Curse

Sun Fired Blank · Jun 11, 2011, 11:01 AM // 11:01

I quit. I returned. I might quit again. Hard to say. I don't have a great deal of motivation to social network into Guild Wars again.

Quote:

you can say it is right to have a game only cater for a small percentage of players, but that's your own opinion.

Quote:

Ideally......but making friends and forming into a team in guildwars is like finding a job or a girl friend, not just one but 4-8 jobs, girl friends, because of the complexity of builds, skills and players' attitude, what creates player's attitude is the arranged team system, and how long it takes to make 4-8 hardcore friends is proportionate to how long for anet can do a skill balance.

This game caters to people that strive with others to be competitive. You aren't competitive because you do nothing to earn it and therefore you don't deserve it. Your defeatist self-entitlement doesn't help your case.

Quote:

because player do not spend 6 years altogether making builds, and testing the builds.

Streamlining a build only takes a few minutes. I can easily demonstrate using the next codex reset in five hours.

lursey · Jun 11, 2011, 12:19 PM // 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Fired Blank

I quit. I returned. I might quit again. Hard to say. I don't have a great deal of motivation to social network into Guild Wars again.

This game caters to people that strive with others to be competitive. You aren't competitive because you do nothing to earn it and therefore you don't deserve it. Your defeatist self-entitlement doesn't help your case.

Streamlining a build only takes a few minutes. I can easily demonstrate using the next codex reset in five hours.

what do you mean by do nothing? do what to earn it?

a pvp game cannot sustain itself doesn't mean other people have not done enough to be competitive, is the game itself doesn't sustain the competitiveness.

is like asking a soldier to wrestle with an old lady, you can't say the old lady has done nothing to earn the competition, you are using the system to discourage the old lady joining the competition.

perhaps a game of chess would be more of a competition than a game of wrestling for a soldier and old lady.

especially when in a game, there are 100 old ladies, and 5 soldiers.

well, how hard to say making a build for other to lose the game with you is easy?

there are so many factors for a game to be fun and for players to stay in the game, fair competition comes quite early...

kedde · Jun 11, 2011, 01:15 PM // 13:15

Tell me how this is not fair competition.
Everyone has equal information and equal time outside of real life hindrances.

The rest is up to skill, experience and contacts, all of which anyone can accquire on even ground.

lursey · Jun 11, 2011, 01:36 PM // 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

Tell me how this is not fair competition.
Everyone has equal information and equal time outside of real life hindrances.

The rest is up to skill, experience and contacts, all of which anyone can accquire on even ground.

if it is a fair competition, then someone with more experience should not be competing with a less experience player

a player join the game later than a earlier player, already don't have an even ground.

a player who doesn't have a specific expansion of the game, already doesn't have the equal amount of skills

and not everyone's real life hindrances is the same as to their expectation on how to dedicate their time...

especially from the starting point to learn all the skills of the game, armour, and weapons component do not take 1 or 2 days, without even the need to say the unlimited number of builds, the one expecting to encounter.

you encounter a build today, doesn't mean another person will encounter the same build....

Bright Star Shine · Jun 11, 2011, 03:43 PM // 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

if it is a fair competition, then someone with more experience should not be competing with a less experience player

a player join the game later than a earlier player, already don't have an even ground.

a player who doesn't have a specific expansion of the game, already doesn't have the equal amount of skills

and not everyone's real life hindrances is the same as to their expectation on how to dedicate their time...

especially from the starting point to learn all the skills of the game, armour, and weapons component do not take 1 or 2 days, without even the need to say the unlimited number of builds, the one expecting to encounter.

you encounter a build today, doesn't mean another person will encounter the same build....

All your QQ'ing about PvP being so hard is ridiculous... If I would end up in a GvG match with the current #1 guild, I wouldn't QQ that we got curbstomped to smithereens, because I know it's because they are just better than us. Getting beaten by someone that's better than you isn't bad, it's normal, and all you can do is try to improve..

Explain to me how being more experienced than someone is unfair?

To follow your retarded logic, you are saying that it's not fair that France wins the world cup in soccer (just saying something random here) because they are more experienced than Belgium and that it's unfair that Belgium would have to play against France, because France is obviously better and as such are unfair competition..
You know what would happen when Belgium would start crying and saying "it's unfair! You guys are better than us, this game isn't fun anymore!"? People would say: "stfu and go train"

Same stuff applies in this game. When me and my guildies get rolled by the same gold trim cape that's dominating Codex, we don't QQ, we try to find builds that might actually beat them. That usually doesn't happen, but eventually they get bored of it and quit, so we can go back to rolling noobie PUGs.

Missing HB · Jun 11, 2011, 04:39 PM // 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

Tell me how this is not fair competition.
Everyone has equal information and equal time outside of real life hindrances.

The rest is up to skill, experience and contacts, all of which anyone can accquire on even ground.

I think he wants to mean that it's hard to gain any experience at all in the PvP anymore... and that's easily understandable.... You don't really learn anything from codex , when 90% of players are just going to PuG on zquest , not really knowing they will get facerolled by guild teams going there too

Also i'd like to add that build diversity in GvG being close to 0 ( due to some bad updates ) , you don't really learn anything anymore there neither

lursey · Jun 11, 2011, 05:39 PM // 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bright Star Shine

All your QQ'ing about PvP being so hard is ridiculous... If I would end up in a GvG match with the current #1 guild, I wouldn't QQ that we got curbstomped to smithereens, because I know it's because they are just better than us. Getting beaten by someone that's better than you isn't bad, it's normal, and all you can do is try to improve..

Explain to me how being more experienced than someone is unfair?

To follow your retarded logic, you are saying that it's not fair that France wins the world cup in soccer (just saying something random here) because they are more experienced than Belgium and that it's unfair that Belgium would have to play against France, because France is obviously better and as such are unfair competition..
You know what would happen when Belgium would start crying and saying "it's unfair! You guys are better than us, this game isn't fun anymore!"? People would say: "stfu and go train"

Same stuff applies in this game. When me and my guildies get rolled by the same gold trim cape that's dominating Codex, we don't QQ, we try to find builds that might actually beat them. That usually doesn't happen, but eventually they get bored of it and quit, so we can go back to rolling noobie PUGs.

fairness can be interpret in many ways, but objectively, when there is not much competition going on, eg, map skipping in ha, only a few team dominating in codex, only a 2 or 3 meta gvg builds, there must be something wrong, if you don't see this wrong, it is your opinion.

asking a grade 12 person to kick soccer with a grade 3 kids, and telling the grade 3 kids to grow up 9 years first to compete in the game....you see the problem?

while there are maybe 10 grade 12 persons competing, there are 1000 grade 3 kids want to compete also in the same format, and the grade 12 team just bashing on them....

many things can be blamed on why the games is low in population high end pvp, but the easiest is there isn't enough "high end" pvp players competing in the designed "high end" pvp

as I mentioned in many other post, in pvp no matter how you designed a game into how ridiculously complex, there need players to play. you can simply imagining by adding 1000000 different skills more, and 1000 different map layouts... will people care any more?

the format of the game is hard, not the players.

tealspikes · Jun 11, 2011, 05:48 PM // 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

3. Long setup time

12characters

urania · Jun 11, 2011, 06:02 PM // 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

if it is a fair competition, then someone with more experience should not be competing with a less experience player

a player join the game later than a earlier player, already don't have an even ground.

a player who doesn't have a specific expansion of the game, already doesn't have the equal amount of skills

and not everyone's real life hindrances is the same as to their expectation on how to dedicate their time...

especially from the starting point to learn all the skills of the game, armour, and weapons component do not take 1 or 2 days, without even the need to say the unlimited number of builds, the one expecting to encounter.

you encounter a build today, doesn't mean another person will encounter the same build....

thats not how things work, mate. but let's do some theory crafting.

if divisions (which is what i reckon you wish for) are present, then they pertain to age, sex and experience/skill level (in rl sports, at least), but especially the latter (which is the only relevant one in e-sports anyway) is hard to determine in a virtual environment.

what kind of indicators would you use to determine the average skill level of a gvg team (which would then let you split teams into relevant divisions and enable players play against those of similar characteristics in most aspects)?
the overall time spent gvging (i.e. their experience with the format)?
their success in tournaments?
their success in ladder play/ATs?
their ranks?
their ratings?
their reputation?

lursey · Jun 11, 2011, 06:18 PM // 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

thats not how things work, mate. but let's do some theory crafting.

if divisions (which is what i reckon you wish for) are present, then they pertain to age, sex and experience/skill level (in rl sports, at least), but especially the latter (which is the only relevant one in e-sports anyway) is hard to determine in a virtual environment.

what kind of indicators would you use to determine the average skill level of a gvg team (which would then let you split teams into relevant divisions and enable players play against those of similar characteristics in most aspects)?
the overall time spent gvging (i.e. their experience with the format)?
their success in tournaments?
their success in ladder play/ATs?
their ranks?
their ratings?
their reputation?

well I guess, only guessing with the current situation, the number of different builds a team can play to best out other.

I Jonas I · Jun 11, 2011, 06:27 PM // 18:27

lursey is right. Facing Lionel Messi as your introduction to soccer is not exactly fair, even though you both have 2 arms and 2 legs.

AndrewSX · Jun 11, 2011, 08:57 PM // 20:57

But it's how pvp is inteded to work in some way, no? (Or how will work anyway. If perfect balance is for skills is hard, balance teams facing each other is an utopia. And wouldn't be really working anyway even if possible).

kedde · Jun 11, 2011, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Jonas I

lursey is right. Facing Lionel Messi as your introduction to soccer is not exactly fair, even though you both have 2 arms and 2 legs.

It would be fair if you were both participating on teams in a global elimination tournament with no divisionary seperation, which just happens to be what guildwars is like.

I Jonas I · Jun 11, 2011, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Perhaps fairness is the wrong concept to be discussing. To go along with the soccer analogy: imagine if the only way that new soccer players could learn how to play is if they played with their friends against professional players? If not professional players: how about a local high school team? the newer players would get destroyed either way

Just because a game is fair doesn't mean that it can support a healthy player base or that it is conducive to allowing new players to learn at a reasonable pace.

lursey · Jun 11, 2011, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewSX

But it's how pvp is inteded to work in some way, no? (Or how will work anyway. If perfect balance is for skills is hard, balance teams facing each other is an utopia. And wouldn't be really working anyway even if possible).

it depends on what "balance" and what "working" you're defining here

for me it works, when the players skills are being realised.

player skill can be distinguish into
1) the skill of using the build
2) the skill of making the build

for example, a person made a build, but some other player uses the same build and with better player beat him,

the build making skills are negated so as

two teams with different builds, but similar player skills level, a better build beat them, in this case,

players skills are not being realised.

using the example of map skipping is not so serious when HEROES were being introduced to HA, players were using more heroway in HA, reducing the map skipping, it is because their skill of making builds are more realised, but some players who favors playing skill leave is because their playing skill were left more unrealised by the fact that bot using an inferior build can beat players.

the current situation is that most of the time, this realisations of playing skills and making build are so uncertain, causing unbalance that hindering players to stay in the game,

it is quite simple in pvp that by the fact showing most of the time with the following scenarios
1) players stay when win
2) players leave when lose
3) players only try again when lose if players skills of 2 teams are leveled in terms of their build, and playing skills

all pvp game must have a winner and loser, it is the 3rd gg game factor keeps player stay in the game, but the so called balance is uncertain in the current GW or at least it takes a long time to have both realised, there is only little 3rd gg game factor.

Moreover, when you say work,
do you mean by
1) having diversities of different builds in all level of game, with less Fotm, meta, ways, etc?
2) having a lot players in certain kind of arena,
3) having a few balanced high-end fighting game with the expense of many other players or
4) etc.??

because work depends on what outcome you want to achieve, it is hard to say what works for who, but my definition of what's work is more players are happier to play pvp, to fill up the arena with more 3rd gg game factor, more pvp players may mean some of the current high-end player have to give away their chance to bash the noob resulting more balanced games.

superraptors · Jun 12, 2011, 02:16 AM // 02:16

tbh this game is 6 years old, people have lost motivation to play, so its not surprising codex was already dieing when released.

divisions would be good, but i dont think its a huge factor in the reason why people don't want to play because they are absolutely getting face rolled.

lursey · Jun 12, 2011, 05:39 AM // 05:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

It would be fair if you were both participating on teams in a global elimination tournament with no divisionary seperation, which just happens to be what guildwars is like.

fairness,

the format itself is fair as to organised team fighting each other, it only becomes unfair when 2 teams level are hugely aparted,

2 old ladies using gun to fight each other, 100% fair
2 soldier using chess to fight each other, 100% fair
old ladies and soldier using gun to fight each other, 70% fair
1 soldier using gun, and another soldier use a chess piece, 50% fair
old ladies using a gun to, soldier using a chess, 40% fair
old ladies using a chess, soldier using a gun, 30% fair
100 years old lady using a chess, a well trained soldier using a gun, 0% fair

soldier, old lady = high player and lower level
guns, chess = superior and inferior builds
the numbers are just simplifed as to demonstrate the fairness goes down when the gap of skills and builds widen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superraptors

tbh this game is 6 years old, people have lost motivation to play, so its not surprising codex was already dieing when released.

divisions would be good, but i dont think its a huge factor in the reason why people don't want to play because they are absolutely getting face rolled.

I do not quite agree with the aging game theory, people still play tetris, mario, because of it uniqueness, so as players still go back to fight in starcraft/warcraft iii, etc.....

gw has it owns uniqueness of the number of skills you can control, there are not many games in the similar genre, apart from MTG card games where you can't actually control the skills in a more 3+ dimensional way

agreeing divisions can be good....to close the gaps of skills and builds....but creating more other easily achieve common factor can also be considered, such as limiting the number of time a team can use a build, when they win, or limiting the number of time the same player can join a team, when they win, to make the shift of fairness faster, so that teams do not necessary have to maintain in a 0% fairness game time long enough for them to leave.

other example such as random teams can sustain its population easier, because there is another common factor of pseudo randomness of team...

Missing HB · Jun 12, 2011, 07:04 AM // 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

I do not quite agree with the aging game theory, people still play tetris, mario, because of it uniqueness, so as players still go back to fight in starcraft/warcraft iii, etc.....

The difference between those games ,chess , soldiers and GW is that all those can be played alone and the win will only depend on yourself.... Whereas in GW , you need to have let's say at least 3 other good players (excluding luck factor) to win....

Obviously , due to inactivity of the game , formats that require at least 8 players to live and furthermore which aren't fun and rewarding compared to other formats, will for sure die along months...

lursey · Jun 12, 2011, 07:23 AM // 07:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missing HB

Obviously , due to inactivity of the game , formats that require at least 8 players to live and furthermore which aren't fun and rewarding compared to other formats, will for sure die along months...

reward in gw is very different, take strongbox as an example, the needs to put strongbox in the first place is because there is a gap in between the reward in pve and pvp, not because pvp itself requires more rewarding.

pve and pvp economies are linked, but their style of playing is different.

considering fun associates with reward and style of playing.....
if the style of playing sucks, you give reward to it, the style of playing will still suck...

thats why even you give 100 different reward to it...it doesn't activate the game, but enlightening more unacknowledged pve player to know that how pvp sucks, and lead to these potential pvp players back to pve....and further inactivates it.

as I mentioned previously, fun is more about how your skills are being correctly realised and acknowledged, and in gw "your skills" can be divided into many smaller ways, which most of them are not being realised, and take a long time to be developed, especially with different arenas.

superraptors · Jun 12, 2011, 12:53 PM // 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

reward in gw is very different, take strongbox as an example, the needs to put strongbox in the first place is because there is a gap in between the reward in pve and pvp, not because pvp itself requires more rewarding.

pve and pvp economies are linked, but their style of playing is different.

considering fun associates with reward and style of playing.....
if the style of playing sucks, you give reward to it, the style of playing will still suck...

thats why even you give 100 different reward to it...it doesn't activate the game, but enlightening more unacknowledged pve player to know that how pvp sucks, and lead to these potential pvp players back to pve....and further inactivates it.

also what you said before, mmorpgs and rts are 2 totally different genres, mmorpgs will always die much faster, rts they give you creative abilities to create your own games therefore easily outlive any rpgs.

as I mentioned previously, fun is more about how your skills are being correctly realised and acknowledged, and in gw "your skills" can be divided into many smaller ways, which most of them are not being realised, and take a long time to be developed, especially with different arenas.

pve and pvp rewards should have never linked, giving pvpers unique rewards only available to pvp characters would have been much better and drive people more towards pvp if they wanted that reward imo.