Curse

Artisan Archer · Nov 06, 2009, 11:07 PM // 23:07

So, what you want to do is encourage people to play togheter with friends, against strangers. Exactly what you have to do to get into Guild Wars PvP; Make friends and play togheter against strangers.

cognophile · Nov 06, 2009, 11:25 PM // 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

While reading that article, the elephant in the room seems to be chess (or even more specifically, online chess). It's strictly a competitive game with no luck element, with barely any social interaction, and seems to be extremely popular with insane staying power with new players constantly coming in.

One important difference between chess and GvG is that GvG is a team game. The entry barrier for a new chess player is lower than that of a new GvG player, in that there's no need to find 7 teammates in order to play. A guild that's brand new to GvG is likely to have trouble getting started, not to mention keeping enough people interested to maintain a full team.

Another Child · Nov 06, 2009, 11:31 PM // 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognophile

One important difference between chess and GvG is that GvG is a team game. The entry barrier for a new chess player is lower than that of a new GvG player, in that there's no need to find 7 teammates in order to play. A guild that's brand new to GvG is likely to have trouble getting started, not to mention keeping enough people interested to maintain a full team.

Another would be the fact that most of us learn chess in a friendly, forgiving environment, and are taught by someone we as children respect as dominant already, so losing to them during the learning process is utterly painless. Even moreso than the article suggests losing to a friend is.

GvG on the other hand we learn with relative strangers, against total strangers, and are immediately on the ELO ladder. No one is saying 'you can take back that missed interrupt if you like' or pointing out that 'you're leaving your FC vulnerable' when you learn GvG.

Keep in mind also

Quote:

pro-dominance players that are not able or willing to play amicably with friends. This is arguably a big group (upwards of ~50% of males age 14 to 39)

probably has a big effect on the number of people who want/are able to get involved in organized guild play.

QueenofDeath · Nov 06, 2009, 11:41 PM // 23:41

Quote:

in my experiences, the ones who complains the loudest about so called "elitism" are those who are not good enough, and don't realize that they aren't good enough.

This ^ is the typical elistist response to those that complain about elitism. They always hit the old "not good enough" bs when they have no clue how good anyone else out there is until they've played against them. You really have to ignore people like this ^ as they make generalized untrue statements all the time like this.

Quote:

I think the real problem here is to address peoples inability to take failure and learn from it. We are, at least in the US, creating a generation of children that don't know how to fail or react to failure. From scoreless t-ball games to delayed successes on test in school the system is quickly removing anything they feel damages someones self-esteem.
This translates to this discussion as people who get thrashed in GvG by better more experienced teams get turned off from it completely. These people don't understand that in reality to succeed you must first fail and sometmes fail hard. This applies in many circumstances from science and sports to competitive gaming.

Yes and we see the results of failure like that football player who smacked that other football player and knocked him down cold for taunting the guy that hit him about losing the game. Of course the guy that hit him all week long talked bs about how they was going to beat Boise st and then got his butt kicked. He was furious because of HIS failure and lashed out. I wonder if this is the sign of the future when we fail we'll just lash out and knock someone to the floor?

) Oh and that guy in the stands musta said something really bad cause that player was ready to jump in the stands at him. Now he's banned from football at least the rest of this year. I think they should ban him for life myself.

)

Reverend Dr · Nov 07, 2009, 12:11 AM // 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenofDeath

This ^ is the typical elistist response to those that complain about elitism. They always hit the old "not good enough" bs when they have no clue how good anyone else out there is until they've played against them. You really have to ignore people like this ^ as they make generalized untrue statements all the time like this.

Generally the people that aren't good enough do not have as high of highs from winning and generally have lower lows from losing.

Moreover this isn't a "you are an elitist you are causing the problem" it is a "you are human, your normal nature is causing the problem." Pointing fingers (just like in politics) accomplishes nothing, nor does it actually address the issue.

Way to completely miss the point.

Ninja Ninja · Nov 07, 2009, 12:12 AM // 00:12

I think noobs complain too much, try spending more time playing the game instead of complaining.

*lemming* · Nov 07, 2009, 01:20 AM // 01:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenofDeath

It's very simple to solve the elitists problems and get casuals and competitive players alike to play side by side. In fact the game already has it in several places. JQ, FA, and RA. When you disallow organized clans or cults in these types of games and pvp activity you rid yourself of the riffraff and elitists because these people (unless they cheat sync and should be banned for that) can't ever organize into a powerhouse. Thus everyone gets to play every team pretty much has a chance and nobody stays king of the hill for very long.

I like RA and JQ and FA and am starting to like AB a little more since you really don't have any control what the other 8 players are in your groupings. I think these are the best and most fun PVP areas of the game. Nobody tells me what build I can use, everybody has a great time and there's no elitist crowd to look down upon others.

The way Anet has set things up I think gives a good balance for everyone though. If you want elitist activity you GVG or HA, if you want good fun and don't care about balance and who's got what on their skill bar then RA, FA and JQ will be more for you. AB and SD give a little to both worlds you can't really be an elitists in them because you don't have control over everything and the skills change either daily or week to week in SD.

Even the Costume Brawl is another fun PVP arena where you can't really become an elitists because you don't get to organize your teams. It's pot random luck if you win several in a row and once again nobody stays king of the hill for long.

The only other thing Anet needs to add is a Random HA type arena where players can earn rank without being subject to elitists and will still have opportunities for the end game content of it. Once they eliminate that I got a rank and you don't attitude that will end another bunch of elitists in this game. Then only GVG will have that type of gamer and since GVG is probably the least played PVP in the entire game it won't really matter.

You're an idiot.

Jensy · Nov 07, 2009, 02:07 AM // 02:07

I'm part of a team just starting out in GvG. We lose a lot. That's going to happen, we all realize it. We have taken some steps to get advice from those better than us, and have learned from it. We learn from each match, really. We're improving. Me getting over my shyness to actually whisper people for the advice is another thing all together. Ahem.

We have, thankfully, been spared the kind of smack talk that I see everyone going on about. This may be because we're only playing vs teams of similar ranking, but I don't know. As to what could be said, I really wouldn't get my feelings hurt by someone calling me a GvG noob... it is, after all, true *g*

So, I dunno, we have yet to face anything unwelcoming. We've found just the opposite: people who want us around, who want us to play. So, we are.

Krill · Nov 07, 2009, 02:19 AM // 02:19

Quote:

Losers leave....

....your player retention will suffer.

Competitive games slowly boil their community down to an elitist core that actively resists and inhibits audience growth.

The biggest problem with GW has always been upward mobility. I've played Unreal Tournament 99/2k3/2k4, Counter Strike and Day of Defeat all competitively with much greater ease into than the GW scene. Why? Mainly because FPS games tend to have a clearly defined path to success, namely leagues. You can easily join a league in the open division, get some experience and meet people, then move up if you stick with it. The is especially true with the wildly popular games like CS and CoD, less so with games like UT and Q3 that had smaller communities but it was still possible. The top tier of every game suffers from the "boil down to an elitist core" but there is still plenty of action below that.

GW is much more complicated. Let's say Joe Blow the ecto farmer wants to start doing GvG or get his bambi. Where the hell do you even start? Random Arenas might be a decent start to pick up the rudimentary basics of PvP, but that's extremely limited in scope and frustrating to most players. If you join a low level PvP guild one of two things will happen almost 100% of the time, they are either inactive or they will disband in less than a week, wasting your time and accomplishing nothing. There just aren't a lot of players that will keep hammering at this brick wall until they finally gain a foothold, start to meet people and perhaps enjoy a modicum of success.

There's also the factor of boring gimmick builds dominating mid level play in GvG and all of HA but that's a different topic that's been discussed to death. In the end these builds bore most players and have a toxic effect on enjoyment for everyone, note the completely dead GvG ladder.

Greedy Gus · Nov 07, 2009, 03:09 AM // 03:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognophile

One important difference between chess and GvG is that GvG is a team game. The entry barrier for a new chess player is lower than that of a new GvG player, in that there's no need to find 7 teammates in order to play. A guild that's brand new to GvG is likely to have trouble getting started, not to mention keeping enough people interested to maintain a full team.

I don't disagree with that at all. But guildwars is irrelevant to my point there, which was that the article may not be the best source of wisdom or at least may simplify too much: arguably the most successful & long lasting 1v1 competitive game of all time, which fits their general parameters, contradicts the conclusion of the article.

moriz · Nov 07, 2009, 04:43 AM // 04:43

queenofdeath's "elitism" argument:

QOD: elitism is keeping players (especially me) from gaining access to higher pvp arenas! it is unfair because i don't get to show off my skills
other people: if you are as good as you think you are, then prove it
QOD: ELITISM AT WORK!!! the above is why elitism exist and i can't show off my skillszzsszsss!
other people: ... so in other words, you claim that elitism prevents you from showing off just how good you are, but you call each instance where people ask you to display those skills as elitism...
QOD: yes.
other people: so everybody will just have to take your word that you are good, because asking you to display those skills is elitism?
QOD: yes.
other people: ok, moving along...

am i the only one who thinks his logic got sucked into a black hole somewhere?

Another Child · Nov 07, 2009, 05:08 AM // 05:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

I don't disagree with that at all. But guildwars is irrelevant to my point there, which was that the article may not be the best source of wisdom or at least may simplify too much: arguably the most successful & long lasting 1v1 competitive game of all time, which fits their general parameters, contradicts the conclusion of the article.

'Chess' and 'competitive chess' are two different things, in much the same way as 'scrimmage' and 'GvG'. Being an 8v8 environment, most fathers don't teach their sons a love of 'scrimmage'.

I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that.

Darth The Xx · Nov 07, 2009, 10:41 AM // 10:41

Interesting article, the ideal situation would obviously be for a system where everybody wins. I think AB is a good example of this, hence why it is so popular, the winners get a nice chunk of faction, but the losers still get some, just not nearly as much. I'm not sure how you could apply this to GvG or if you would want to but it would definately make it more fun for casuals.

Another thing that is a problem is that a lot of attention is diverted to appeasing GvGers. Don't get me wrong I love to GvG as much as the next guy and a lot of GvGers are very nice people

but it makes no sense to cater to 5% (if it even reaches that mark) or so of the player base.

Ec]-[oMaN · Nov 07, 2009, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Too bad the little tidbit quoted in the first post can be said about any other game. Casual players will never compare on a skill level to any of the long time or frequent players.

There are more underlying issues than that.

-barrier to entry
-GvG takes alot of time to set up
-time to play out
-time to learn how to win
-time set aside to figure out why you lost
-8 other schedules to deal with
-the matching system
-bad skills/metas that were much worse for the game and casual players as ---opposed to playing against better players

I'm sure others can make that list 3x as big and expand upon it, but I can't at the moment. After 4+ years this topic has come up many times before...

Again regardless of a skill ceiling. People who spend more time at what they are currently doing, usually are better skilled to perform what things that activity requires from the person, and a person putting less time into that activity won't be able to fulfill the tasks required as fast or as well as the person who has. That is evident in this game and it is evident in real life.

Greedy Gus · Nov 08, 2009, 07:39 AM // 07:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Another Child

'Chess' and 'competitive chess' are two different things, in much the same way as 'scrimmage' and 'GvG'. Being an 8v8 environment, most fathers don't teach their sons a love of 'scrimmage'.

I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that.

I really don't know what your beef is here. My response was about the strength of the article, which provided a plausible narrative but used games as examples to reinforce their initial conclusion/narrative instead of using them as evidence in search of a conclusion. The clear blindspot to me is chess, a game with no luck element and limited social value (especially relative to their social game examples), which tons of people have played both competitively and casually for over 500 years.

Even if you disagree and submit that chess is generally a social activity between friends, online chess is clearly not, and thousands of people all over the world are playing it at any given instance across a number of sites. This is simply one clear contradiction to the narrative that a competitive game (not meaning strictly hardcore, just players pitted against each other) with no luck and little social interaction will purify to a small elite group of winners after losers predictably leave and newcomers are predictably losers, eventually dying.

Once you see such a popular game seemingly contradicting your general conclusion, you want to update your model of understanding to fix it, which would seem to suggest that good game design and a proper competitive infrastructure can avoid the expected pitfalls.

Another Child · Nov 08, 2009, 12:49 PM // 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

I really don't know what your beef is here. My response was about the strength of the article, which provided a plausible narrative but used games as examples to reinforce their initial conclusion/narrative instead of using them as evidence in search of a conclusion. The clear blindspot to me is chess, a game with no luck element and limited social value (especially relative to their social game examples), which tons of people have played both competitively and casually for over 500 years.

Even if you disagree and submit that chess is generally a social activity between friends, online chess is clearly not, and thousands of people all over the world are playing it at any given instance across a number of sites. This is simply one clear contradiction to the narrative that a competitive game (not meaning strictly hardcore, just players pitted against each other) with no luck and little social interaction will purify to a small elite group of winners after losers predictably leave and newcomers are predictably losers, eventually dying.

Once you see such a popular game seemingly contradicting your general conclusion, you want to update your model of understanding to fix it, which would seem to suggest that good game design and a proper competitive infrastructure can avoid the expected pitfalls.

Well I've tried three times now to explain what I mean, I'll give it a fourth.

Chess fits the model just fine. You're not accounting for the fact that it is played in both ways by a larger pool of people. In fact, I would hazard a wild guess that the percentage of people who play chess competitively as opposed to casually is smaller than the percentage of gw players who gvg.

Essentially, you're adding more people to your player pool than you lose, and even the ones you lose keep practicing while they are away and likely return at some point.

Not to mention your referring to the entire history of competitive chess is misleading, although I'm sure not intentionally. Previously, chess was indeed played at a highly competitive level only by a small elite group of winners. In fact, my uncle played international chess, and he played for only a couple of years before retiring. That's less time than most of us have played guild wars. Player attrition exists in all games, moreso in competitive environments.

I agree with you though, good game design and a proper competitive structure could avoid the expected pitfalls. Most sports fit the category too.

The advantage they tend to have is that they are played by a far larger group of people than things like guild wars or even streetfighter. The opportunity exists for leagues ranging from little leagues, through amateur leagues, right through to the professional level. In guild wars, your sons little league team is on the same ladder as the lakers, and due to the elo system, they never even have to face them to still have their ladder position limited by that fact.

Even so, most people who play sports drop out at some point on that range of leagues. We all play something when we are children, but very few of us ever play at the professional level. You're still seeing player attrition. The difference is that those players are being replaced more quickly, due to the massive appeal.

I Jonas I · Nov 09, 2009, 06:23 AM // 06:23

...so in conclusion we have to remove all chat from PvP so people don't flame each other. and remove team chat and the ability to ping skills so that the elitists don't prevent us from being on their team. Gud solution

Garbad_the_Weak · Nov 09, 2009, 02:55 PM // 14:55

One thing that gives me hope for guild war 2 is the world pvp. In aion, the world pvp is surprisingly well done. The Abyss is an open area with increased exp and drops to encourage people to play there, even if they may be ganked (with little to no loss). It eases you into pvp while being fun and giving you good rewards. But perhaps most importantly, its a feeder into pvp that doesn't humiliate them if they lose and where they can experiment and learn without HAVING to play on a certain level or else no one wants to play with them.

I think that was a core problem in GW -- making your first few steps into gvg or hoh was so punishing that many people never made it past the first few brutal lessons. For those of us who did, it was a blast and eventually we learned enough to compete on some level. But for a guy who wants to earn his deer or gvg having never played top 200, he can expect a long painful road to claw his way up while being forced to play with bad players.

Krill · Nov 10, 2009, 12:07 AM // 00:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

Even if you disagree and submit that chess is generally a social activity between friends, online chess is clearly not, and thousands of people all over the world are playing it at any given instance across a number of sites. This is simply one clear contradiction to the narrative that a competitive game (not meaning strictly hardcore, just players pitted against each other) with no luck and little social interaction will purify to a small elite group of winners after losers predictably leave and newcomers are predictably losers, eventually dying.

I would argue that online chess is categorically different than online video games. With few exceptions video games have a peak lifespan of maybe three years, chess has and will endure for centuries. This is relevant because towards the end of video games lifespan, when the so called elite core is well established, there is no incentive for a new player to strive for that level of play when the game will soon be dead, if it is not already. Chess on the other hand will be around without any changes until the day you die. In short, chess is not a good example as a contradiction to rule even when the medium (online) is the same.

kedde · Nov 10, 2009, 09:13 AM // 09:13

How are things like AB or RA not equal to what you mention in giving rewards, not being humiliating when losing and not requiring specifics to enter?

The only difference is that because Aion depends on gear, it can hold some rewards there, and that there are more people.