters start with "basic" equipment. max damage weapons, max armor, max shields/ focus items, and 8 skills. Anything extra comes with play. I bet the venus sisters didn't start with the high end raquets they use now, and I bet Sammy Sosa didn't start out with an uber bat, even in Counter-Strike you don't start with uber guns if the server is using the default money setting. The one thing all these have in common is you have to work your way up to the high equipment. Also someone with very little skill won't be any better with better equipment. I don't know how many times I've killed CS noobs with a pistol or even my knife because they didn't know how to use their awp. Your awarded for skill in anything you play.

stumpy · Jun 30, 2005, 09:06 PM // 21:06

okay i have to share this .... it just floored me ...

i just got back from lunch break to follow up here ... and my brother is at his house and has been playing for the last 2 hours ...

MY BROTHER IS A DIE HARD PVE role playing storyline buff ... hates cs, hates hl2 hates all ends of pvp ...

for the last 2 hours he has been testing the waters in the competition arena and the team arena ... HE HAS over 500 faction points already ... wow ... I mean how often does a PVE player unlock runes? Once a week maybe after you have your basic minors and majors?

HE IS 1/4 to having the option to unlock anyone today???? I thought originally maybe the runes were too high ... but if a noob like my brother can run a template and gain that much in that littel amount of time ... there really isn't anything to cry about anymore ... unbelieveable ....

arredondo · Jun 30, 2005, 09:06 PM // 21:06

I meant "basic" to mean that which all players have on an equal level. Once you get all runes, weapons, etc., you are all on equal footing and PvP finally becomes 100% skill based. Not before.

JasonJLore · Jun 30, 2005, 09:11 PM // 21:11

Quote:

PvP is supposed to be taken seriously, right? These issues matter, and all that is being asked is that just like any other serious competition, allow all PvP players to at least start with equal gear (UAS aand UAR).
Until then, it remains an "elitist" sport for the teams who've put in 100s of hours for full gear access over those who may be as skilled but hasn't yet earned half the stuff needed to implement their strategies.
Save adventuring and unlocking for PvE. Allow pure skill and talent to shine in PvP.

Oh stop already! Quit whining and go play CS or something. The people who want UAS and UAR buttons are the epitomy of laziness. Push a button, do the dishes, push a button, do your homework, push a button, wash the car. If you want anything worthwhile outa life you gotta work for it. Michael Jordan didn't win all those championships by PUSHING A BUTTON.

stumpy · Jun 30, 2005, 09:46 PM // 21:46

sorry for the bump ... but read my above post ... thats gotta be a silver platter handed to you ... that means someone with no pvp skill no tactics ... no knowledge of what to do or how it works ...

used a template and progressed faster than anybody here? he says its easy as pie ... and hes gonna unlock all his other elite skillls this way THIS weekend lol. so if anyone really has any issues with the faction system they got no skills.

Siran Dunmorgan · Jun 30, 2005, 09:55 PM // 21:55

Hmm... let me try this approach:

I know a lot of you are competitive Magic: the Gathering players. Do you consider it 'unfair' that some of you have rare cards that others don't? Do you ensure, before tournament play begins, that you all have access to the same cards, and can build your decks exactly the way you want? No? You mean to say that some of you have cards that others don't? But isn't that unfair?

All that ArenaNet has done with Guild Wars is move the 'buying of cards' from the real world into the pre-PvP portion of the game.

—Siran Dunmorgan

Zuggy · Jun 30, 2005, 10:12 PM // 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

I meant "basic" to mean that which all players have on an equal level. Once you get all runes, weapons, etc., you are all on equal footing and PvP finally becomes 100% skill based. Not before.

But that isn't "basic" equipment. What your talking about is artificial equality. You don't want to earn your equipment, you want it given to you. GW is a skill based game and has increased that with PvP rewards. The system rewards those that are good at both PvE and PvP while allowing those that suck to still gain faction, although at a slower speed.

I think this is an excellent solution. When I play or do anything I want to see a reward, there is no reward is everything is given to you.

Tutompop · Jun 30, 2005, 10:15 PM // 22:15

This whole "skills vs time played" seems to be taken far too literally.
There are other factors involved besides the "gear". Theres luck, timing, group cohesion and god help you if you think your team is perfect and the only thing you lack is gear. Nobody will ever win 100% of the time so why some of you seem intent on it is beyond me. The sad thing is you don't have fun unless you win. I get a feeling of exhiliration when our group beats another group too but the fight in of itself is half of the fun too. The exception being steamrolled or doing the steamrolling, neither one is fun and cheapens the win.

Skill does beat time played, if it were possible to beat the pve game without any clue whatsoever a team with 1000 hours played would be trounced by a team with a clue with only 10 hours under their belt. However, as much as you may not like it, people learn by doing and gain skill. The same people you want to beat are not winning becuase of +30 hp pommel this or spell of elite ownage that. They're winning because they're better than you. If they have 1000 hours under their belt and you don't, that doesn't make them carebears. They probably learned a trick or two about the game and use it to their advantage when they fight you. Now if they're truly the cluless pve goons you make them out to be you'll still win even if all of their skills were elites. Both circumstances can and do happen in this game. (except for the all elites thing)

Being the absolute best is more work than fun, those of you who want to be the best are going to have to work for it. Sorry but being the best isn't about "fun" its about constantly training/striving/improving because everybody wants to dethrone you. Frankly, you can have it as I play to have fun.

Btw, assuming both teams have the perfect game and do evertying right 100%. Then gear will come into play and give the team with it the extra 1% to win. Unfortunately, this will NEVER HAPPEN. Perfection is unattainable, live and learn and then get luvs.

Kali Ma · Jun 30, 2005, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Quote:

You don't ask chess players to "earn" their access to a Bishop. You don't expect a 3-man basketball team to make 1,000 outside shots just to have permission to bring on players 4 and 5. You don't ask players of the mega-successful Counterstrike to get 500 headshots before you award them a Desert Eagle pistol.

Just wanted to quote this, because I think it really gets to the heart of the matter. I hope the PvP updates make things better for the majority of current PvP players... but has it inspired me to start pursuing PvP more seriously? No, not really. I appreciate the effort Anet is putting towards finding a solution though.

PieXags · Jun 30, 2005, 10:21 PM // 22:21

What PvP players say they want and what they're complaining about don't match up is what bugs me the most.

They're complaining that they want it to be skill over hours played.

Well now it DOES take skill over hours played. Now you need to WIN in order to get faction, you need to have SKILL in order to unlock the skills you want.

You see people, having all the skills available to you will NOT, by ANY means make it more skill over hours played. If it all depends on the skills you have in your skill bar then it's not related to the skill of the player at all is it? And that's not the case.

If winning matters THAT much on your skill set and what runes you have, if that's really what you NEED, then the game won't be based on player-skill even if you DO have all the skills unlocked. It'll just be who put the right ones in their skill bar.

The one with skill should be able to beat teams with better skill sets, plain and simple. If you can't win your faction you've not the skill to deserve it.

Vorlin · Jun 30, 2005, 10:21 PM // 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

We all have the same gear, but our team makeup, skills, abilities, tactics, builds Attribute point distribution, classes, etc. will be vastly different and forever changing. It is in this that "fun" is maturing in competitive activities. Not in grinding for equalizing equipment.

What people like you always miss is that is simply -your- definition of fair, custom-made to fit -your- desires and playstyle. As soon as it gets implemented someone with different desires and playstyles is going to start spamming "It ain't fair!" posts that are going to be just as valid as yours are today. You won't think they are valid, of course, just like so many don't think your complaints are valid now.

And as I noted before, your idea of 'fair' isn't fair at all, players who have played GW longer and have experimented with more skills and attribute combinations will be much better then newbies who have no idea what makes good combinations nor how to use them well if they did. Thus we are right back at "Players who play more have an unfair advantage". The reason you don't mind this is in this case is that the 'play more' is custom-designed to please you personally, whereas now it's more designed to reward a playstyle you'd rather avoid.

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

As to the people who look back on the glory days of yestermonth (*laugh*), I've yet to find a PvP crowd that didn't have a substantial population that felt that way. What they fail to realize is that nothing matches that heady feeling of first learning a new game and coming to grips with the PvP system. The problem is that as a PvP game ages more people get more and more competitive, at which point a substantial number begin feeling that what they need to do to stay competitive is 'unfair'. Thus begins threads like this one. Get used to them, they'll be popping up now for the life of GW, no matter -what- the implementors do. The names will change, the complaint will be the same.

Rieselle · Jun 30, 2005, 10:22 PM // 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siran Dunmorgan

Hmm... let me try this approach:

I know a lot of you are competitive Magic: the Gathering players. Do you consider it 'unfair' that some of you have rare cards that others don't? Do you ensure, before tournament play begins, that you all have access to the same cards, and can build your decks exactly the way you want? No? You mean to say that some of you have cards that others don't? But isn't that unfair?

All that ArenaNet has done with Guild Wars is move the 'buying of cards' from the real world into the pre-PvP portion of the game.

—Siran Dunmorgan

I'm afraid the same people complaining about the update would probably consider Magic:The Gathering unfair. Especially since it involves money, not just time.

3 points I feel pvpers need to accept, but they wont ever :P

1. The unlock limitations in GW -should- provide a "making the best of what you have" sort of gameplay. Unfortunately a minority of people don't think this a good idea. Since sport analogies seem to be popular, let's look at any sport outside of the super-rich U.S... take soccer, cricket, probably any international game. Some teams are richer than others, they can afford better players, better training, better facilities. Also, in some sports, teams only field players from their respective countries - the talent pool for that sport will be better or worse depending on their country.

But everyone makes the best with what they have, try to get better with the resources available to them, and Bangladesh plays matches against Australia and loses most of the time. But they're still competing together!

The complainers may not like this aspect of the game at all, but its a valid design decision that adds its own dimension to the game. It's not some fatal flaw that has no redeeming features to anyone.

2. ANet probably shot itself in the foot with the whole "skill > time" line. The correct statement is probably:

Skill > Time. But Skill+Time > All.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'll bet if you gave a team of poor players UAS+UAR, a team of skilled players could still win easily even just with templates.

3. For the chess analogies: If GW was chess, then every team would have the exact same build, with the exact same gear and skills, every time. There would be no customisation allowed AT ALL. Is that the sort of game you want to play? Probably not. Designing your build is an added dimension in GW, that Chess doesnt have. Being limited to what you have and making the best out of it, is an added dimension that GW has, that CS does not. Both of them have the effect of diluting the effects of pure skill, and adding benefit to knowledge (and time.) Different people have different preferences - I find CS too one dimensional for my tastes - every weapon is used in a fairly similar manner, unlike Half-Life where you can shoot around corners, throw bugs at them, etc. I guess some people find GW too multidimensional - they'd like to just be able to stick to doing a small subset of things without a great deal of variety.

*****

Heck, my personal opinion probably goes against the complainers' views even more - I'd like for a bigger component of luck/craziness in the game. I want poor teams who do something desperate and unexpected to be able to win a game now and then. I'd like skilled teams with few things unlocked to be able to beat other skilled teams with lots of things unlocked to be able to win with surprise and luck. Basically give the pvp a mechanic of "you always have a chance, even just a little one!". In fight games this is added in the form of desperation/super attacks, things that can turn the tide of the battle in an instant if you are lucky, but are severely limited in use. I haven't thought about it yet, how it could be added into GW.

Kali Ma · Jun 30, 2005, 10:25 PM // 22:25

Quote:

The same people you want to beat are not winning becuase of +30 hp pommel this or spell of elite ownage that. They're winning because they're better than you.

Agreed. But let's take the basketball metaphor...

The Lakers are better than the Nuggets because they're just a better team... ok, so then why give the Lakers access to the 3pt shot or extra time outs, when the Nuggets don't have access to those because they haven't won as much? It just makes the game that much more difficult and unbalanced against the Nuggets to actually win, both stifling and discouraging a more healthy competition in any future series between them. It just makes no sense.

PieXags · Jun 30, 2005, 10:25 PM // 22:25

"You don't ask chess players to "earn" their access to a Bishop. You don't expect a 3-man basketball team to make 1,000 outside shots just to have permission to bring on players 4 and 5. You don't ask players of the mega-successful Counterstrike to get 500 headshots before you award them a Desert Eagle pistol."

Chess players can't move their bishop until they move their other pieces out of the way first.

The rules are set to allow 5 players on the field at a time, just like in this game you can have 8 players in a team at one time, or 4 in the arenas, etc. That isn't really a valid...point at all.

In counter strike you have to use some of your money in order to PURCHASE the desert eagle pistol. If you buy that you won't also be able to buy the most uber weapon out there unless you earned the money.

Tutompop · Jun 30, 2005, 10:36 PM // 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kali Ma

Agreed. But let's take the basketball metaphor...

The Lakers are better than the Nuggets because they're just a better team... ok, so then why give the Lakers access to the 3pt shot or extra time outs, when the Nuggets don't have access to those because they haven't won as much? It just makes the game that much more difficult and unbalanced against the Nuggets to actually win, both stifling and discouraging a more healthy competition in any future series between them. It just makes no sense.

Ok, so the lakers trained harder, paid more for better players and have more talent (time played, farmed, skill) but the nuggets have sub-par players, paid less, have less talent. The advantages that the lakers have just made the win more lopsided, they would still have won regardless. If the Nuggets want to win they have to work harder until they can compete with the Lakers. Winning games isn't training, its putting those skills they worked for to the test. If the lakers slacked off and the Nuggets picked up the intensity, the nuggets would win. Being the best takes work, i'm sorry its true but nobody would want it if everybody could have it at a moments notice.

Kali Ma · Jun 30, 2005, 10:41 PM // 22:41

Quote:

Chess players can't move their bishop until they move their other pieces out of the way first.

Right. But every player has the same pieces and moves available at the beginning of every match. It's simply a matter of experience and skill in how each player uses them. No matter what anybody says, this is not the case in Guild Wars, as teams do not have the same pieces and moves available to them at the beginning of every match. If this were the case, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

Quote:

The rules are set to allow 5 players on the field at a time, just like in this game you can have 8 players in a team at one time, or 4 in the arenas, etc. That isn't really a valid...point at all.

It was a metaphor, and one that I think was appropriate. Giving a better team access to elite skills and advanced items when the other team doesn't is the equivalent in basketball of allowing one team more time outs, penalties, points per shot, etc. Where I come from, if one team outclasses the other the better team will generally put a self-imposed handicap on themselves to make the game more challenging and fun, rather than accept an advantage so to better stomp the other team with. It's kinda sill really, how GW is designed regarding this.