Curse

Garbad_the_Weak · Nov 10, 2009, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

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.

Its partly the rewards which are a hook for pveers, but also the fact that in aion if you bring a pet smiter no one will care except yourself (because its not structured team play). If you bring a pet smiter in ra or ab, your teammates will complain because you pull them down. I see AB as a slight step up in complexity and organization from aion world pvp on the continuum to gvg.

qvtkc · Nov 10, 2009, 03:59 PM // 15:59

Why would you care if people complained about you in RA?

I Angra I · Nov 10, 2009, 05:47 PM // 17:47

I haven't read anything but the OP but while that may be true on some scale, I entirely disagree with it being the reason why competitive gvg is dead.

Look at Starcraft. It has a learning curve even harder than GW, it takes literally years to become good enough to compete at all professionally, and yet there are WAY more people still playing it than GW. The reason why is because there is a HUGE availability for 3rd parties to organize tournaments/leagues/ladders, and there is incredibly easy spectating access to the game. Guild Wars has neither of these. ANet never supported 3rd parties, and their game doesn't have the resources for it to become a spectator sport. The final nail in the coffin was Anet pulling support for live tournaments themselves, and resorting to automated tournaments without any way for 3rd parties to organize alternative tournaments or leagues.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 10, 2009, 06:37 PM // 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbad_the_Weak

http://lostgarden.com/2009/11/testos...tive-play.html

This seems to me to be the history of guild wars in a nutshell. Yes, there were problems with gimmickry and vod and such, but the real issue was that GvG, the capstone of guild wars, wasn't fun or rewarding to casuals. For us hardcores, it was the best experience ever, but to casuals it was a certain loss and and humiliation and thus the gvg population steadily declined from the birth of obs mode to today. I hope GW2 fixes this and makes gvg more fun to more people without harming how awesome it was at the top.

What do you think?

In PvP people lose half the time (on average), in PvE everyone wins!

I think you might have a point on the entrance barrier being quite high and not rewarding to people not willing to learn/improve (it doesnt have to take THAT much time/effort) as for PvP'ers quitting though I think you couldn't be more wrong.

Of course the standard of play improved over time (this seems to mostly apply to game knowledge regarding builds and game mechanics, the actual game became easier imo) but I think a lot of the 'top' players left when no new WC was announced because of the lack of rewards for being top players.

When ATs with prizes came to the game a lot of people had already left because of 'fun seasons' (most inaccurate name ever) and in general more and more people resorting to abusing game mechanics and in general running more gimmicky builds.

If you look at the current 'active top guilds' besides rawr and perhaps StS, sup and yumy they are pretty much exclusively people who started gvging (seriously) in the last year or two.

Nechrond · Nov 11, 2009, 01:02 PM // 13:02

Decent article, but the rest of the thread is much more interesting. Allow me to add my two cents.

The main problem with new players getting into GvG isn't that the environment is not newb-friendly, but that there is NO environment for new players. Even in very casual guilds, it is hard to get into a GvG match. Setting up a guild of your own? Possible, but how are newbies going to get 8 players online? Adding heroes used to be an option, but then people abused hero reaction time, leading to the banning of heroes from PvP. Adding henchies? Let's say that it's a viable option, for the sake of the argument. This would only allow them to learn the mechanics of the game, without learning anything about good character builds - because players can't change the builds themselves. To make it worse, Anet refuses to create "cheese build" henchies, effectively leaving out most of the competitive meta - so this teaches them nothing. How are they going to get good enough for "real" GvG?

Now let's assume our newbie got lucky - a core player couldn't make it, and he's taken into a GvG match. What's he going to gain? Our newbie WILL be in a somewhat casual guilds, top guilds won't risk their ranking by taking a newb along, so he can't even get champion points.

The fixes I'd suggest are:
-Allow heroes in scrimmage. Yes, this opens the way for griefers in scrim, but they'll be bad players (otherwise they'd be doing "real" matches), so our newb stands a chance of defeating them. This would also lure more newbies into scrimmage, so there'd also be some decent low-level match-ups.
-Base the guild rating threshold for gaining champion points on the player's champion rank. This would amplify the scope of the title track: Low ranks would be much easier to get to, whereas high ranks would become even more difficult to attain. This way, you allow newbies to gain something (champion points) without messing up the rating system. Elitist players might complain that it would become too easy to get the champion title, to which I say:
If you're so damn good, go get a higher rank champion title.

lord of all tyria · Nov 11, 2009, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nechrond

Decent article, but the rest of the thread is much more interesting. Allow me to add my two cents.

The main problem with new players getting into GvG isn't that the environment is not newb-friendly, but that there is NO environment for new players. Even in very casual guilds, it is hard to get into a GvG match. Setting up a guild of your own? Possible, but how are newbies going to get 8 players online? Adding heroes used to be an option, but then people abused hero reaction time, leading to the banning of heroes from PvP. Adding henchies? Let's say that it's a viable option, for the sake of the argument. This would only allow them to learn the mechanics of the game, without learning anything about good character builds - because players can't change the builds themselves. To make it worse, Anet refuses to create "cheese build" henchies, effectively leaving out most of the competitive meta - so this teaches them nothing. How are they going to get good enough for "real" GvG?

Now let's assume our newbie got lucky - a core player couldn't make it, and he's taken into a GvG match. What's he going to gain? Our newbie WILL be in a somewhat casual guilds, top guilds won't risk their ranking by taking a newb along, so he can't even get champion points.

The fixes I'd suggest are:
-Allow heroes in scrimmage. Yes, this opens the way for griefers in scrim, but they'll be bad players (otherwise they'd be doing "real" matches), so our newb stands a chance of defeating them. This would also lure more newbies into scrimmage, so there'd also be some decent low-level match-ups.
-Base the guild rating threshold for gaining champion points on the player's champion rank. This would amplify the scope of the title track: Low ranks would be much easier to get to, whereas high ranks would become even more difficult to attain. This way, you allow newbies to gain something (champion points) without messing up the rating system. Elitist players might complain that it would become too easy to get the champion title, to which I say:
If you're so damn good, go get a higher rank champion title.

I suggest devaluing champ points even further than bspike ever did! Seriously..

kedde · Nov 11, 2009, 11:06 PM // 23:06

The word champion doesn't imply that any random retard is supposed to be one, now does it?

Not that the points haven't mattered for anything serious for a long time now, but just handing them out for free is retarded.

Nechrond · Nov 12, 2009, 12:04 AM // 00:04

My suggestion would make it significantly harder to get a high rank champion title. I hope for you guys that your GW skills are better than your reading skills.

Reverend Dr · Nov 12, 2009, 03:46 AM // 03:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

The word champion doesn't imply that any random retard is supposed to be one, now does it?

As opposed to the word, Gladiator or Commander or Hero or Vanquisher or Slayer or [insert every other title].

The only difference between champ point farming and other title farming is the speed and amount of set-up needed.

Everyone that PvP's knows of those guild that still set up matches between their own set of guild just for farm (and sell) champ points. They also know of a couple of names that have more champ points than most all (if not all) legitimate top GvGers even though not one point is legitimate.

Sankt Hallvard · Nov 12, 2009, 09:04 AM // 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

Everyone that PvP's knows of those guild that still set up matches between their own set of guild just for farm (and sell) champ points. They also know of a couple of names that have more champ points than most all (if not all) legitimate top GvGers even though not one point is legitimate.

And still people fear the devaluation of their titles more than losing their real life job or failing on an exam.

Titles are bad for the game. The counter argument is obviously that without titles people will see no need to get into competitive pvp and that 'THE GAME WILL DIE!11!". Bullshit. Most people gvg daily without any hope of ever getting a champion point. They play because gvg is fun, being the best and most supported format(the only supported format?). Then along comes deluded point farmers(most of you guys included, sorry to break it to you) with boring gimmicks that bring the quality of play down. Builds that are boring to play and boring to play against, the only enjoyment is the winning itself.

It's pretty much like the farming mentality in pve. People fear the day SF gets nerfed since their daily farming will be less rewarding. And who am I to say that people don't find amusement in repetitive, grinding behaviour? Well I can't obviously, but I have this idea that 'repetitive' and 'grinding' when used on human activity represents something negative.

And of course there's the argument that removing or devaluating a title 'takes away people's in-game accomplishments'. Really? Accomplishment? If you are losing sleep over concern for a line of text at your character's feet you need to take a deep breath and look at your situation from an outside, objective point of view.

I know this is like cussing in church so I expect no leniency. (Maybe some infraction points again for "trolling" since I don't stick to the high quality "what is your favourite.."-threads.)

Reverend Dr · Nov 13, 2009, 12:20 AM // 00:20

The people that play GvG only play because they enjoy that game. The people that play GvG for champ points are either buying/selling points via sync or running bspike.

I've also said this before: Remove all titles.

Jensy · Nov 13, 2009, 06:51 AM // 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

The people that play GvG only play because they enjoy that game. The people that play GvG for champ points are either buying/selling points via sync or running bspike.

I've also said this before: Remove all titles.

Yes, this. The guild I'm in plays for fun. I don't personally give two shits about champ title, it's all for the fun of playing (and winning. Winning is funnnnn

)

emuking · Nov 14, 2009, 02:47 PM // 14:47

very interesting article.

X Cytherea X · Nov 14, 2009, 05:49 PM // 17:49

definitely. i found out i fit in the pro-dominance/dont care for friends/humiliate strangers category.