Curse

Algren Cole · Jun 22, 2005, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminal

In this thread we have the classic mix of the clueless and the bored-with-nothing-to-do-but-post-on-a-subject-i-know-nothing-about.

A third of people compare apples to oranges and act indignant when told they are not the same thing. Sing-sing anyone ?

Lying at least once in 2 lines and geting 3 pages of responses is the hallmark of an "aware" community. You have NOT played MMOs/FPSs at all if you think that the skill system in GW is not the best yet.

I've played DAoC, Diablo, L2, SB, SWG, WoW for at least 6 months each, PvPed hardcore straight through in every one of them and I call BS on your statement.

Don't let your head hit the door on your way out.

But...after a few hours, one notices that every 2nd post in this thread was being fielded by our resident thread troll.

Lions arch PvP.

And here is this person kicking and screaming. Get into serious GvG and prepare to get your behind whipped red.

So says someone who's fighting at Lion's Arch and is newb enough to think that's GW PvP.

But will you get through the idiot trap ?

And by the way, Mr Algren Troll, you declared that you were leaving for CS and proceed to post 34 out of the 82 posts in this thread repeating your Lions-Arch-newb-PvP b1tching in a for-next loop ?

You sir, should eat more carrots.

My name is Toxin Fever and I approve this message.

when did I say I was leaving GW to play CS? I play both regularly...I cant pub in cs for more than 5 minutes before I'm banned from the server for hacking...so I only play scrims/matches...when I'm not playing CS I play PvE Guild Wars.....whether I'm playing "real" PvP or "fake lions arch PvP" doesn't change the fact that having 0 control over your characters ability to move/dodge without clicking a skill that gives you "75% better chance to dodge" is not my idea of a fun PvP environment.

Terminal · Jun 22, 2005, 06:51 PM // 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

that's an entirely different discussion...if you can't see that GW is turn based that's fine...I'm not going to argue a games symantecs.

It's semantics, not "symantecs". You've been running too many virus scans and not enough reading.

Algren Cole · Jun 22, 2005, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminal

It's semantics, not "symantecs". You've been running too many virus scans and not enough reading.

do you realize that you're now trolling...simply because I've stated my opinion that PvP is a joke...and that you don't agree with that opinion.

OneArmedScissor · Jun 22, 2005, 06:53 PM // 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

that's an entirely different discussion...if you can't see that GW is turn based that's fine...I'm not going to argue a games symantecs.

Have you ever played a turn-based game?
The simple fact that I can move at all times in the game (unless hendered by a spell, etc.) and that other people have the ability to move continously throughout the game without pause makes me believe it's not a turn-based game.
You are wrong

Algren Cole · Jun 22, 2005, 06:56 PM // 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneArmedScissor

Have you ever played a turn-based game?
The simple fact that I can move at all times in the game (unless hendered by a spell, etc.) and that other people have the ability to move continously throughout the game without pause makes me believe it's not a turn-based game.
You are wrong

yes..i've played many turn based games...being able to move does not mean it isn't turn based...having a turn means it's turn based.

you get a turn you use your skill
you get another turn you recharge your skill
you get another turn you recharge your skill some more
you get another turn you fire an arrow
you get another turn and use power shot
you get another turn and recharge power shot
you get another turn and fire another arrow
you get antoher turn and use a different skill

it's still turn based...even if some of your turns do nothing(or null)...you're still confined to turns.

OneArmedScissor · Jun 22, 2005, 06:57 PM // 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

sorry I had friends in high school...I had no inspiration to be rated by the United States Chess Federation...

I'm glad playing chess means you have no frends. Brilliant logic once again.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I play in chess tournaments and make money at it. But at the same time, I go to clubs, party, drink, skateboard, play guitar, play on a paintball team, etc.
Stop making excuses as to why you suck.

Aug · Jun 22, 2005, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

yes..i've played many turn based games...being able to move does not mean it isn't turn based...having a turn means it's turn based.

you get a turn you use your skill
you get another turn you recharge your skill
you get another turn you recharge your skill some more
you get another turn you fire an arrow
you get another turn and use power shot
you get another turn and recharge power shot
you get another turn and fire another arrow
you get antoher turn and use a different skill

it's still turn based...even if some of your turns do nothing(or null)...you're still confined to turns.

And how is this different from Counter Strike, exactly?

You get a turn you use your gun
you get another turn you use your gun again
you get another turn and reload your gun
you get another turn and switch to your knife
you get another turn and swing your knife
you get another turn and swing your knife
...

Same thing. I really fail to see any difference.

All you did was identify every point in which you had the opportunity to take an action, and declared it a turn.

Is GW turn based because the firing of a bow/staff/wand/sword is automated? Would you be happier with a longer animation and the requirement to press a button every time you attacked?

Algren Cole · Jun 22, 2005, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneArmedScissor

I'm glad playing chess means you have no frends. Brilliant logic once again.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I play in chess tournaments and make money at it. But at the same time, I go to clubs, party, drink, skateboard, play guitar, play on a paintball team, etc.
Stop making excuses as to why you suck.

so because I didn't play in tournaments I must suck....and that's brilliant logic to you?

Spyle · Jun 22, 2005, 06:59 PM // 18:59

There is a lot of luck involved in GW also..

Weapons have damage ranges, no amount of skill will make you hit for max dmg each time.

Many items give a % chance to do this that and the other, again, out of your control. No amount of skill will make those things take affect each time.

In the end I think it was a very good attempt by A-net, and hopefully another - truely skill based - RPG game will stem from it in the future.

Algren Cole · Jun 22, 2005, 07:00 PM // 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aug

And how is this different from Counter Strike, exactly?

You get a turn you use your gun
you get another turn you use your gun again
you get another turn and reload your gun
you get another turn and switch to your knife
you get another turn and swing your knife
you get another turn and swing your knife
...

Same thing. I really fail to see any difference.

All you did was identify every point in which you had the opportunity to take an action, and declared it a turn.

nevermind...it's really not worth it.

OneArmedScissor · Jun 22, 2005, 07:01 PM // 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

yes..i've played many turn based games...being able to move does not mean it isn't turn based...having a turn means it's turn based.

you get a turn you use your skill
you get another turn you recharge your skill
you get another turn you recharge your skill some more
you get another turn you fire an arrow
you get another turn and use power shot
you get another turn and recharge power shot
you get another turn and fire another arrow
you get antoher turn and use a different skill

it's still turn based...even if some of your turns do nothing(or null)...you're still confined to turns.

There is no turn because there is no defined amount of time the turn lasts.
If you're labeling this as a "turn", then everything in the universe is turn-based, based off your logic.
There is no game pausing for someone else to execute his/her turn.
The things you label as "turns" are nothing more than simple actions.
I guess taking a step constitutes as taking a turn then?
I'm gonna go take a turn and get a beer.
I can't wait for what your "turn" reveals.

Algren Cole · Jun 22, 2005, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneArmedScissor

There is no turn because there is no defined amount of time the turn lasts.

there IS a defined amount of time...each skill has a defined amount of time....would it be fair if you could use your elite skill without recharge...no it wouldn't be fair at all...but the recharge IS the turn.

Aug · Jun 22, 2005, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

nevermind...it's really not worth it.

It's not worth it because the direction of your argument led you to a direct contradiction. Of course it's not worth it for you to prove yourself wrong. I already did that for you.

JoDiamonds · Jun 22, 2005, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

you wait 5 seconds for this skill to recharge...you wait 2 seconds to use this skill...you fire 1 arrow every 1.75 seconds...THIS IS TURN BASED...the 'turn' is your skills recharging...or the time it takes you to swing an axe...or the waiting period while you fire arrows......just because it's not the same turn based system that Final Fantasy uses doesn't mean it's not turn based.

There is a traditional definition of turn based games, which includes Chess, checkers, Civilization, the large map view of the Total War RTS games. These are clearly turn based.

There are a couple of games that fake being real time over a turn based system. These include Neverwinter Nights and Wizardry 8, for instance. While you give orders in real time, there is a synchronized "turn" happening the whole while. It doesn't matter when you give a character an order to attack, they won't do it until their "turn" comes.

GuildWars is, by this traditional and fairly widely accepted definition, absolutely a real time game, not turn based. If you really want to prevent the enemy elementalist from casting Meteor Shower, you can sit and wait until you see him doing it (which is all just based on when he actually clicked, not based on any kind of synchronization with a turn system). Then you can cast your counterspell or knockdown or whatever, and thus stop the really nasty spell from going off.

Also, regardless of the "times" used that the player needs to wait for using skills, that doesn't make it turn based. You can freely wait whatever "real time" you want before taking your next action. There's no concept of a turn. neither underneath the hood nor explicitly to the player, just of time passing. This is unlike NVM, for instance, which is absolutely just faking it.

I agree that arguing semantics is pretty stupid, but there is a commonly accepted definition of turn based games, and Guild Wars doesn't fit in it.

Spyle · Jun 22, 2005, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Oh and GW is not turn-based.. Anyone who says that obviously have never played a real turn-based game.

OneArmedScissor · Jun 22, 2005, 07:04 PM // 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

so because I didn't play in tournaments I must suck....and that's brilliant logic to you?

You could have simply said, "I have no rating."
Yet, you imply that people who play chess have no friends based off some stupid stereotype.
No, I just know you suck. That's all I'm saying.

JoDiamonds · Jun 22, 2005, 07:04 PM // 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneArmedScissor

Chess is the most popular game in the world and it's been around for over 1,000 years. It's mind numbing probably because you suck at it and get owned by patzers all the time.

People who don't understand chess should not bash it by any means.

Lots of people don't like chess just because they don't like chess. It doesn't have to be because you are bad at it, or anything else. That's a foolish elitist attitude.

Chess IS kind of boring, and I played tournament chess for years.

People who don't understand that not liking something is ok shouldn't bash people who don't like it. ;)

Aug · Jun 22, 2005, 07:05 PM // 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algren Cole

there IS a defined amount of time...each skill has a defined amount of time....would it be fair if you could use your elite skill without recharge...no it wouldn't be fair at all...but the recharge IS the turn.

Except that you're not confined to one skill. There are skills you can equip with NO recharge.

Certainly you can setup your skill bar in such a way that the game feels turn based. You can equip all 20+s recharge skills, and declare that your 'turn' involves activating all 8 skills every 20 seconds. That doesn't mean that my turn is structured in the same way. I might (and often do) have multiple skills that have 0-4s recharge times. How can a turn based game work off players having different duration turns? It can't. GW is not turn based.

Rieselle · Jun 22, 2005, 07:05 PM // 19:05

I know it's so tempting to take down this guy and make him admit that he's stupid - but let's face it - either he's stupid enough not to notice, or he's smart and just having fun inciting flames.

Either way, I wish people would just plain ignore threads that end up becoming like this, personal attacks and arguments over spelling, arguments over semantics, arguments over personal preferences.

Instead, why don't people pay more attention to my entertaining, well-thought out, well meaning posts in the Sanitarium? :P

Check out "Special Death Effects", for more FUN :P

PS. My 2 cents: I wish GW didn't use the word "skill" since often people associate that with manual skill - hand eye coordination, aiming, reflexes, etc.
GW, like many other slower paced games, like RTS's that aren't from Blizzard, like most RPGs, rewards "thought", "planning", and "knowledge."

CS is one-dimensional & boring - I actually preferred HL deathmatch much more - you could set mines, shoot around corners with the octopus gun, use the "charge-up-and-fire-a-big-hit" laser, use homing rockets, or the little bugs that jump around and kill people - there are OPTIONs to WIDELY vary your play style in a game like that.

Games like CS have but two dimension of skill to them: How well you know and run the maps, and how well you can aim. Quake 3 adds another dimension - how well you can lead targets with rockets.

Games like RTS's, fighting games, GW, offer many more dimensions: Resource management, multitasking, knowledge of the game, combo ability vs. dodging ability etc, planning, etc. Some people prefer a "purer" game, like CS, whereas I like complex games where there are many many different factors to victory.

OneArmedScissor · Jun 22, 2005, 07:05 PM // 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aug

It's not worth it because the direction of your argument led you to a direct contradiction. Of course it's not worth it for you to prove yourself wrong. I already did that for you.

You can't even prove yourself right.
The sheer fact that you make this silly accusation deems the responsibility on you to prove that it is a turn-based game.
So far, I've yet to see any evidence to support this claim. And I'm fairly certain most people would agree with me on this and that you're a complete fool.