Curse

RavagerOfDreams · Mar 22, 2008, 04:42 AM // 04:42

/notsigned

almost every skill that gets nerfed for pvp has a pve skill equivalent to take its place

watch yourself -> save yourself
flame Djjins haste -> Mindbender

Konig Des Todes · Mar 22, 2008, 07:12 AM // 07:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalban

No.

1. It will increase the adaptation time from PvE to PvP, which is already quite high.

2. I really don't understand the problem with skill balancing, regarding PvE. Is the game too hard? too easy? Because you can finish the main story in EOTN in less than a week.

3. There will always be conflicts between players. If you make different updates for each mode, people will start arguing why this skill was only nerfed/buffed on either A.

4. "URSAN r9++ LF 3 MORE URSAN 2 GO"

1) It won't increase adaption time between the two if people start at both, and they are meant to be different anyways.

2) Don't use EN as an example of how short the game is, it is an expansion, it is suppose to be short. Also, people complain not because of the story line difficulty, but because it changes their builds, mainly for the elite areas and, o yeah, Hard Mode.

3) Yes there will always be conflicts, but this will reduce the amount. And why the skill was nerfed/buffed won't be a problem because people already know why skills are nerfed/buffed now.

4) No point in this, leave it out next time, not all PvEers use Ursan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skanvak

Definetly against (or make two game from the start). I am against any segregation. Actually I think the pve only to be stupid, if I can fight a monster with a skill I should be able to fight a player with it. Pvp should only be a way to test you skill against player but the two systems must share the same rules. That is part of the realistic aspect of game.

What you are asking is basicaly to have 2 different games. I don't want to play 2 games. I want to play a character that can go exploring and that can go fighting other player within the same universe/set of rules.

Beside : I am part of the NO MORE SKILL CHANGE group. Skill change should stay during the palytest part, period.

Your actual argument, which I bolded, is the only real argument that I see against segregation that does not have a counter. And this is the only reason why I say there should be no separation. However, I do hate that people who PvP only harm people who PvE only or PvP and PvE. I hate my PvE builds getting nurfed because of a skill being overused in PvP. And as for your "Beside:" point, the actual game IS the play test part.

Now for not commenting on others. Of what I have noticed, many people are speaking in the defense of PvP. Mainly with "PvEers have to adapt" and stuff like that. I think that this would benefit PvPers as well as just PvEers, because skills that are used to over farm something in PvE get nurfed too, not as much I know but still get nurfed.

I say that what should be implemented are some PvP only skills so that people can stop QQing about PvEers getting non-profession skills which ruin the game and whatnot. A few skills being nurfed because of PvP, or vice versa, does get annoying, but being able to change skills is a good thing and allows for some fun in being able to make new builds that work. What I highly disagree with, is destroying whole professions, like mesmers. And no, Paragons were not slaughtered, just harmed majorly, just as necromancers were, but are now climbing back up.

HawkofStorms · Mar 22, 2008, 07:20 AM // 07:20

/notsigned

It would become WAY to confusing after a few months of updates. How the heck are you suppsoed to keep track of 2 completely different set of 1000+ skills that have identical names.

The narrowminded people who bitch and can't adapt to a skill update would be NOTHING compared to the amount of complaining by people like me who don't want the skill system to become even MORE complicated (keep in mind they are making GW2 in part because GW1 is too "bloated').

Abedeus · Mar 22, 2008, 07:23 AM // 07:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

PvP balances keep PvE interesting. Stagnant skill bars leads to stagnant gameplay.

/not signed once more.

So why Ursan isn't still nerfed? It's one freakin' skillbar x 5 + 3 monks -.-

Isileth · Mar 22, 2008, 07:38 AM // 07:38

I lean towards being against this.

The main reason being I worry if they are seperate then it would easily open the door for even more PvE skill like skills. PvE also needs to be balanced so that its challenging. And as other have said, if its to powerful to use against a player than its damn sure going to be overpowered against the weaker AI.

RedStar · Mar 22, 2008, 07:45 AM // 07:45

/notsigned

The main reason is that it would be hard to keep track on each skills descriptions and what about buffs ? if a skill gets a buff in PvE, Pvpers may whine (or the other way around).

R.Shayne · Mar 22, 2008, 08:03 AM // 08:03

PvE only and don't mind the skill updates, just learn to roll with it. What I do mind is the Henchmen skill bars are rarely updated after we have a pvp skill change.

/Signed

I would still rather see the introduction of more pve skills only - give some life back to the paragon.

arcanemacabre · Mar 22, 2008, 08:18 AM // 08:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

PvE only and don't mind the skill updates, just learn to roll with it. What I do mind is the Henchmen skill bars are rarely updated after we have a pvp skill change.

So true. The Mhenlo/LoD change was the only one that ever happened, AFAIK. Maybe what we should have is a monthly contest for top GvG guilds, and let them design skillbars for all the henchmen in the game (obviously limited to the campaign they're in). Being monthly, it would constantly be updated as skills change. It could even come with advice from some of them on which combination of henchies they suggest (with skills that compliment each other).

This could be added in with the same update that allows henchmen into elite areas. Yeah, would be nice...

parathract · Mar 22, 2008, 09:08 AM // 09:08

It is important to maintain balance in both PVP and PVE, and it is obvious that what may apply in PVP mode may not apply in PVE. Personally I think they do a good job of balancing as it is, which is very hard to begin with, you can not keep everyone happy after all. You also can not predict all the possible exploits available in PVE and PVP, the art of soloing in PVE for example. I think it is important to maintain balance, and I would look forward to seperation of pve and pvp skill balancing.

One thing I would like to see is Synergy bonuses and penalties when certain skills are on the same skill bar with each other. For example, say if someone can exploit a skill set to farm and solo, simply add a penalty when those major skills are with each other. Or when certain skills are not used often together, give a bonus, like reduced casting time or reduced energy cost. This could encourage fair and reasonable play instead of people just trying to exploit everything.

bhavv · Mar 22, 2008, 09:22 AM // 09:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

I'd like to see you create strategic games that are perfectly balanced at release.

skanvak · Mar 22, 2008, 10:13 AM // 10:13

As that was first directed to me. Savio, I should say that after 25+ years of playing strategic game, I don't give a dime about perfect balancing. The best strategic game I ever played : Empire in Arms, is NOT balanced and that was make it interesting. But Mare Nostrum which is a totally balanced game is BORING.

So I care more about flavor than about good balancing. Beside for pvp, counter to all build exist (except bugs like the recent black aura exploit but it will be only 1 or 2 fix in a year).

bhavv · Mar 22, 2008, 10:59 AM // 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavagerOfDreams

/notsigned

almost every skill that gets nerfed for pvp has a pve skill equivalent to take its place

watch yourself -> save yourself
flame Djjins haste -> Mindbender

Cant use PVE skills on heroes unfortunately.

I'm an Elly, I dont run around with WY or SY on me, I used to take WY on heroes.

LoD and WY nerfs are just RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOed up for PVE.

skanvak · Mar 22, 2008, 12:23 PM // 12:23

What does this "red engine go" mean? Couldn't you speak normally?
Same thing for QQ.

Targuil · Mar 22, 2008, 01:50 PM // 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by skanvak

What does this "red engine go" mean? Couldn't you speak normally?
Same thing for QQ.

RED ENGINE GO comes when you try to swear and QQ means crying.

Savio · Mar 22, 2008, 02:44 PM // 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

http://www.civilgame.com/pic/Civilization4.jpg

Yes, it was so perfectly balanced at release, they continued to update and balance it even further, making it even better than perfect balance.

Or maybe it wasn't balanced at release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

I would still rather see the introduction of more pve skills only - give some life back to the paragon.

If people won't already take paragons with Ursan Blessing, "Save Yourselves!", and "There's Nothing to Fear!", there is no possible PvE skill that would make them do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skanvak

The best strategic game I ever played : Empire in Arms, is NOT balanced and that was make it interesting. But Mare Nostrum which is a totally balanced game is BORING.

Balance doesn't mean everyone is equal. Nor does it mean that everything can be countered.

CHannum · Mar 22, 2008, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Keep'em separate in this and EVERY game where there is a "single player" and PvP side because for the majority of players the two almost never meet. There's no reason why what a small group of player characters do against another small group of player characters should have any effect on choices of skill balance for a small team of player characters against hundreds of mobs and vice versa. The context the skills get used are completely different, player expectations are completely different, and the effect on the respective player base is completely different (i.e. a skill combo that proves nigh unbeatable in PvP is a problem for everybody not using said combo, a skill combo that lets somebody solo a difficult area with nice drops in PvE is brilliant

).

Numa Pompilius · Mar 22, 2008, 03:59 PM // 15:59

This is, what, the fourth? thread on this subjecti n a few days, and I'll say the same thing here as I've said there:

Ursan and the other ridiculously overpowered PvE-only skills are living proof why it's a GOOD THING that PvP rebalancing affects PvE, and why separating PvE from PvP is a BAD THING.

Learn to adapt. This is a dynamically changing game, get out of your comfort zone and learn to change your skillset and use more than one build.

Sleeper Service · Mar 22, 2008, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

This is, what, the fourth? thread on this subjecti n a few days, and I'll say the same thing here as I've said there:

Ursan and the other ridiculously overpowered PvE-only skills are living proof why it's a GOOD THING that PvP rebalancing affects PvE, and why separating PvE from PvP is a BAD THING.

Learn to adapt. This is a dynamically changing game, get out of your comfort zone and learn to change your skillset and use more than one build.

Ursan and The other PVE skills are an Anet quick fix solution to the constant rebalancing that they apply on PVP, What if players do not want to play some bland classless toon (like bear) but rather their OWN class ? PVP induced nerfs do not affect mobs as strongly as they do players because there are more of them as well as being higher leveled, the total power differential makes these nerfs negligible to mobs and TREMENDOUS on PvEers.

ive said this many many many times (but i dunno it seems hard to grasp?) Balance is not the same in PVP and PVE.

On the other hand a skill like Ursan is just what the PVP "community" seems to be blaring out for these days, i mean...if everyone equipped it then it would all be about player skill no?
there you go, perfectly balanced pvp.

Get it now? skills like that are BORING, they are the very antithesis of what this game should be about.

I love this "learn to adapt" bs, PVP meta is nothing but a never ending stream of buffs and nerfs BECAUSE people just go for that FOTM and (except for a very select few) seem to be totally blinded by any possible counter or tactic that could be taken, choosing instead to patiently abuse those skills until Anet comes in and takes their toy away.

/Signed for a separation of skillsets. It was retarded to keep them together when the environment in which they are used is so radically different, its like expecting your car to be able to function correctly underwater for crying out loud.

miles · Mar 22, 2008, 06:30 PM // 18:30

if they did this after a few updates they would have 2 completly different games, and the whole point of guildwars (originally) is to beat the pve, and than continue onto the pvp aspect of the game once you have learned the basic mechanics.

why does it matter if the skills are changed? is the pve really that much harder that you have to actually rework your bar and think about what you are doing? god forbid thinking in pve >.>

you are crying for "balance" in pve but its pretty obvious that there are certain things that are completly imbalanced by nature, for example, every pve skill... ever. al you have to do is look at the wiki and see the counterpart skills they suggest, and they are infinatly worse.

the complete split will never happen, the closest thing you will get is pve skills which has already happened.

BlackSephir · Mar 22, 2008, 07:59 PM // 19:59

No, I like to see PvP community getting blamed for everything.
omg shadow walk nerf, fu pvp
omg 9/11 fu pvp