Curse

Weezer_Blue · Feb 10, 2005, 09:50 PM // 21:50

yeah it does seem like a pain in the ass. but it's probably going to be one of the coolest things in the game when it is refined and all our annoying questions and rants have been answered.

Ensign · Feb 10, 2005, 09:51 PM // 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

First of all, if you could change this regularly, then people will be flying around from group to group trying to be on the winning team.

If people were doing that, it would demonstrate pretty clearly what they thought of the Worlds at War 'feature'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

Also, 20 bucks says a favorite will emerge. And I agree with it. I think that there will be one town that everyone wants to side with for one reason or another, and it will probably be the winning team.

Well of course every PvE player wants to be in the town with the winning team. You *need* to be in the world of the winning teams if you want access to the bonus content - and if the items and missions in that content are worthwhile, then the choice is a no-brainer. You join the world that gives you best access to it.

If every player acted in their own best self interest, a game universe with N worlds would quickly collapse into a universe with 1 world, as everyone quickly realizes that they'd be better off in the 'best' world and moves there. Granted, in the real world not everyone is going to think about this that much, but the people who actually care will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpineLok

You also need to remember that some players look for a challenge, so they will automatically join a team that is less desirable...

Except that joining a 'bad' world isn't a fix for you at all. You don't control your access to the content, other people in that 'bad' world do. Sure, you might try to cast yourself as a 'savior' of that wreck of a world, but that has no effect on your ability to compete (it's still just Tombs), just which other people benefit from your winning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpineLok

Random auto-assign IMO is great way of creating the kingdoms/alliances at first.

It sounds like a bloody terrible way to do it to me. So my two friends and I all sign up for Guild Wars, log into the game, and are all assigned to different 'worlds'? Or what if I'm already in a guild, and all of our members sign up and are divided up among all of the different possible worlds? Is this really going to be anything other than yet another hurdle that we have to jump through, to get everyone on the same page?

Geographic location is incredibly tacky as a way to divide people up at first, but it is close to optimal. Assuming that people want access to the content, they want to be in a world that will tend to be winning when they're playing. If they have typical gaming schedules to other people in their geographic area, they'll have a better chance of having access to that content when they're in the same world as those nearby, as the raw number of people in any given geographic region ebbs and flows throughout the day. So, really, the best way to divide people up would be by time zone, at least until they started jumping around.

Peace,
-CxE

SpineLok · Feb 10, 2005, 10:02 PM // 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

What exactly are they trying to accomplish here? To make the Tombs matter more? Let's say that I'm holding the Hall of Heroes. My friends are likely also in the Hall of Heroes with me, since I like playing the game with my friends. So we don't get to experience the 'reward' for good play. Which means, basically, that by holding the Hall I'm unlocking content for some large segment of people that I don't know, and denying that same content to some other large contingent of people I don't know. Why am I supposed to care about this?

So why is this an addition to the game, instead of 'not that big of a detraction'?

Okay Ensign I'm not going to argue with you that this addition is not a big distraction because I completely agree with you. The way I see it is that Anet is possiblely already dead set on adding it to the game. Yes, in may ways it seems as if its going against what they have been trying to achieve with this game....

So my suggestions are merely here to try and even out the playing field for the entire GW community. As far as your concern related to the individuals holding the HOH and not being able to take advantage of what they are supplying for the reset of there alliance, yeah it seems like a huge WTF. But I think there is a solution to this if its not already implemented.

I mean why not give the guild that held the HOH at some point that day (set to GMT time, non stackable or resetable by holding HOH more than once in a day) (completely arbitray) window to access this bonus content/level whenever they want. That way they aren't SOL for all the work they put in, and in fact they get a bit more of a bonus than the individuals that belong to their alliance.

I guess if this Bonus content for holding HOH is going to exist we might as well discuss ways to make it more fair, while at the same time showing our discontent for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

It sounds like a bloody terrible way to do it to me. So my two friends and I all sign up for Guild Wars, log into the game, and are all assigned to different 'worlds'? Or what if I'm already in a guild, and all of our members sign up and are divided up among all of the different possible worlds? Is this really going to be anything other than yet another hurdle that we have to jump through, to get everyone on the same page?

What I descibed a few posts ago doesn't mean that you will not be able to join another guild if you are currently under a different allience. It just means that there is a period of time that you will have to prove your alligence to your new allience while in this new guild (See My Edit).

As far as how to split up and put people into alliances initially, there are many ways to do it, none will make everyone happy. If you do a Random assignment at first at least no one can say it was unfair, as everyone was treated the same, and it was wasn't a choice as to where "you" live geographically/timezonically "timezonically" heheh If everyone starts off in a random equally dispursed set of alliences, at least everyone started off with relatively the same advantage/disadvantage. In the end some guilds will take advantage of what some consider a disadvantage, and some will do nothing and ride it out, and some will be discontent no matter what. I guess that is what will define our different guilds and how they will cope with such events.

All in all its the luck of the draw and how you decide to take advantage of the situation or ignore it, the playing field will divide out in some crazy manor.

Ensign · Feb 10, 2005, 11:04 PM // 23:04

I think that the guiding ideas behind Worlds at War are pretty good, they're just getting bogged down by an implementation that keeps it from being a net positive.

What's the guiding idea? That there should be something 'bigger' than a guild, a larger society that individuals function within - and that the game should have mechanics that effect that entire society. Fundamentally I agree with that, and I think it has a lot of potential to add to the game. The question, as always, is implementation.

I think that instead of breaking up 'worlds' by geographic location or via a choice at startup, they should just be allowed to grow organically. A guild is the people you know and play with often, but your 'world' is composed of people you play with, their friends, some of their friends, other acquaintences you have - basically your entire social circle. One thing we've learned from the whole friendster phenomenon and the like is just how social circles are. That instead of social contacts just branching out forever, they start to loop around at 3 and 4 degrees of separation that we really don't know about. That you'd go to add someone from one social circle, and another social circle that you're a member of would already be on your map, a few degrees away. These 'megacircles' were composed of several thousand people in general, not people that you knew but people several of your friends had likely met through different sources.

I'd use that as a model for a 'world' - think of it as a huge, uncapped, casual guild. Use people's guild and friends lists to figure out who associates with whom, and break people up into worlds - or even better, just make them global invites. Anyone can join any world as long as they know someone already in it. You get the desired effect of large groups of players, but instead of them just being big groups of people, these are people that you at least have an association with. It makes worlds personal, kingdoms within the Guild Wars universe.

As for what sort of rewards and mechanics you put into place for worlds, there is just one principle that should never be violated - the players should always control their own destinies. If you want to tie access to a special area to a world, players should always be able to unlock it for themselves. "Success in Guild Wars is always a result of player skill." That's a great idea, and it isn't incompatible with Worlds at War. Unlocking bonus areas for, say, 6 hours per victory in the Hall of Heroes, for example, would be a decent mechanic. If you need to get access back to your 'champion grounds' or whatever, you get a war party together and take the Hall. Afterwards you have plenty of oppertunity to reap the rewards of your victory, if you so desire. But limiting access to game content is pretty annoying in general, especially for the large number of players who don't PvP. Competitive PvP players don't really want to PvE much, as well. The whole area access thing doesn't really seem to fit it.

Now, a reward I would like to see for holding the Hall - while you're the reigning champion in the Hall of Heroes, your character's likeness appears as a statue around the fountain in Lion's Arch. Eight players per team, eight statues, circling around the fountain with your name as a mouseover. It's a gratuitous vanity move, and lets other teams tell at a glance who they have to topple to win. Keep yourself up there long enough, and you'll actually become famous.

Peace,
-CxE

Gaile Gray · Feb 13, 2005, 08:09 AM // 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

yeah it does seem like a pain in the ass. but it's probably going to be one of the coolest things in the game when it is refined and all our annoying questions and rants have been answered.

Yes, you're right, it's going to be cool.

Everybody step back and wait until you know enough to judge this concept. Right now, you're flying off the handle and making all sorts of dire predictions based on a very brief description with only a handful of vague details. You may think this is the greatest thing since sliced cheese. You may think it's just fine, but not something in which you will get too involved. Or you may dislike it, but realize that you will get your full value in Guild Wars without worrying about the inclusion of materials that don't appeal to you.

The inclusion of this idea, like the inclusion of any, isn't a show stopper. If you don't care to participate, no problem. If you do, we think you'll enjoy it. But don't even try to narrow the scope of what we offer in our game to your own laundry list of specifications, for that's just short sighted. It's like a person saying "I don't like to use hammers, therefore I begrudge the fact that there are a ton of different hammer types in the game."

Just hold off until you know more, and forego the postulation about how it will work -- or won't work

-- until you have enough information to speak at all.

Lamaros · Feb 13, 2005, 09:03 AM // 09:03

Quote:

Everybody step back and wait until you know enough to judge this concept. Right now, you're flying off the handle and making all sorts of dire predictions based on a very brief description with only a handful of vague details. You may think this is the greatest thing since sliced cheese. You may think it's just fine, but not something in which you will get too involved. Or you may dislike it, but realize that you will get your full value in Guild Wars without worrying about the inclusion of materials that don't appeal to you.

You seem to have skipped over what some people here have been saying. The main worry is that there will be content included in the game, the game we're going to pay for, that we will not be able to access. No one is complaining that there is some PvP system being proposed when what they want is more PvM, no one is saying the whole idea sounds dull and thus it should be scrapped.

Quote:

The inclusion of this idea, like the inclusion of any, isn't a show stopper. If you don't care to participate, no problem. If you do, we think you'll enjoy it. But don't even try to narrow the scope of what we offer in our game to your own laundry list of specifications, for that's just short sighted. It's like a person saying "I don't like to use hammers, therefore I begrudge the fact that there are a ton of different hammer types in the game."

Once again, read above. The complaint isn't about a proposed facet that people don't want to participate in, it's about the fact that facet, as it has been presented to us so far in offical media, raises some questions of accesability for some people who DO seem interested in it.

Saying that we should just not participate if we don't like something in game is terrible customer service. The message seems to be that if gamers playing the game have a problem with something they should just quit and go play something else instead of expressing their thoughts/problems to the game developers. Surely this is not what you meant to say.

Quote:

Just hold off until you know more, and forego the postulation about how it will work -- or won't work -- until you have enough information to speak at all.

If you say "we're going to make missions 10 times harder" players are able to provide reasoned responses without having to see it in game.

Obviously the devs felt like that had enough information to speak to the public about this idea, therefore we have enough information to construct a reply/discuss the topic/etc.

*Removed some loaded language after reading Decoy's post below.*

Thanks,

Pasquale Lazzaro

TheRealDecoy · Feb 13, 2005, 09:45 AM // 09:45

Lamaros: please don't go down that road. Many a poster has tried to do what you have done, and it has only ended in bad. Gaile is simply trying to say that ANet has things covered, and that people shouldn't go flying off the handle because of what she said in a FF question. We'll have plenty of time to criticize the system (if needed) once we get our hands on it, but until then we just need to assume that ANet knows how to make their game.

Lamaros · Feb 13, 2005, 10:17 AM // 10:17

I had said things in my original post that expressed my frustration in a way that failed to stay on topic and I realised that and removed them (before your reply). But just to make sure I don't cloud the issue we're trying to discuss I've gone back again and cleared up anything else that could be misconstrued.

My response is directed at a misconception Gaile seems to have picked up reading our discussion on the issue, as well as being a response to the general merit of us having such discussions in the first place.

I am not questioning that Arena.Net is going to do their best to make a fun game for everyone, but to say that we should sit down and be quiet about it until we get the end product delivered into out hands is, in my view, rather silly. As an official representative I feel it is out of place for Gaile to communicate such a viewpoint.

If I caused offence in writing my post I apologise. I hope Gaile can realise that my fevour stems from anticpation and excitement and has nothing to do with any personal disagreement. I know from the other involment she has with the community that she does value our presence and discussion, and that the message she presented here isn't probably one she meant to give, nevertheless I felt I had to respond.

Peace.

Jak o · Feb 13, 2005, 11:08 AM // 11:08

About the way the world is divided. I think you all missed the primary reason for using Europe, USA and Asia as regions and not some kind of virtual alliances. From what I have read, the reason is they want to increase game performance, by having local servers that you will log on if you play with players from the same region (if you don't go to international districts), thus minimizing lag.

Keelan Trement · Feb 13, 2005, 03:47 PM // 15:47

Really, has Arena.net given us a total let down as of yet? From what we have heard, I can agree with your grievances, but we are far from having the full story. I, for one, can't wait to see how this will be implemented. We would just get a group of our best players togethor, and send the rest to PvE for us. We would be having our fun PvPing (

), and they would be having their fun PvEing (

). We would then split the loot like a good little guild, but, for some, Im sure this may not apply.

Quote:

Quoted from Lamaros:
I am not questioning that Arena.Net is going to do their best to make a fun game for everyone, but to say that we should sit down and be quiet about it until we get the end product delivered into out hands is, in my view, rather silly. As an official representative I feel it is out of place for Gaile to communicate such a viewpoint.

Who ever said we would just see the final product. They made Beta for a reason

. Who knows? You may be testing it this weekend.

Augmento · Feb 13, 2005, 04:08 PM // 16:08

to be brief, i am frothing at the use of the words "Korean World" and what that might imply to the social aspects of the game. i will not play a game where all the koreans or any other nationality for that matter is arbitrarily in one "Home world" and are set against the rest of the players. I don't need the hostility that will result.