Curse

Xellos · Apr 23, 2005, 02:15 PM // 14:15

Your getting way too deep man. I was just saying that stupid is a very vague word, and even though this forum is a mannered one, an occasional word does slip in by almost everyone. I'm just saying to lighten up. Getting frusterated on the internet is a sure sign you need to lighten up.

Remember, I was calling technicality. I have no bias on what was said. Just pointing things out. There's no need to justify yourself to me.

Lastly, it'd be nice to stay on topic

if you want to respond to me, respond to my opinions on dueling!

Sin · Apr 23, 2005, 02:27 PM // 14:27

Xellos, I did respond to what you said. I agree with you about what Arena.net should focus on. That is the entirety of my response to what you said. As you may not be aware, I am against dueling. So there is no schedule for me, and I have a greater respect for Arena.net and this program, however to discuss those things as you have is more off topic discussion huh?

So far as being on topic. I don't see you erasing your commentary regarding making excuses right? So where is it you get to comment to me responding to someone else, and are untouched? Expect response too. Suddenly it's taken to another level of meaning "you're taking it too deep." Dude it really isn't my fault others take it too shallow, or more accurately too "tall" as that is the opposite of deep in fact.

This isn't tort and re-tort for the sake of torting as then we are "tortoises" akin to trolls now huh?

This is a serious change to the game that people are just jumping into without considering any of the other elements to it. What else is likely to occur than these be presented. And if someone starts name calling, I didn't choose their weakness, they did, and I try to help them see it so it doesn't happen again. Note I have told no one they are wrong, nor ever said I was right throughout my posts. So please, thank you for your concern for my welfare, however it appears it is very misplaced in consideration of your own.

In any event, your position is yours and I haven't really a problem with it due to it not making any definitive statement, especially a time table, so it really doesn't contemplate affecting future development of the game in a negative way. Should you edit or post otherwise hereafter it is likely just to antagonize so will be ignored.

Enjoy Xellos

(By the way it is big of you to think I am justifying myself to you when making a public post read by all.)

I hope you all realize my interest is this game's development not being hindered with side issues that detract from it's own originality. The routine of the gaming industry needs some uniquness to foster more. GuildWars may not be considered a magnanimous achievement by a unanimous concensus, however there is a reasonably generous level of uniqueness to this game that could usher in a larger scale amount of differences in development. Isn't it just a bit too routine what we think these games should require? If they are all so alike no wonder we become bored with them so easily. Finis.

*Edit* For the "too deep" crowd, I am within a short distance of Garden Grove California. Are you all aware of the closing of internet cafes here because someone came in and killed someone else over being beaten in a computer game? So make the effort to realize there is an honest concern out of me here.

Xellos · Apr 23, 2005, 02:53 PM // 14:53

Quote:

Xellos, I did respond to what you said. I agree with you about what Arena.net should focus on.

Oh Snap, I'm stupid lately.

Quote:

I hope you all realize my interest is this game's development not being hindered with side issues that detract from it's own originality. The routine of the gaming industry needs some uniquness to foster more. GuildWars may not be considered a magnanimous achievement by a unanimous concensus, however there is a reasonably generous level of uniqueness to this game that could usher in a larger scale amount of differences in development. Isn't it just a bit too routine what we think these games should require? If they are all so alike no wonder we become bored with them so easily. Finis.

Hey, it's your choice. But just like you saying those "people" don't think about their suggestions before they post, you should think about your own posts before you post them. Are they effective? Are they worth the time? What target audience are you serving? Blah blah blah. Don't blindly tell people to think before they post when you aren't doing the same.

Sin · Apr 23, 2005, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Whatever Xellos. If you can't tell how much thought has been put into it. Then you must be looking from such a different angle it is impossible to see, and I am sorry for that. Certain I am that what is said won't be effective with you. In that, no matter what is said you seek the right to claim for yourself or the wrong in the other, even if by technicality, some television styled "last word" I guess. It's okay though. See I admire some of your posts here and there. But in this situation you are taking on everything but the issue yourself. Now in that regard, surely I have been far more effective than even you realized. Your response demonstrates this rather more than perfectly, if there is such a thing.

Thank you for your time man. Cya on another part of the board. You have the virtual "floor."

*Edit* So Xellos, in looking at me, ask yourself if maybe what I have said are my reasons really are? Now the answers to all the questions you think I didn't ask myself posting will come to pass. Believe me I really appreciate people that look at things carefully so please take this as a complement. Additionally my "not being obliged" should assist you in realizing I see this very weighty, especially in light of incidences within 2 miles of where I live. Picking up and into what is perceived as an argument, is easy. You want reality try someone being shot over being beaten in a duel. That is the stark lead projectile of reality that few if any wish to have anywhere near them--far more real than any philosophical stances.

Xellos · Apr 23, 2005, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Since you basically killed off any chance for me to rebute, I'm just going to say my angle was from all sides, intertwining efficiency with real life and productivity. It's a pessemistic angle, but it seems realistic.

Try looking at Saulasaurus Rex. He always tells people to search, even me sometimes (sorry Rex

). But how successful is he? Not very. He of course still needs to do his job, but you, your not obliged to. And secondly, Rex spends alot less time then you.

So in conclusion, the angle I look at is you.

Lunarhound · Apr 23, 2005, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Sin, Your entire argument seems to be that introducing 1v1 combat will cause people to create builds that work well in 1v1, find out that they don't work well in real PvP, and that this will somehow cause the game to fall apart. If this were the case, it'd fall apart in any situation where different builds were required for different situations.

The fact that PvE has educational value and 1v1 combat doesn't, is completely irrelevant and my point still stands. If there are people who are going to come unhinged whenever they create a build that works in one situation and doesn't work in another, then they're going to do that regardless of what the situation is. They'll do it when their 1v1 build doesn't work in Tombs, they'll do it when their PvE build doesn't work in GvG and they'll do it when their anti-caster build doesn't work against warriors.

You've missed my point completely, as regards the nonexistent "stupid" person. I'm not calling anyone names. What I'm saying, is that you're basing all of your arguments on trying to tailor the game to some hypothethical person who is completely incapable of understanding that not all builds work for all things and is never going to have any cause to get upset when changing situations require changing strategies.

If Guild Wars were going to come undone the moment someone had to modify their build to suit a different type of battle, it would have come undone a long time ago. Your long, complex rants on why GW's delicate balance is foing to be shattered by allowing people to fight each other one on one, in private, is what we call overthinking the situation. You're trying so hard to prove your point that you're concocting doomsday scenarios based entirely on conjecture in which a hypothetical person, in a hypothetical state of mind, is going to have a hypothetical reaction when the build he created for a duel doesn't work in every situation. This reaction will (hypothetically) cause a chain reaction that will cause Guild Wars to come crashing down around our ears.

No, you're right, I can't take that seriously. Plenty of games have implemented duels before when they weren't balanced for them, and none of them that I'm aware of have been destroyed yet because of it. Consentual dueling is and always has been something to do for fun that has no effect whatsoever on the rest of the game.

Xellos · Apr 23, 2005, 03:33 PM // 15:33

Wow, he said what I wanted to say in 1 post. I feel so sad.

Err at least the first part.

This is one heated arguement

Sin · Apr 23, 2005, 03:58 PM // 15:58

That is not what I am saying. To you it's insignificant and you are trying to apply that to everyone else. It has nothing to do with the build itself. You want to focus there because that's consistent witht he insignificance you apply to it.

Again: They closed down or are in process of closing down, the internet cafes in Garden Grove California because someone lost a duel, walked into the cafe, and shot the person who beat them. Does this have anytyhing to do with builds? Pay attention! It doesn't. For you I am merely saying the game will fall apart over a build, for me I am suggesting one area of fallout from implementing your most emotionally empassioned need for dueling.

In addition I am also hoping that out of some shread of decency of consideration and to assist you in understanding the weight this has far beyond some isolated vacuum of a game that you appear to only see, there are people, real genuine people, not characters on the screen and their build. These do things and they do things with about the same rationality as those promoting implementation of something into a game that it is entirely not intended nor designed for. The evidence is their non-chalant attitude toward it, as though it happens in a vacuum. It doesn't and you clearly won't recognize that because it truly shows in as great a logic as you can muster that this idea isn't a good one, that people do irrational things and yes companies can be held accountable--look at tobacco companies, gun manufactures, etc. if you are reaching for an example.

So while you may think this idea is isolated, I am sorry it is not. Would you like to talk to the family who lost a loved one and explain to them why 1v1 dueling is necessary in computer games? Consider it all and not just you vacuum please. Consider it on the idea that no one is stupid and no one here is unreasonable because Lunar I know you are not. Let go of the emotional reaction to the idea we must be allowed as we don't have to be allowed anything. EULA makes that perfectly clear. This holds true especially if we are disregarding everything outside the suggestion just because it makes it easier to claim "this is the only thing to think about!, as you point to what you claim is it" Well obviously it isn't.

By the way, to reiterate, considering how the way the game works, it's current mechanics and rules aren't being understood or just being deemed "not required to be changed" (and thus not needing to be considered) only is exactly what my "hypothetical" person is doing isn't it? So really they aren't hypothetical, they are you and all the others who want to take all that is and all other considerations and ignore it for the "I wants."

Also, I never said GuildWars would come undone, that's you all choosing to see something to justify your argument. Please review before you project your perceived drama of what I said on what the words actually were.

Lunar you edited out where you called them stupid. You poor boy. Winning an "argument" is that important to you that you have to edit out what you said? I can't even believe you did this. Such is the cheat as usual, however anyone who read it with any wits about them before 2:44 am may remember. I know I do. And this my friend ends our conversation because you cheated, and in so doing, you evidenced my hypothetical person is entirely and in fact without any question you!

I once respected your opinoins lunar, even supported some down the line. This however has lowered my opinion of you entirely. It is truly loathsome and of zero integrity.

*Edit* Lunar as I look at all the editing you've done to save face, I do apologize for how this thread has affected you. I wish you hadn't let it become emotional to you. I really do. So I do apologize for whatever I said in light of how it appears to have distorted the entire thread regarding your editing of your posts. Very sad indeed.

*Edit* Yay! I found the second reference!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunarhound

I understand what your'e saying, Sin, but really, you're blowing all of this way out of proportion. Anyone who has absolutely no comprehension of the fact that every build isn't going to work in every situation, and starts accusing other people of cheating the moment they lose, well... that person is, in a word, stupid. If things were constantly left out just to accomodate theoretical stupid people, we'd barely have a shred of a game.

That is what is going on here with the continuation of the argument to have dueling in light of how it is not, IS NOT occuring in a vacuum. I guess when the public outcry goes off again for more than just a rating system, maybe then you'll get the entirety of what I am saying. Maybe when you notice the promises of the expansion are far more than the delivery, maybe then you'll get it. I doubt it though. Goodbye. Enjoy your certainty in your vacuum.

Dreamsmith · Apr 23, 2005, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Common arguments against dueling:

"The game isn't balanced for 1v1", "the game isn't designed for it", etc.

So? Dueling leagues have been highly successful and fun in games far more unbalanced than this one.

How does that work? The same way it does in real life. Ever fenced, or even been to a fencing tournament? If not, allow me to explain: there are all kinds of things you could do while fighting someone that are perfectly allowed by the laws of physics but are disallowed by the rules established by those participating in the event. You can't, for example, grab someone's epee out of their hands and punch them in the face. Even though the laws of nature allow this, we can still hold fencing tournaments without difficulty by making such a move against the rules of the contest. Likewise, it is equally irrelevant that certain rules of the game physics and combat engine would make a "no holds barred" match unbalanced. Dueling leagues establish rules regarding what is or isn't allowed in a duel. Now, if two people want to engage one another outside the framework of such a format, well, that's up to them. A duel is not a randomly chosen 1v1 match. A duel is between two people who agree upon, if nothing else, the desire to duel one another.

If you think game balance issues are at all relevant here, you have a profound misunderstanding of what dueling is.

"It will give people false ideas about GvG play."

People will develop false ideas about GvG play doing anything at all other than GvG play if they assume everything in the game is the same. When they get to GvG, they will learn better. This is exactly what occurs now when people have only played PvE and Arena. Since adding dueling doesn't change that any (the guy who developed his strategies based on dueling rather than on PvE is in no worse shape), this is not a valid objection. It's essentially saying what happens right now will continue to happen. This is true whether dueling is implemented or not, so it's neither an argument for nor against it.

"It would require too much effort to implement."

It requires two simple changes. One, allow Arena teams to be formed rather than be random. This is exactly how other parts of the game work, so this is already essentially implemented, it just needs to be enabled in the Arena, or an Arena-like area if we want to leave the Arena alone. The big change would be to allow teams to specifically challenge other teams. There's a similar mechanic for GvG challenge matches already, but it would need to be adapted to allow Arena teams to enter the name of an opposing team's leader, who would then accept the challenge as in GvG. Again, we're looking at a feature that's really already in the game, it just needs a bit of tweaking to adapt it to an Arena-style area.

Really, the game is so close to already having this feature, those who want it can already taste it, and that's what's so frustrating, particularly when everyone else acts like it's some huge change. Heck, some people have been clamoring for a Practice Arena. If that alone was added, you'd get exactly what duelists want, right there! Bam! You're done! Duelists can now arrange and play out their duels. Role-players can satisfy matters of honor the old-fashioned way. And as long as there are no restrictions on team size (you can go in with one or with eight people or anything in between), it can even be useful for people trying to prepare for GvG.

"People will complain that the game isn't balanced for 1v1, and ArenaNet will rebalance it and ruin team play in the process."

ArenaNet isn't that stupid. 'nuff said.

"People will complain tht the game isn't balanced for 1v1, and feel ArenaNet is ignoring them."

Now we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, aren't we? People complain about a great many things, make a great many suggestions, and ArenaNet ignores the vast majority of them. I find it highly improbable that adding dueling would make a measurable difference here. Indeed, this argument is a double-edged sword. The same people are already complaining about a lack of dueling. So since this point is true regardless of whether dueling is implemented or not, it constitutes an argument neither for nor against dueling, except for one thing: if you implement dueling, at least some people will be happy with it. That will reduce complaining and player frustration to some extent. It might be argued that others who never would have complained will engage in duels and start complaining, but any assertion about whether that number will be more or less than the number of people satisfied by the addition would be highly questionable. My own guess would be that it would be about equal to the number of people who currently vigorously complain about the Arena imbalance and demand AN fix it, which frankly isn't much. Most people take the Arena for what it is, or just leave it alone. Dueling would probably be much the same.

"You shouldn't get rank, fame, or experience for dueling."

Agreed. You should never get anything for matches in which the players choose their opponent. Neither individual nor GvG challenge matches should be ranked in any way. That's just begging for abuse.

Indeed, I believe the ideal format for allowing dueling would be to implement a "practice arena", because that no only provides a venue for duelists to challenge and play against one another, but has so many other possible uses, benefitting anyone who engages in just about any form of PvP, depending on what they choose to do in it. Heck, I suspect serious guilds will end up getting more use of it than anyone else, but as long as dueling leagues are allowed to use it, and it's not somehow gimped to prevent such use, this would make duelists very happy.

Lunarhound · Apr 23, 2005, 04:16 PM // 16:16

Uh... Sin, I haven't edited my previous post, except to fix some spelling and grammatical errors. This is starting to get ridiculous. Now you're talking about people getting shot over games in internet cafes. That doesn't have anything to do with one on one fighting. That has to do with people getting upset over losing, period. The idea that people are going to go ballistic enough to destroy the game over duels but not over other forms of competition in GW is just silly.

So... You don't think dueling will destroy the way Guild Wars works, but at the same time, it's this huge problem that must be kept out of the game at all costs. This makes no sense. You've spent all this time describing the horrible things that are going to happen if people are allowed to duel each other (apparently, this includes RL shootings now) but then turn around and say that you never claimed it would destroy the game.

I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion here, and debate the idea like adults but this has stopped being a discussion about dueling and become a raspberry war. Not once have I personally attacked you, but now you're practically hopping around, sticking your tongue out and calling me names and accusing me of changing my posts simply because I'm trying to adress your points.

I've had enough. I wish ideas like this could be discussed without people making it their personal crusade to start acting like children and ruin them when everyone doesn't agree with them.

You may now attempt to get in a few more insults before the mods spot this and close the thread. I, for my part, am done here.

Loviatar · Apr 23, 2005, 04:21 PM // 16:21

one thing i have noticed in almost every strong proponent of 1v1 is that somehow everyone of them seems to feel that they will somehow be the elite winners of it

and they are modest as well from comments like i dont want to boast but i am a far superior gamer

Sin · Apr 23, 2005, 04:28 PM // 16:28

There has been far more said than these things as reasons it shouldn't be implemented and as far as the ease of doing so, and the "explanations in rebuttal" do not invalidate them but merely re-emphasize how this is assumed in a vacuum. I doubt that any assessment other than from Arena.net is accurate at all. Also I doubt any guess whatsoever as to the balance of more or less complaints is accurate. I do know that Arena.net has X dollars to do Y things. Adding anything to the cost of Y1-infinity, is to take away from some other aspect within that range.

It is really incompetent to consider 1v1 dueling for GuildWars irrespective of arenas and other arguments due to the difference in battle intimacy, which is what dueling entails, as well as assuming all people will see and listen to the rules perfectly--most of whom if they drive have yet to keep the speed limit for one entire week. We rationalize what we think is just and will invest our ego into it entirely. No one who claims being rationale and is trying to justify the argument for dueling with all their claims of how they will handle the game unemotionally can speak for the people who aren't as strong as these proponents believe they are--especially in light of how emotional the proponents are right in this thread and the many others that have even touched on this issue.

If you think it's all just arguments against dueling from some objective cold clinical view, then there is most certainly a vacuum being assumed. There is a deep relationship that occurs and I guess you need an incident in your neighbourhood to wake you up out of your slumber.

You have no idea how cold and inconsiderate this is in light of real world results. It is totally irresponsible and no one cares, but for their "I wants."

Lunar, I am sorry but someone was killed in an internet cafe over losing in a game. The City of Garden Grove closed or is about to close all internet Cafes in their city because this is where it happened. Yea it is ridiculous that this ever happened but the incident itself isn't ridiculous. If you think losing is all this was about, it is what format they lost in: 1v1/dueling. Clearly there is an ease to become irrational irrespective of the rules of the game, dueling guilds and society. Though many may feel no responsiblity to these, it would appear that by playing this game we have that responsiblity. That Arena.net in making money off this game has that responsibility. I just don't want anything like this to happen to GuildWars. Team environments diffuse this like nothing else. Please stop striving to make a most unneccessary and irrational incidence that I agree shouldn't occur possible.

Xellos · Apr 23, 2005, 06:14 PM // 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

one thing i have noticed in almost every strong proponent of 1v1 is that somehow everyone of them seems to feel that they will somehow be the elite winners of it

and they are modest as well from comments like i dont want to boast but i am a far superior gamer

Ssshhh, don't expose their propaganda for E-Peen.

Ossus · Apr 23, 2005, 06:49 PM // 18:49

It seems to me this argument has morphed into something totally different than what it started out as. In my opinion, what it comes down to is this. If you want to do 1v1 PvP/Dueling/murdering people in Cafe's, then I think you should have the ability to in the game. If you don't want to do afore mentioned actions, then don't. Because the game is instanced, it really doesn't matter what other people do, unless they are in your group. I would imagine that arguing that the implementation will cause large scale ramifications to the entire game world which will end in chaning the name to "World of Everquest" is a little naive. You can play the game however you want and no one will bother you because you are in an instance. Thats the beauty of instanced playing areas.

Loviatar · Apr 23, 2005, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ossus

You can play the game however you want and no one will bother you because you are in an instance. Thats the beauty of instanced playing areas.

the problem is in all the jerks that would be in the public non instanced areas making challenges to everybody passing by
no thanks

Xellos · Apr 23, 2005, 08:16 PM // 20:16

I can see it now.

Player A walks in town.

Player B: "I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DU DU DU DU DUEL!"

Player A: "No"

Player C: "I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DU DU DU DU DUEL!"

Rinse and repeat

Loviatar · Apr 23, 2005, 08:25 PM // 20:25

yes except for the part where he keeps yelling chicken yo a lsr etc ad nauseum

Ossus · Apr 23, 2005, 09:09 PM // 21:09

When I think of Dueling, I think of having challenges
1) only in instanced areas NOT in towns and
2)in the guild hall. That takes care of that problem right there. As well as a Duel chat filter to turn off any requests (just like the emote and sell filters)

Kha · Apr 23, 2005, 11:32 PM // 23:32

Just have a dueling arena.

People creating builds to do 1v1 will be no worse than people creating builds for 4v4 and using in 8v8 groups. Organization is what makes the group work or not. Those that are really that worried about how the team will work together are obviously going to organize some kind of team build. Otherwise you are just playing for fun and anyone thinking otherwise is simply lazy.

And thinking/worrying that ArenaNet is going to balance the game for 1v1 is lacking in logic and insulting to their own common sense.

Burodsx · Apr 24, 2005, 12:50 AM // 00:50

I like the idea of 1vs1 mainly to see who is the better Warrior Primary.

"I'd own you with my sword"

"My hammer would knock your head in"

"Gimli is my hero, axe is my choice of weapon"

For the most part 1vs1 is mainly opposed in this game due to the fact that the game is completely GEARED towards strategy and team play. 1 vs 1 just truely doesn't fit in this game and it could never truely be a balanced feature in a game such as this. Though, I do feel it would be fun to pit 2 warriors against each other in a 1vs1 slug-feast.

I somewhat want a 1vs1 feature, but I feel that the situation could get out of control with complaints about balance issues. And balance issues in a team-play game CAN NOT be very accurate if it comes from people who only like to do 1vs1 battles.