Curse

Zhou Feng · Apr 25, 2006, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

I think should really seperate the playing styles. In factions they sort of done it,but not really.

Just like there is a place for pvp, battle Island. There should be a place for hard core rpg players. Then a place for pvpve players. Seeing that Anet mess up on fractions. They should really have a place just for hardcore rpg.

This place would have mounts and everything that hardcore rpg players would want.

unfected by any pvp what so ever.

I thought GW was pretty cool the way it is.

I do believe it needs more PvE content but otherwise I believe GW us fine as it is.

dreamhunk · Apr 25, 2006, 09:10 PM // 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallot

He is right though. This is off-topic.

Could you post some of these facts in this thread ? I've read a lot of your posts on a different forum, but they dont contain facts. They do contain a lot of speculation, most of which I believe is unfounded. However, if there is anything of value I may have missed, I'd like to see your points brought forth in this thread.

Ok when I had posted the thread. I was thinking there should be the 3 game styles in gw. In the past there was alot of good ideas for pve. However because of the balaning stuff for pvp they were droped. I was more less thinking of an aera in the game where they can be found. The things that would impact pvp would be locked away only for that aera. I am pretty sure there would be alot rpg players love aera. I also think there should be an aera for hardcore rpg. just in case they don't like a certen theme anet may lunch for a game.

I have more than prove my points, in my posts. I don't know where you got that from. If you want me to give details that is different. I have more than proven wrong on all types of fourms.

Kakumei · Apr 25, 2006, 09:21 PM // 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

In the past there was alot of good ideas for pve.

Examples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

However because of the balaning stuff for pvp they were droped.

Examples.

Ristaron · Apr 25, 2006, 09:26 PM // 21:26

PvP doesn't have a specific area where the skills are different from PvE, why should PvE have a hardcore PvE area like you want?

dreamhunk · Apr 25, 2006, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

Examples.

Examples.

there has been alot, stuff like cursed weapons, certen playing creatures, powerful weapons,mounts, weapons mass destruction, mules the list goes on. I can't remeber them all of my head.

KvanCetre · Apr 25, 2006, 09:33 PM // 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

there has been alot, stuff like cursed weapons, certen playing creatures, powerful weapons,mounts, weapons mass destruction, mules the list goes on. I can't remeber them all of my head.

Cursed weapon - Vampiric bow
Powerful weapons - Greens
Mass Destruction? Huh? It seems like you want to play an overpowered character rather than play an RPG character.
Mules? How would that make any sense?

It sounds like "Make MY game" rather than "Make a game for hardcore rpgers"

dreamhunk · Apr 25, 2006, 09:38 PM // 21:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by KvanCetre

Cursed weapon - Vampiric bow
Powerful weapons - Greens
Mass Destruction? Huh? It seems like you want to play an overpowered character rather than play an RPG character.
Mules? How would that make any sense?

It sounds like "Make MY game" rather than "Make a game for hardcore rpgers"

no and there is reasons rpgs have those things you asked for exmples

there was alot of stuff that could have been added. Those are just exmaples.

EternalTempest · Apr 25, 2006, 09:40 PM // 21:40

They have made modes of play.

PvE - Mission content and quests
PvP - Battle Isles

In the recent interview they stated that alliance control can be done via PvE. An Alliance doing factions points in PvE can get at the same rate PvP can via alliance battles. So you can have a PvE guild take a city.

dreamhunk · Apr 25, 2006, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternalTempest

They have made modes of play.

PvE - Mission content and quests
PvP - Battle Isles

In the recent interview they stated that alliance control can be done via PvE. An Alliance doing factions points in PvE can get at the same rate PvP can via alliance battles. So you can have a PvE guild take a city.

think it should broken down in down into 3 types.

1. pvp
2. rpg
3. pvpve

maybe in the future 1on1

I think this would solve alot of fighting between players and maybe even enrich the game. however the rpg side of the game will be just focus on hardcore rpg. No making creatures harder, just fucosing on good rpg. All the cool ideas for rpg could be still used. The PVPVE will only focus on making creatures harder.

for exmaple the rpg side would different types of creature rank, not just level 20 or 24 all the time. yea know more focus on good rpg.

Cyril Aspect · Apr 25, 2006, 10:24 PM // 22:24

ok I am going to list some ideas and I want you to look at them and say which ones you would want.

mounts
uber weapons
weapons with complicated bonuses
titles
more text and discussion trees with NPC's
additional variable or random quests for non repetitive replayability

If these arte htings you want and I think they are, in fitting with your definiton of rpg then our definitons are different.

I am a pvp and pve player, Being part of the old school D&D crowd i think that you want a monty haul campaign style which is against the very core of GW

This game is meant to be very balanced and an even playing field detemrined by skill selection and not by equipment or things collected over time.

I have no problem with adding in more story depth through more chatty NPC's in fact i support it and i don't mind more random variable quests and missions

but that I suspect won't address what you desire from this game.
Role playing can be done in PvP as well as PvE and you do yourself a disservice by not developing your own guilds story and your own characters story.

Roleplaying games in my opinion are not about loot and treasure but about character developement and telling a tale about your caracter.

thats why its called playing a role, be it hero or villain or bystander.

in short some of your suggestions are worth while but others will not make this game better

dreamhunk · Apr 25, 2006, 10:28 PM // 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyril Aspect

ok I am going to list some ideas and I want you to look at them and say which ones you would want.

mounts
uber weapons
weapons with complicated bonuses
titles
more text and discussion trees with NPC's
additional variable or random quests for non repetitive replayability

If these arte htings you want and I think they are, in fitting with your definiton of rpg then our definitons are different.

I am a pvp and pve player, Being part of the old school D&D crowd i think that you want a monty haul campaign style which is against the very core of GW

This game is meant to be very balanced and an even playing field detemrined by skill selection and not by equipment or things collected over time.

I have no problem with adding in more story depth through more chatty NPC's in fact i support it and i don't mind more random variable quests and missions

but that I suspect won't address what you desire from this game.
Role playing can be done in PvP as well as PvE and you do yourself a disservice by not developing your own guilds story and your own characters story.

Roleplaying games in my opinion are not about loot and treasure but about character developement and telling a tale about your caracter.

thats why its called playing a role, be it hero or villain or bystander.

in short some of your suggestions are worth while but others will not make this game better

there is a reason wow and nwn do so well. Anet also did promise that they would fucos on the what is fun about rpgs

I would also like to note. that i would have never been in these fourms. If it wasn't for the changes they had done to pve since beta till now.

I would go as so far to say there were people who did not want new races in gw. Even anet had said no to races for the pvp. But a few of us rpg players changed anet mind. there was alot of pvp players saying that new races would affect the pvp game for exmaple.

there is now new races in fractions!!

Anet had promised that gw would be rpg focused, but they have not really fulled that promise. Must pvp players want smarter and harder creatures to fight. Rpg players don't want that. So i think they should have the 3 types of game play.

also there is alot of rpg players and pvp players who say that gw is not even romotely rpg. There is alot of rpg players who want the rpg to be alot better. Alot of ideas from rpg players have been shot down because of pvp balancing. However Anet did promise from the very start that there would be strong rpg in gw. See that anet cares for both rpg and pvp. I think they should break it down to the 3 different types. Why because there are people that will love it. There would be alot of players who like certen styles.

I would also like to note I am one of the backbone rpg fighters in fourms. If it wasnot for me and few others pve would have been alot worst of with factions. I was one of the few that reminded anet that of it promise to rpg players.

when I had first made this thread. I was in no mood to debate. I have been tired of fighting the differences between the two. I am pretty sure anet is now fully aware now after soo meny debates .however since I have been insluted I am now choosing to back up my case! I have to say i do have a fallowing. You can say I am very hardcore and know my facts.

Ps. i did lie about not having ce. I said it because all players are important. No matter whos I ideas are berening used.

quickmonty · Apr 26, 2006, 01:40 AM // 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

I would go as so far to say there were people who did not want new races in gw. Even anet had said no to races for the pvp. But a few of us rpg players changed anet mind. there was alot of pvp players saying that new races would affect the pvp game for exmaple.

there is now new races in fractions!!

I believe that people were asking for new races to play, not new computer controlled races. What we got in Factions was the new computer races. Anet said that there would be NO playable new races in Factions.

Quote:

Anet had promised that gw would be rpg focused, but they have not really fulled that promise. Must pvp players want smarter and harder creatures to fight. Rpg players don't want that. So i think they should have the 3 types of game play.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding on your part. PvP is Player versus Player. PvPers do NOT fight creatures.

KvanCetre · Apr 26, 2006, 01:55 PM // 13:55

fActions
not
fRActions

"I'm using numerator!"

How would Mounts at all fit into the game? You would just bypass all enemies. How would overpowered weapons keep it balanced?

You're right, WoW and NwN do well... but one is a MMORPG and one is a Single Player RPG with a multiplayer element. Neither of them is a CORPG. The diference between WoW and Guild Wars is that WoW almost requires a mount due to extremely long maps that aren't instanced.

dreamhunk · Apr 26, 2006, 02:32 PM // 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

I believe that people were asking for new races to play, not new computer controlled races. What we got in Factions was the new computer races. Anet said that there would be NO playable new races in Factions.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding on your part. PvP is Player versus Player. PvPers do NOT fight creatures.

When it comes to the new races at first anet was going to each new race for each chapter.The dravwes was going to be the next chapter gw at the time. But that has changed. This has been discuessed I am not going in to that debate agin. there was alot of pvp players out there did not want races at all.Even as henchies. Anet has now changed it's mind on the subject. They will have new races in coming chapters.

there were some hard core pvp players who would go and play pve trying to prove that pve monsters can not match up to pvp players and pvp were superior to pve players. RPg is not about making monsters harder!

I would like to remind everyone that and anet that Anet did promise that gw would have strong RPG when they first started this game.

Alot of things has changed since beta, no knew that so meny people would love pvp. However there is alot of things throwen out that was rpg! GW was to be a good dtrong rpg game. That was Anet promise to rpg players.

rpg and pvp styles are just different as for rpg there alot of rpg players as well as pvp players that think anet has moved away what the game was ment to be.

Iam sorry about my spelling just in no mood to improve on it. I mean it is the net.

I think the best way i think anet should go is have all 3 styles in the game. Why because people like different things. In meny fourms and threads rpg players get pushed aside. There is already bad rep for among rpg players. There is alot rpg players who feel that anet has not for filled their promise and that guild wars was just out for their money.

however how I feel pesonaly on the subject. I am going to take a good look at what anet is doing for rpg. I mean with factions and the next chapter of gw. For me to buy the next chapters I am more less looking at the rpg content.

spellsword · Apr 26, 2006, 03:33 PM // 15:33

The whole PvE part of the game is RPG. There is nothing stopping anyone from rping while doing the quests or missions.

dreamhunk · Apr 26, 2006, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by spellsword

The whole PvE part of the game is RPG. There is nothing stopping anyone from rping while doing the quests or missions.

yes and there is gaming standards for rpg! I am not getting into that debate!

there are standards that every rpg has. I anet know this as well. Gw does not really meet the stands of mondern rpg.

you wouldnot have something likes this in fourm if your case was true.
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=12840

Huntmaster · Apr 26, 2006, 04:52 PM // 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

yes and there is gaming standards for rpg!

there are standards that every rpg has.

I just lost ALL respect for you.

Kakumei · Apr 26, 2006, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntmaster

I just lost ALL respect for you.

You had respect for him? Wow.

fallot · Apr 26, 2006, 05:05 PM // 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamhunk

yes and there is gaming standards for rpg! I am not getting into that debate!

I think it would be relevant if you described what these gaming standards are. It would help me understand your position better. I really have no interest in proving you wrong, or flaming you (unlike some) but I'm very interested in the reasoning behind your consistent demands. If you feel that it doesnt belong in this thread, you can send me a PM. Label it "Standards present in RPGs" and enumerate everything you feel belongs therein.

dreamhunk · Apr 26, 2006, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallot

I think it would be relevant if you described what these gaming standards are. It would help me understand your position better. I really have no interest in proving you wrong, or flaming you (unlike some) but I'm very interested in the reasoning behind your consistent demands. If you feel that it doesnt belong in this thread, you can send me a PM. Label it "Standards present in RPGs" and enumerate everything you feel belongs therein.

i will but not right now, that is promise and your right. I am in no mood to debate or fight right now. there are gaming stands anet knows very well. so there is really no point post them on threads.