Curse

unclearconcept · Jul 08, 2005, 12:49 AM // 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

3. in spite of the extremes leaving there are still very high reviews being given for the game AS IT IS and there are a lot of people having fun with it

this is true! i can't even get into all the commentary that's been going on, but it's why it's called a game... fun! i don't even have a pvp character and i already spend too much time playing! <- understatement of the year.

enjoy it please, for the sake of [whoever wins at the end of the game] since i haven't even finished it yet!

...and i can see why it would be nice to have all things unlocked for PvP, flexibility-wise, but you can't at the moment, and life's a bitch

arredondo · Jul 08, 2005, 01:14 AM // 01:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

i think everybody should reflect on several items

1 Anet has completely alienated the extremes on both sides.

the dingaholics are gone or going or still yelling for more levels

and the rabid hardcore pvp people are long gone going or still hoping if they yell long and loud enough Anet will scrap a bedrock core part of the game for them.

what is left is a mostly happy middle ground enjoying the game

2. while Anet does listen and respond to the customers they have a point beyond which they will not bend because in their opinion it will hurt the game.

NOTE THEY MAY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU DO

3. in spite of the extremes leaving there are still very high reviews being given for the game AS IT IS and there are a lot of people having fun with it

I give the game a 9.8 rating. I loved PvE more than Half-Life 2 or any other solo/co-op game I've played in the last few years. I still stand by everything I've said about how the PvP system and hope for continued improvements.

As I mentioned before, if it's perfect already, why do they keep taking forced PvE elements out of PvP almost every update? Either way, It remains the only game I've played for two months, and I look forward to future updates and expansions.

arredondo · Jul 08, 2005, 02:07 AM // 02:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siran Dunmorgan

In all of the arenas and more than half the Tombs maps, the goal is to kill all of the people on the other side, isn't it?

It always seemed to me that that's why we have things like bows, axes, hammers, swords and whatnot.

I don't even need to draw an analogy to make that assertion.

—Siran Dunmorgan

I wrote my post about your question on my way from work... I'm home now and thought a lot about what I'm trying to say... war is all about *unfair* competition. You *want* to have an unfair advantage over the opposition because with losing many times comes the ultimate punishment (death).

You can say defending your family from an intruder in your home is "competitive", but again it is unfair competition since each of you want to stop the other from gaining an advantage almost by any means necessary.

So with all the stuff we refer to here, we are talking about *fair* competitions. In fair competitions, the system shouldn't give an advantage to one side before the activity begins. That keeps it fair, and being stocked with options for ton of skills, runes, and gear in GW when your opponent is looking at slim pickings is uncompetitive as shown above.

Beyond that, I remember your earlier posts about a game system that might revolve around this angle. Not Guild Wars, but how about another CORPG that emphasize and even encourages unfair play mechanics? Since we've established (finally) that GW PvP system is inherently unfair (but still fun) for pure, skillful play, I'm willing to go on wild tagents:

By Any Means Necessary - a CORPG by me, myself and I

12:00 AM PST, January 1st, 2006 the game is released. Goal? To have the most points by the time the game period ends... 11:59 December 31st, 2006. How do you get the a lot of points while keeping others from doing the same? By any means necessary because the winner gets $1 million real dollars.

Let me start by saying this game is completely unfair. You are never safe, even offline. You can be killed at anytime by anyone, including your teammates. All is fair, nothing is outlawed within the game environment. Besides other players in the single persistent world, there are tons of enemy/friendly NPCs. All chat in game is 100% open. Nothing is hidden at all.

Quests, missions, goals and objectives are everywhere, but you can get points by doing any action you want. You get points every minute you stay alive. The only penalty is dying, which will always take 2% of your points away and keep you from playing for 60 real life minutes. Frustrated? Tough, because this game isn't fair.

Your character? Completely random from many programmed options. You can't adjust stats at all. Let's say your character earns points at a rate of 100 a minute, but your buddy's character gets 500 a minute... don't like it? Tough. Got awful starting skills, like gold melting in your hands making normal purchases impossible? Too bad. You started with 100 points on Jan 1st (day 1), but your brother started with 257,000 points on a new account made on August 20th? Don't complain, because no one will listen. Buy another account for $5 if stats are important to you because this game isn't fair.

Or instead, stick it out and achieve objectives that increase your point rate or allow you to improve/remove skills that you have a problem with. Or gives you the skills to steal points/items from others. Or makes you so powerful, that you can destroy anyone in your path once every 10 seconds.

Like most games, you can accumulate all kinds of super gear and abilities with no limits. Just don't be upset if you randomly lose it or break it. Or a gang of 50 team up to take you and your insta-kill weapon out for the count to steal it from you.

One ability you will want are point reading glasses. If you can see who's walking around with a lot more points than everyone else in the area, call for a mob fight and gank him. The world allows these people to hide in closests, furniture, logs, underwater, etc. to avoid getting ganked, but you'll cleverly find ways to team up with others to seek them out. Find parts to create point hoarder detectors and the like.... you'll find them.

A Grenth's Balance-esque transfer of points is given to whomever delivers the final blow to a dying character involved in a skirmish. The more points he had than you, the greater your gain and the greater his loss. Not fair that a Level 5 can steal 500,000 points from a Level 80 because he teleports in, delivers a final hit and disappears, but this game's not meant to be fair.

You have to stop playing and go to real life? Find a way to get a safe place to "live" because your character is always online. Make sure it is well hidden and/or well protected because you may find yourself buttnaked with only 50 points after 6 months of playing if you left yourself too vulnerable.

Hire bodyguards or train wicked patrol creatures. Build near-impenatrable doors. Teleport into a cave opening blocked by a giant rock. Set up fifty traps all around the entrances... your points slowly decrease on the inside, dropping faster the longer you stay "out" of the main game world and in your home, but at least you're safe. You hope.

December 31, 2006. Final day. A hidden mountain trail that is revealed in the last 24 hours of play before it's all over; $1,000,000 will be awarded to whomever reaches the end of that trail and stands atop the mountain with the most points once the clock is up. A minimum number of points is needed (unknown) to even gain access to this trail, along with 100 random others. Didn't make the cut? Too bad, this game isn't fair. Someone bought an account just before the final day and had enough points to get in? Tough luck for you, ain't it?

For those that are allowed to make the trek, deaths on the way up are aplenty. However, it now takes you out for only 15 minutes. 24 hours of team alliances forming and being broken. Promises made about splitting the prize money "if you help protect me" are common. But who can you trust?

The more powerful are taken out by mobs, while the weak hide and stealth kill, looking for opportunities for easy points. At the end of the trail, the ten highest point holders are allowed access to the peak, safe from the others. The only way to get in and bump someone out of the peak is to fight along the trail to get more points. Bumped out? Fight your way back in by getting points.

On the peak, the ten fight constantly to keep what they have as time runs down. Wenever your total drops blow a person on the trail, he comes in and you go out. Playing 24 hours (real world time) on the trail, with only 15 minute breaks during death sounds cruel, but hey, it's a $1,000,000!!! Only one winner will be left at the end. And he will have won by any means necessary.

Siren · Jul 08, 2005, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phades

Isnt tweaking it so that its less of a time sink the same as saying everyone be unlocked in X amount of time, instead of everyone being unlocked now? Dollars to donuts, people will get unlocked and should anyone new begin playing then they will just end up having to jump through those hoops as well if they decide they want to pvp. As a new person still learning the game, it will invariably be quite frustrating as they consistantly lose to older characters, that dont neccarially have more skill as a player, but experience to know what works vs what doesnt and have the options set before them to change to suit the need as neccacary. Cant really learn or adapt if the options are not there.

Personally i dont care either way what happens to the game at this point, but i dont think you are really understanding what you are saying as you type it out.

I'm understanding what I'm saying as I'm typing it out. Otherwise, I wouldn't be typing it out.

I'll explain it again. People say there's too much time involved in unlocking skills and upgrades. Some use that to say that the faction point requirements/payouts should be altered. But others say because a (week-old) system is such a huge timesink (though, based on a span of only one week, how accurate can any estimations be?), and competition must be based on only skill, the system should be scrapped entirely and the gaming populace be given an UAX system that was clearly a Beta option, which was never intended to be any part of the final product. So here we have two options:

One, tweak the system so that people can still play the game however they like and be able to equip their characters in a timely fashion.

Two, UAX.

There are only two systems we can have here. Unlock or UAX. But contrary to the opinions of some, there is a middle ground in there: an Unlock system that isn't so restrictive in terms of time investment. People are arguing for a system that requires no time investment at all. That's not going to happen, because GW is still built upon the principles of an RPG. But what can happen is a tweaking/streamlining of the current system, wherein the "hoops" (as some have come to call it) are not so daunting.

That's a much more reasonable and realistic option, I'd say...as would any rational person, I'd think...than the UAX nuclear option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arre

It's about fair competition, which is why GW is comparable to any competitive activity, including sports, when we discuss this topic. The fundamental question is, in competitive activity 'X', does it diminish skillful play when the "league" allowed one side to start an advantage over the other based on hundreds of "hoops jumped through"? Fill in X with what ever you wish, and the answer for the supporters of fair competitive play is NO.

I have to respectfully tip my hat to Siren... I really thought it would be a 10-round fight to get him to admit to the fact that I've emphasized since the beginning. The current system DOES influence the outcome of every single match based on how much time one has spent 'unlocking' gear to the league's satisfaction. Sometimes slight, sometimes great, sometimes unnoticiable, but it is indeed there. This is fact, no one can continue to argue against it.

But then you're speaking in such vague terms that you'd have to ignore differences between what particular values you plug-in for 'X'. And that would mean ignoring distinctions between how various systems are structured, which isn't a good idea, because those differences are similar to the shades of gray I mentioned earlier...hell, they are shades of gray.

In competition in the vaguest sense of the word, fine, you need to be on a level playing field--but I was never really arguing that there doesn't need to be a level playing field, only that your analogies and comparisons were crap; having a level playing field would entail everything about that system being equal and fair--and there are always inequalities.

You were pointing to outside systems and claiming they were fair because of some instant access to the best equipment...but that's false...which I've been saying all along. And that's why I've been trying to get you to use different references, examples, analogies, etc., because everything you've been bringing in is the complete opposite of what you've been trying to argue.

Nothing is fair in the world, especially when it comes to sports. The Eagles just got a new stadium less than two years ago, even when other teams had gotten state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line additions and upgrades to theirs long before. Why is this? As far as I can recall, it was a totally arbitrary "don't have the time/space/money" for it. Sports are fair? No, not really.

Whether it's the type of field a football team plays on (astroturf, for example, plays differently than grass), or their location (who would disagree that Southern teams are at a disadvantage when playing in New England, and vice versa, because they don't regularly play in those other climates?)...whether it's a particular style of racket a player is used to using, or a particular type of court...whether the military is bombing the living shit out of a lesser-developed people (it happens...oh it happens. lol)...the idea stays the same: nothing is ever truly universal and fair.

If all teams were granted dome stadiums, the best grass fields around...basically all granted the same things...where would the team dynamics be? I find it incredibly interesting when the New England Patriots are facing off against Jacksonville with home-field advantage, because there's a level of drama there because these two teams aren't facing up on an equal setting. But do we hear the losing team (let's say Jacksonville) complain about how they went in there given the short end of the stick, because they don't have a stadium in New England? No. From what I've seen, it's actually a pretty nice attitude..."We gave it our best shot, but it just didn't work out. The other team played really well, and things didn't go our way."

Even those professional players understand that their sport isn't fair and likely, isn't going to be fair, but largely, they're not ranting like we see here. They're professionals just as much as hardcore PvPers here are "professionals," relatively. So why don't we see the same kind of professional attitude? It goes back to the original question of this thread.

Also, while sports may try to be fair, it's really not going to be. There are steps it can take, sure...but ultimately, we're still going to be watching sports for the same reason we always have: to see Mike Tyson get the living crap beaten out of him in the ring. We watch to satisfy the primal urges of sex and violence. The more unfair, the better...makes for better entertainment. Think Thunderdome.

War is like this, only exponentially increased. The purpose of war is annihilation by whatever means necessary (arre, here's your latest post). War is all about exploiting weaknesses. It's about overpowering your opponent, it's about utterly destroying them. That is the purpose of combat. I don't want to turn this into a philosophical discussion about ethics...but in war, people will get hurt. They'll get embarrassed. They'll be humiliated. They'll be disappointed. They'll be killed, and sometimes, quite brutally. Sometimes, they won't even stand a chance.

Is this fair? Not at all. But it's how things work. It's how combat works. And real life sports are the same thing, sans with a few ethical rules added.

To a certain extent, GW does has ethical rules in that it's designed to minimize ganking and in that it's designed to provide balanced gameplay. But the core of the philosophy of the game...is combat. Kill the other team as fast and hard as you can. Shut them down, debilitate them. Cut off their escape. Fundamentals of war, not friendly competition. And really, the "serious competition" people are talking about...that's just another way of saying "fundamentals of war." We're not making sure our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq are equipped with the same caliber of equipment that we are...because our goal is to win.

Arre, I don't think your wild tangent is worthwhile by any stretch of the imagination, by the way. It's an exaggeration for no reason other than to be an exaggeration, and in no way, shape or form remotely resembles anything we've been discussing here.

To answer your question regarding attitudes toward victory...my goal is just to have fun, honestly. If I win, coolbeans. If I lose, shitballs. I more appreciate the fighting itself than the ethical and moral strings that some people attach to it, because ultimately...uh...people are attaching some pretty hefty moral and ethical issues...to a video game. I think that type of discussion over what's fair and all could be better utilized in something that actually, you know, matters? ~_^

The Human Torch · Jul 08, 2005, 03:09 AM // 03:09

You're right that most competitive games aren't completely fair. But guild wars is about ad far away from fair as you can realistically be. UAX would make things just as fair if not fairer than most competitive games. And the whole war analogy is flawed. There's a reason sports and pvp video games are called GAMES and war is called WAR.

PieXags · Jul 08, 2005, 03:38 AM // 03:38

(I know I said I didn't have reason to post here again, but I have to say it.)

"There's a reason sports and pvp video games are called GAMES and war is called WAR."

What about war video games?

The Human Torch · Jul 08, 2005, 03:43 AM // 03:43

:P by war I meant actual war, as in "I am running at a bunch of people trying to kill me while trying to kill them, and whoever is killed is really killed. Really." Plus, people have a choice whether or not to play video games. Soldiers don't really have a choice whether or not to participate in war.

Tuna · Jul 08, 2005, 07:49 AM // 07:49

Quote:

1) Joe has striven for perfection for hours on end to have the same stuff he could have had by clicking a different button. What a waste of time. Joe's obviously an idiot.
2) Since Joe has spent so much time accumulating skill points, he nearly has the same skills he could have had by clicking a different button.

This is only true if Joe uses his character in PvP. If Joe wants to PvE there is not other alternatitive to unlocking. Seeing as Joe PvE probably likes PvE, there shouldn't be much of a problem with that.

Quote:

4) It would in fact be a level playing field if Joe made a PvP only character, since he has access to everything. However it really wouldn't be the character Joe worked on from scratch, would it? All his effort has been wasted, because he could have had all these from the start.

The effort is not wasted if Joe enjoyed his PvE experience.

Quote:

5) I can guarantee you that aside from nostalgia (which takes months or years), there is no reason for a character to go through the campaign again. It was fun, but no one plays an RPG twice in a row without a purpose.

Then it seems you understand the problem posed by the massive skill grind in this game. It was fun the first time, but now I'm doing it my 5th.

Quote:

Without a purpose, less people will replay it, which means less people to make a group. This leads to less people playing the game because they have to spend so long finding a group. It continues in a vicious cycle until PvE is dead. Thanks to UAX.

This is a problem in every game, The absence of UAX only lenthens this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

nd you're positive this was due to mods? Armor health bonuses? "Of Fortitude"? Runes? There's nothing else it could have been due to?

No, however the point I was making was that 30 health can and does matter. Conversely to this example I'm sure there have been many times where a character has died just before that word of healing got off and could have been saved with a +30 health modifier. This doesn't only apply to +30 mods, but to anything that could speed up damage or keep you alive longer. It doesn't help all the time, but the some of the time is enough to warrant its use.

Quote:

If a skill is specialized to the point of only being effective in that particular, specific, 1/100000 build...how is that not largely useless or in some cases, fully useless? What are the chances that a player will have to defend against it enough to warrant UAX?

Because some skills are not often seen does in no way indicate that they are useless. In fact, some are incrediably usefull, it just takes more than one person to make full use of them. I"m fairly confidant if the skills were entirely useless they would not be in the game at all (unnatural signet) UAX would increase the number of noncookie-cutter builds seen as everyone would have access to the more abstract or 'useless' skills.

Phades · Jul 08, 2005, 12:36 PM // 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

I'm understanding what I'm saying as I'm typing it out. Otherwise, I wouldn't be typing it out.

I'll explain it again. People say there's too much time involved in unlocking skills and upgrades. Some use that to say that the faction point requirements/payouts should be altered. But others say because a (week-old) system is such a huge timesink (though, based on a span of only one week, how accurate can any estimations be?), and competition must be based on only skill, the system should be scrapped entirely and the gaming populace be given an UAX system that was clearly a Beta option, which was never intended to be any part of the final product. So here we have two options:

One, tweak the system so that people can still play the game however they like and be able to equip their characters in a timely fashion.

Ok from this post ill concede that you really dont know what you are talking about then. Ill refer back to a post by tuna.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

I'm suddenly inspired to do some calculations

There are roughly 450 skills, 90 of which are elite. Elites cost 3000 while regular skills cost 1000. 90 x 3000 = 270,000 and 360 x 1000 = 360,000. 270000 + 360000 = 630,000

Thats Six Hundred and Thirty Thousand (630,000) faction. You get roughly 16 per arena win, ~100 (large estimate average) from tombs, and about 380 from GvG. Thats 39,375 arena wins, 6,300 tombs wins or 1,658 GvG wins to unlock all the skills. Now if we take into account loses each number will roughly double. Thats a lot of PvP matches. A lot. 40 to 80 thousand arena matches doesn't sound like fun to me.

I'm not sure how many weapon upgrades there are and I'd rather not calculate runes, but its a fair bet that there are another couple thousand tombs wins needed to get 'em.

Lets say that someone is only interested in skills, for the sake of argument, and the simple calculations already provided. We will also assume that this person is relativly new and has no faction already built. Then take the worst case scenario that they need to earn them all, in order to fully experience everything the game has to offer in pvp. Since this person is new and competing against people that are not, it will adversly affect their performance, but we will ignore that for now. This person will most likely begin play in the arenas and will very likely take some heavy playtime before they join up with a regular crew and begin to succesfully compete in more lucrative areas such as tombs or guild versus guild.

Now that is established we will focus on just the arena fights. For the sake of argument, lets assume this person's team wins every time, with none of this person's opponents dropping out lessining the faction gain and each match lasts an average of 2 minutes, including time between matches and loading. The average time period is excessivly low, but it will illustrate my point. So 2 minutes per match and requiring 39,375 arena wins would translate into just over 54 days spent in front of the keyboard playing the game. Somehow you are trying to argue that a system like this is reasonable in terms of balance in a realm that doesnt really need anything stopping from people competing against each other on the same terms. Calculations like that remind me of EVE online where the player is basically forced to sit and wait for skills to train, so that the character will be on the same playing feild when it comes to pvp. In eve, much like this game, the actual tools available are important, but can be worked around if they are not available unlike in pvp. Also the equipment is a bit less important comparitivly as it merly adjusts the efficiency the character operates at in the pve environment, while in the pvp environment it can easily be the edge that determines sucess from failure.

This model for advancement is very common for pay to play services, which esentially ensures the company's finances at a pre-determined rate. This is achieved at rating the amount of allowed player advancement versus the timing of the next content release. This seems fairly pointless considering the setup ANET has with guidlwars.

Arguing for it to be reduced is the same as arguing for it to be removed, hence my earlier comment regarding that you didnt understand what you were suggesting as you did so. Either you are pro exclusive content or you are pro inclusive content, there really isnt any middle ground here. I found it amusing at first that you were then rebuttling against those who suggested the removal of the system entirely in favor for a balanced playing field. It has become stale and i think you need to realize what you are doing.

Personally i feel that the correct path is to seperate the pvp and the pve worlds and allow for the unlock system to exist for the pve players, as it shows a natural progression through the pve game, while allowing for the pvp players to fight against each other on the same terms. Others have voiced a similar opinion and the only real drawback is the smaller playerbase for each side to draw upon for pvp style encounters. Considering the existing pvp system, it doesnt make sense to keep characters anyway, so recycling the slots and remaking the characters to suit the need makes sense. By contrast taking a pve character into pvp, forces the character into a quasi stasis, as the character is no longer able to re-assign points due to the removal of exp from the fights until the pve character goes out and kills X minotaurs or whatever to regain the points in order to respec for another build strategy.

The pvp system feels very incompatible with the pve system and is highlighted by many of the opinions posted within these forums. I think the intent was to blend the two without forcing anything on anyone, but the exact opposite was achieved. I will agree that a revamping of the system is neccary, but in doing so requires to essentially scraping the entire system placed before it as is now.

MuKen · Jul 08, 2005, 02:19 PM // 14:19

Arredondo, I will begin by saying I completely agree with your play preferences. I would have loads more fun if I was free to experiment with all of my build ideas right now instead of having to finish unlocking all the elites, runes, etc (a process I still enjoy, but would prefer to be separate from my pvp experience). I more greatly enjoy a competitive game that stresses player attributes over character attributes.

To a degree, I look down on the attitude of people who feel the need to be rewarded with a material competitive advantage as opposed to simply an advantage of self-improvement with their time investment. I feel that this implies a lack of confidence/reliance on the self, and says something about you as a person.

These examples where people say there will always be an advantage with time invested because it leads to knowing better combinations and strats, etc. make no sense to me, because there is a difference between an advantage gained via self-improvement, and an advantage gained via game-given variables.

I have stated these opinions so you will know that what I say next comes from someone who shares your views, and is not simply being said for the sake of arguing against you. You are being just as close-minded as the people you argue against. You fail to see that you have interests and desires, and other people have different interests and desires. This very discussion proves that there are many people who feel passionately about both sides.

You forget that A.net's purpose in making Guild Wars is NOT to create a professional competition like basketball or chess. If it were, then you would be correct in that it would be best served in removing time-investment advantages. But the main purpose is to make a game that is fun for their players. And as we have seen, many players do want a system of rewards for their time invested in pvp.

Anybody who claims that their opinion on how the game should be is the right one needs to back it up with polls/surveys/research into what best pleases the majority of the playerbase. I have seen none of this on either side.

Loviatar · Jul 08, 2005, 02:50 PM // 14:50

i think this one simple question covers everything.

what exactly is the target group of players that Anet is shooting at with GW?

i was not in the planning of it but they are obviously (by observation) shooting for the truly CASUAL gamer and not the self proclaimed 4-6 (or more) hour per day player who calls that much casual

not the hardcore dingaholic

not the super hardcore pvp either

by sales of the game they seem to be on target and remember that the game has just come out

i think in another 6 months we will have a much better idea of where the game is going but we will not be seeing a major shift from where we are now

i said MAJOR not that there may not be a bunch of heavy (or light) tweeking

arredondo · Jul 08, 2005, 02:55 PM // 14:55

MuKen... I'm not as closed minded as you may think. The most difficult thing here I believe was making the consistently strong point that it is indeed a fact that the current system devalues skillful competitive play. That is a fact.

However, in one of my last posts I acknowledge that there are people who have reasons for preferring that difference, or "opinion", on this matter. I can not tell people to like it the way I like it anymore than they can make me feel like I do. But before discussions of preference can take place, it was important that we at least acknowedge the factual state of things as they exist today.

Of course I have my own very strong feelings about it because of how much emphasis I see being made on the serious aspect of PvP, and I also think they can get away with not offending PvE people by adding rewards that are not PvP-related. That is a major reason why they wish to hold back PvP from what it could be like they do.

I like both modes, but for different reasons. I play Guild Wars so much, if I were only paid minimum wage per hour I'd still be a rich man. And it is because I like it so much that I have the strong feelings about it that I've expressed. I'm not even asking for all this to necessarily make things "easy" for me. For my chosen professions, I only have one major rune and three superiors to get before I can *almost* ignore my RPG character for PvP play (she still has some better weapon options that I can never get in PvP only).In the end, I don't want to have an adavantage, no matter how slight, for my hundreds of hours devoted to 'unlocking' activities, just like I don't someone to have any such advantage over me. With that said, I dread the day when I'm ready for a new combo class.... I do NOT want to PvE again with a new RPG character until the expansion comes out. I'm dragging out my experimentations with my current class so Arena.net can fix the system to where it's easier to switch primaries for PvP. I understand it may be awhile before they come to their senses however

arredondo · Jul 08, 2005, 03:30 PM // 15:30

Siren:

Fairness in the structure of the rules is the common theme in all activity 'X's. I've addressed this numerous times. The supporters of what I've been saying and I who value skillful competition want to rise and fall with no league influence on the outcome based on hours grinded to please them so we can fully explore all the allowed "gear" options available.

Let's say I'm an expert at playing my desired UAX Guild Wars PvP. Let's say for this discussion there is an official 1v1 mode, and I'm known everywhere as being the top dog. Someone e-mails me and says there's a teenager in Ethiopia who wishes to challenge me in a match 12 months from today. A few problems though....

- He hasn't played Guild Wars before
- He hasn't even used a computer before
- His poor 1-room hut doesn't even have electricity

I accept the challenge, and expect to pulverize him (in the game). However he makes me promise that i will not hold back... he doesn't want any advantages applied to him, he doesn't want me with any handicaps. I respect that immensely, as that is what skillful competition is all about. Win or lose, it is 100% on you to step up and take care of your business.

Guess what? The kid is a prodigy. He's adopted by a family in England. Besides his studies, he gets time at a rec center to learn to play games, including Guiild Wars. He spends all his free time there learning how to play. Nearly a year later, he's done so well in school, that he is given a computer of his own with his favorite game already loaded on it.

I get a message that he's ready to play me. He's practiced for months and it shows. He only recently got his current copy, but so what? All the options are available because of UAX! He puts up a GREAT fight, but still gets pulverized (because, 1v1 I am the man you know

) With that said, it was a fair competition, pure skill determined the winner, and we both look forward to future matches against each other.

Now, withOUT UAX in that scenario, there are all kinds of OTHER variables to influence the outcome as you (and I) point out, but he should at least have the chance to face me with the same league-allowed options that I have. What kind of match would it be if I have almost all unlocked, but he is using a new account? Sure he had it tough in real life just to be able to compete, but to get past the challenges one has in one's situation in life, no one considers that "unfair" in competition because the league isn't forcing the situation on you. What would've been unfair is me vs. him in a non-UAX match.

I control your destiny, and while I may not always overcome my challenges (I'll never get the world record for the 100M Dash), as long as the league doesn't limit my potential to do my best, it's accepted that the rest is up to me to maximize my potential (no matter how impossible the goal may seem).

Fair play and equal ability are two separate issues. In fair play, we expect the rules to be the same for all of us, regardless of hours grinded to please the league. In competitions between inherently equal or unequally skilled competitiors, it's up to those competitiors to put themselves in a position to win. One tenet is that the competition is free of influence by the league, the other is all about what you can do (or can not do) to prepare yourself to win based on your personal situation. As long as the league doesn't influence the latter, then you can only blame your particular situation for your failings (or successes), NOT the league.

As for the By Any Means Necessary game, lol, I was being serious! I was wondering out loud what a game that de-emphasized fair competition would be like. Ignore it.

PieXags · Jul 08, 2005, 03:34 PM // 15:34

Ok this thread should die. Every single idea in this thread has shown up at least 10 times over the pages, and the argument isn't getting anywhere.

If one side to the argument could possibly prove it's side right over the other it'd be fine, but it's simply impossible because there is no "right" or "wrong" to this. It's a matter of opinions tossed around as supposed facts and nothing more. We've all said what we wanted to say, and I'm sure there's enough in here so that the devs that look over this place have seen it.

Can we let it die?

Please?

For my sake if nothing else.

The Human Torch · Jul 08, 2005, 04:20 PM // 16:20

...but no one has supported a good argument against UAX. They've just dodged the questions over and over. Loviatar, this game was obviously not intended for the casual player. Just look at the numbers for how long it takes to grind faction, in addition to the fact that you'll need to play through PvE a few times. Only the hardcore who have time to grind faction all day long or complete PvE again are rewarded by the current system.

Siren · Jul 08, 2005, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

Fairness in the structure of the rules is the common theme in all activity 'X's.

Arredondo, no...it isn't. Something as simple as a southern team like the Atlanta Falcons playing the Green Bay Packers. One team is at a disadvantage. Fairness, my ass. lol. Do you disagree that a team playing in a climate completely opposite to their home field is unfair?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phades

Arguing for it to be reduced is the same as arguing for it to be removed, hence my earlier comment regarding that you didnt understand what you were suggesting as you did so.

No, it isn't. I'm not arguing for the system to be completely excised from the game...never have been. In the course of the discussion here, I've never condoned removing the PvP unlock system. I'm not sure where you're going with your post, but I'm telling you what I'm arguing and what Arre has been arguing...are two entirely different things.

I've re-iterated numerous times that UAX is a nuclear option at the complete opposite extreme of this spectrum, and only should be considered when all other options have been exhausted, when there is no chance in hell the system can go anywhere else, and most importantly, when it is undeniable from all points of view, developer or otherwise, that no other avenue is possible.

But as it stands now? We've not arrived at that point. The system is only a few weeks old and already people are calling for its demise. Perhaps I'm just patient, but I think people are kind of jumping the gun here by ranting and raving like this not even three weeks after the PvP unlock system was updated.

I'm saying that tweaking/altering the system should be tried first.

Others are saying the system should be thrown out entirely without a second thought.

That's not saying the same things here. That's not the same argument. That's not arguing for the same thing, and it's not arguing the same thing.

Siran Dunmorgan · Jul 08, 2005, 04:42 PM // 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Human Torch

...but no one has supported a good argument against UAX.

Indeed?

Well... let me try this one, then:

There is no UAx in the game because adding one would impair the flexibility available to the designers in expanding the game.

The designers have goals in mind of what they would like to accomplish with this game, in terms of strategic and tactical 'depth'.

I have offered the example—not that I expect it to be implemented, but it is one possibility—that at some point, resources available to PvP teams will act as actual controllable resources, i.e., it will be possible to either re-lock or even 'steal' an enemy's access to a skill, rune or weapon upgrade. Even the possibility of this option would be intrinsically denied if UAx were available.

Another possibility includes long-term PvP rewards, such as the winners of a tournament being granted access to a 'special' skill that only members of that guild could use: UAx sets a precedent against this option.

These are only a couple of ideas; any creative team such as ArenaNet could come up with a dozen others.

And before you offer specific objections to these specific ideas—respond to the underlying idea: that implementation of a UAx system would close off entire domains of future design options, and open up none.

—Siran Dunmorgan

MuKen · Jul 08, 2005, 04:45 PM // 16:45

arredondo: I'm glad to hear that you can respect other people's views as well, and am impressed with your ability to take a post like mine, which was rather harsh, in stride. I agree with your assessment: more emphasis on in-game advantages like skills and runes translates to less emphasis on player skill. There are three things that influence a zero-sum game, game mechanical advantages, player ability advantages, and luck of the situation, and any game will balance these three. So it cannot be debated that more of one (game mechanics) equals less of the others.

arredondo and The Human Torch: That being said, this does not translate to an argument for why the game should be one way or should be another. I will tell you the one good argument against UAX that, if not stated, has been present throughout this debate: somebody (the people you are arguing against) don't like it. You do not need to justify a like or dislike with logic, it is simply there. And that dislike itself is logical justification for not having it, because, as I said, A.net's goal is to serve the wants of its players.

None of us can know how much the playerbase as a whole wants or does not want UAX. Your friends, a site survey, message boards....none of these things are random samples of the playerbase. So as long as we know that there are people existing in both sides, we have no choice but to accept that neither is necessarily right.

The one suggestion I saw some pages back that looked really good to me was to have another arena existing that is separate from the current arenas and ladders and has UAX, so that there would exist an outlet catering to each taste. This would be a great idea, and hurts nobody.

arredondo · Jul 08, 2005, 05:26 PM // 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Arredondo, no...it isn't. Something as simple as a southern team like the Atlanta Falcons playing the Green Bay Packers. One team is at a disadvantage. Fairness, my ass. lol. Do you disagree that a team playing in a climate completely opposite to their home field is unfair?

Sigh:

"Fairness in the structure of the rules is the common theme in all activity 'X's."

To take your example....

A)
- Are the two teams equal in abilities? No.
- Is it because of league influence of mandated "hoop jumping"? No.

B)
- Is it a situtuation that the worse team must deal with to better prepare themselves? Yes.
- Is it a situation that the better team has already dealt with in better preparing themselves? Yes.

Group A are at the mercy of pleasing the league. That's anti-competition. Group B are directly involved at improving or worsening their situation with NO LEAGUE INFLUENCE. That's the reality of competition.

The moral of the story (expressed on page 1 of this thread forward)? Rise and fail on your own with no influence from the league rules to help or hinder you. The rules are all that we ask to be fair. The rules are all that I've compared in all activities that must be fair. Is football fair? Yes! Is real life unfair? Sometimes, yes!

Arena.net is 100% in control of ensuring that GW PvP be fair. They may choose to add anti-competitive mechnics, but the control is theirs to unfairly limit or aid my skillful abilities. What can Arena.net do about a team's inability to beat War Machine if they decide to pick random skills on random builds? Nothing, because good fortune, bad fortune, stupidity or genius is the player's responsibility, NOT Arena.net's responsibility. We are asking for fairness from the "league" in what they control and nothing else.

Notice the title of this thread? Notice the theme of my posts? They are all about what the "league" is in control of. If my team loses a match because of my teammate's poor play, what does that have to do with Arena.net (UAX implemented BTW)? I'll complain to him about his failure to follow the plan, but that does not mean Guild Wars (UAX on) is unfair. It just means my teammate is a scrub, and life is indeed unfair sometimes when it saddles you with scrubs. It's up to ME to do something about life's issues, not Arena.net.

Finally, weather issues? C'mon man. Is that the fault of the structure of the rules that force snow to come from the heavens? All teams know life is unpredictable. All teams prepare the best they can. Are they equal in being prepared? No. Is it the league's rule that they are FORCED to be unprepared? No. If the losing team is desparate to win in snow, let them go all out to practice in Alaska.... I don't care, but as long as there is no forced disadvantaged burned into the written rules (or in GW's case, the written code) that force a disadvantage (or advantage) for one side over the other before a match begins.

Siren · Jul 08, 2005, 05:39 PM // 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by arredondo

Sigh:

"Fairness in the structure of the rules is the common theme in all activity 'X's."

To take your example....

A)
- Are the two teams equal in abilities? No.
- Is it because of league influence of mandated "hoop jumping"? No.

B)
- Is it a situtuation that the worse team must deal with to better prepare themselves? Yes.
- Is it a situation that the better team has already dealt with in better preparing themselves? Yes.

Group A are at the mercy of pleasing the league. That's anti-competition. Group B are directly involved at improving or worsening their situation with NO LEAGUE INFLUENCE. That's the reality of competition.

The moral of the story (expressed on page 1 of this thread forward)? Rise and fail on your own with no influence from the league rules to help or hinder you. The rules are all that we ask to be fair. The rules are all that I've compared in all activities that must be fair. Is football fair? Yes! Is real life unfair? Sometimes, yes!

Arena.net is 100% in control of ensuring that GW PvP be fair. They may choose to add anti-competitive mechnics, but the control is theirs to unfairly limit or aid my skillful abilities. What can Arena.net do about a team's inability to beat War Machine if they decide to pick random skills on random builds? Nothing, because good fortune, bad fortune, stupidity or genius is the player's responsibility, NOT Arena.net's responsibility. We are asking for fairness from the "league" in what they control and nothing else.

Notice the title of this thread? Notice the theme of my posts? They are all about what the "league" is in control of. If my team loses a match because of my teammate's poor play, what does that have to do with Arena.net (UAX implemented BTW)? I'll complain to him about his failure to follow the plan, but that does not mean Guild Wars (UAX on) is unfair. It just means my teammate is a scrub, and life is indeed unfair sometimes when it saddles you with scrubs. It's up to ME to do something about life's issues, not Arena.net.

Finally, weather issues? C'mon man. Is that the fault of the structure of the rules that force snow to come from the heavens? All teams know life is unpredictable. All teams prepare the best they can. Are they equal in being prepared? No. Is it the league's rule that they are FORCED to be unprepared? No. If the losing team is desparate to win in snow, let them go all out to practice in Alaska.... I don't care, but as long as there is no forced disadvantaged burned into the written rules (or in GW's case, the written code) that force a disadvantage (or advantage) for one side over the other before a match begins.

How many teams does the league itself provide domed stadiums for? The best grass? Is there a consistent top-of-the-line quality throughout the league, provided by the league? The league can't control the weather, but they sure as hell can control how the weather hits the players...and do you see anything being done to "balance" that?

You've said that sports are fair, arredondo. They aren't. If they were, McNabb would have been given some leeway on the clock after he started vomiting on the field in the last SuperBowl. lol