Curse

C2K · Sep 15, 2007, 12:39 PM // 12:39

I think back when it was just Prophecies, PvE did help people learn how to build a character using skills that work together. This doesn't mean they were pro after doing PvP, just that they learn how skills can work with each otehr to be lethal.

I don't believe Balthazar faction was bad for the game. Personally, having been in PvP more than PvE over the last 2 years, I understand the frustration many of the PvPers who had UAS during beta must have felt. Balthazar faction was a good compromise and people praised Anet for it.

The problem with PvP today is it has become too cutthroat on the wrong levels. There is no place for new players to learn PvP without getting chastised by other players, without getting called "noob", without having the rest of their team bail. And know, that Zaishen Elite does not fix the problem. 1) Its outdated and 2) computer AI is on a path, while human intelligence can vary depending on who you are playing against.

Back when I first started, I had poor build choices as well. I'm sure at one point or another, we all have been there. The difference was that the teams I would get into weren't demanding the best player in the game. If they saw problems in a build, if they had input, they would suggest it. Maybe it was the maturity level, as someone posted earlier. However, PvP was a much friendlier environment than it is today.(In fact, the community as a whole was friendlier)

Nowadays, if you can't perform in lowly RA(which was the test build arena back in the good ole days), your team bails. To attempt to PuG in any form of PvP(except AB, because as long as you can tank and/or solo cap, your fine) is already considered a failure. People scream "r#+ team here" in hopes to get someone with the same amount of experience as they have to roll whatever PvP they are in.

And heroes, while they probably do not help in anyway, are a necessary evil now. Why? Heroes won't demean you for making mistakes, they won't verbally assault you, and they will never ragequit. The problem that they create though is the only way you can get good at PvP is to PvP with real people, because a hero will never give you advice on a build. And with the way the community can treat each other at times, I don't know if even GW2 could even mend the problems PvP has at the moment.

Oh, and don't think its just the PvP crowd that can get surly, this applies to PvE as well.

Ka Tet · Sep 15, 2007, 06:37 PM // 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by C2K

People scream "r#+ team here" in hopes to get someone with the same amount of experience as they have to roll whatever PvP they are in.

Do you really feel that there is something wrong with that or is it only when the rank requirement is higher than what you have? If you have spent a lot of time playing a game and trying to improve at it, would you want to play on a team with someone who hasn't?
If you have a team that's 7/8 in ha and all 7 are players who have learned how to play the game well and want to win, do you expect them to take a player who's going to get to halls and be clueless as to the objective of the match, or do you expect them to look for a player who should hopefully be on the same playing level as they are. I know that rank reqs don't guarantee that you will find a skilled player everytime out, but it does decrease the amount of time you'll spend looking. If you could pour through 3 r9s to find one that will do well on your team or 10 r6s or 100 r3s or 1000 r0s, which option will you select? Would you rather kick 2 pugs to get one good one or 999 to get one good one.
Now, I know this analogy is a bit extreme but it should give you a little insight into the logic behind trying to play with people of equal experience and skill level: do you think the Yankees are going to recruit players from the local beer league softball team?
Or better yet: let's say that you are on a local beer league softball team and your third baseman rips his acl and you are put in charge of finding his replacement. Are you going to take a guy who can't catch, throws like a girl and is not able to hit the ball past the pitcher. Or, are you going to take someone who can at least hit, field and throw competently, if not superbly.
I'm definitely not saying that there shouldnt be a place for bad and less-experienced players to learn and improve, I am just saying that the place for that isn't on good teams. I am wholly agreeable to the idea of having an area for less-talented and/or less-experienced folks to pvp at, but I also don't think that beginner/casual players are in anyway being slighted when they're not brought into experienced/hardcore teams.
GLHF all

P.S. Before I get flamed about the "throws like a girl" statement, I was using that as a figure of speech. I know that there are many girls out there who can throw a ball competently.

moriz · Sep 15, 2007, 06:45 PM // 18:45

the so-called "elitism" appears in every online game, therefore it cannot be pinpointed as the "cause" of GW's competitive downfall. there are games out there that have higher learning curves and even ruder communities, yet their competitive tournaments are jam packed. therefore, the community, and the learning curve of GW, cannot be the source of GW's competitive downfall.

by process of elimination, the only logical conclusion as to what is wrong with GW PvP, is that the system is not good, and should be changed in order to fix the problems.

erk · Sep 16, 2007, 01:06 AM // 01:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

the so-called "elitism" appears in every online game, therefore it cannot be pinpointed as the "cause" of GW's competitive downfall. there are games out there that have higher learning curves and even ruder communities, yet their competitive tournaments are jam packed. therefore, the community, and the learning curve of GW, cannot be the source of GW's competitive downfall.

by process of elimination, the only logical conclusion as to what is wrong with GW PvP, is that the system is not good, and should be changed in order to fix the problems.

I don't play other online games, so I am curious do the "jam packed" games feature permanent team ladders like Guilds, or is it more an individual title like HvH ladders? Or do they ditch the whole ladder concept like HA?

Riotgear · Sep 16, 2007, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

there are games out there that have higher learning curves and even ruder communities, yet their competitive tournaments are jam packed.

Such as?

And RA/AB to HA isn't really a curve, it's more like a wall.

Quote:

therefore, the community, and the learning curve of GW, cannot be the source of GW's competitive downfall.

The learning curve is preventing an inflow of new players, and the hack-job of skill balancing and shitty AT system are killing off the existing competitive playerbase. Two pieces that form a larger problem.

Quote:

I'm definitely not saying that there shouldnt be a place for bad and less-experienced players to learn and improve, I am just saying that the place for that isn't on good teams.

HA should have had two modes to begin with: Open (i.e. the current system), and matching teams by average fame. A ladder system would be even better.

C2K · Sep 16, 2007, 03:58 AM // 03:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by tha walkin dude

Do you really feel that there is something wrong with that or is it only when the rank requirement is higher than what you have? If you have spent a lot of time playing a game and trying to improve at it, would you want to play on a team with someone who hasn't?

If the player shows a desire to learn and is willing to try, perhaps. PvP is a constant learning curve and you only learn by doing it with other people. I wouldn't want that person on my GvG team however, but thats because I view GvG as the highest echelon of competition in Guild Wars(and for those that think it isn't, well that just shows how far PvP has fallen).

Quote:

If you have a team that's 7/8 in ha and all 7 are players who have learned how to play the game well and want to win, do you expect them to take a player who's going to get to halls and be clueless as to the objective of the match, or do you expect them to look for a player who should hopefully be on the same playing level as they are. I know that rank reqs don't guarantee that you will find a skilled player everytime out, but it does decrease the amount of time you'll spend looking. If you could pour through 3 r9s to find one that will do well on your team or 10 r6s or 100 r3s or 1000 r0s, which option will you select? Would you rather kick 2 pugs to get one good one or 999 to get one good one.

Anyone with the desire to learn can figure out how to use any of the gimmicks. It has nothing to do with rank, because, as you have mentioned, rank really doesn't give you much insight into the aptitude of the player. You really don't know how much a player may acvtually know about PvP until you team with them. I'm pretty sure there are r1s, r3s, r5s out there that are better players than most r9+s. There are legit r9s, those who do have the skill that r9 would entail, or any rank for that matter. However, there are some rankeds are good because they have a strong guild to back them, guilds with players that are pro. And then, you have rankeds that are horrible, but they took advantage of poor skill balance and rode that monster till Anet smashed it. If "rank == player skill", then the whole point behind rank discrimination would be somewhat valid.

Quote:

Now, I know this analogy is a bit extreme but it should give you a little insight into the logic behind trying to play with people of equal experience and skill level: do you think the Yankees are going to recruit players from the local beer league softball team?
Or better yet: let's say that you are on a local beer league softball team and your third baseman rips his acl and you are put in charge of finding his replacement. Are you going to take a guy who can't catch, throws like a girl and is not able to hit the ball past the pitcher. Or, are you going to take someone who can at least hit, field and throw competently, if not superbly.

Well, the Yankees are in the playoff hunt again because they called up a few pitchers from the minor leagues. And thats one problem with Guild Wars PvP right now, people are too turned off to try PvP or people don't want to give them a chance to learn it, which is what the minor leagues do for baseball, hone skills. Guild Wars PvP can be too competative for new players to get into the competition.

Remember, even RA is highly competative, something it never was back in the day. TA wasn't competative 2 years ago as well. HA and GvG were considered elite forms of PvP. With titles and changes to the PvP structure, almost every area of PvP can be considered high competition.

In RA, you either sync with your guild or you leave till you get a monk. In TA, PuGs are bad unless they are high ranked, and if you can't farm gladiator points the team must disband. There are guilds who solely farm TA for Gladiator points and don't do much else. HA is a ghost of its former self, some changes helped it, others hurt it. HvH needs some balancing to diversify, but thats because a few Assassin skills may need a tuning. And GvG is nothing close to what it was 2 years ago. Whoever gets thru the blocking first wins essentially.

As for your Beer-League comparison, you don't need talent to work to become a good player, it just gets you there faster.

Quote:

I'm definitely not saying that there shouldnt be a place for bad and less-experienced players to learn and improve, I am just saying that the place for that isn't on good teams. I am wholly agreeable to the idea of having an area for less-talented and/or less-experienced folks to pvp at, but I also don't think that beginner/casual players are in anyway being slighted when they're not brought into experienced/hardcore teams.
GLHF all

What constitutes a "good" team? If the same exact people that were successful are playing together again, thats a good team. But without 1 or 2, its just a team like everyone else until proven otherwise. This is true if you watch guilds compete, as you'll notice their best team is usually the one where all their guildies are present. Once you PuG for a missing link, whether its r3-r7-r11, your team goes back down to the average level until you succeed or overachieve the expectations of the "good" team. Its possible to add 2 people higher ranked than you and have your team do poorly. On the contrary, an unranked can learn and provide the role giving your team a respectable showing while your missing the other components of your team.

Though I agree there has to be an open PvP to allow new players to learn without harrassment.

Ensign · Sep 16, 2007, 08:45 PM // 20:45

The problem with PvP in Guild Wars is that it isn't supported. That's it really.

Shmanka · Sep 16, 2007, 11:02 PM // 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

The problem with PvP in Guild Wars is that it isn't supported. That's it really.

The funny thing is, just to add to this note btw. Is that I just recently heard, from multiple people that Izzy asked eE how to nerf ritspike, and as a sarcastic joke they said "give the spells exaustion".

.. I had to laugh and share that one when I saw this

I agree, I'm about to submit my experimentation with necromancers and how I feel about them for a while with skill balance suggestions. >.> should be done soon.

Shendaar · Sep 17, 2007, 02:28 AM // 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

The funny thing is, just to add to this note btw. Is that I just recently heard, from multiple people that Izzy asked eE how to nerf ritspike, and as a sarcastic joke they said "give the spells exaustion".

I seriously hope that is not true lol.

But yeah Ensign is right .. PvP is just not being supported.

twicky_kid · Sep 17, 2007, 05:36 AM // 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shendaar

I seriously hope that is not true lol.

But yeah Ensign is right .. PvP is just not being supported.

Of course not. PvP doesn't make them money. Anet threw away their chance at making real money in pvp by licensing the game to hold private tournaments with sponsors and advertisers involved.

Competitive gaming is a reality. Many players make good money just by winning tournaments.

lacasner · Sep 25, 2007, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotgear

The other MAJOR part is perception. There are a lot of players that want to get in, are willing to learn what they need to, but don't know how because the only way they see to get in is rank. Even without rank, the problem would probably still exist mostly in its full intensity, because a lot of newbies would get dropped shortly after they ping their skillbar.

Finding a guild is the only solution to the rank "x" amount problem. Sadly, nowadays this is exceptionally difficult to do(that is find a good one).

KoniaX · Sep 25, 2007, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ado

Lemme summerize what went wrong in PvP

oldskoolers: average age 20 years old, looking for difficulty, creativity and challenge.
current players: average age 14 years old, famefarmers, looking for easiest way to win.

note: I'm not trolling, really, I'm not.

QFT.... thats seriously true

selber · Oct 01, 2007, 10:36 PM // 22:36

Well, I would have not answered to this thread really, but because the other thread was closed - here it goes:

The very basic problem in GW is that you can't get better via "skill" at a certain point. That's a thing that can't easily be fixed only by skillbalances, UAX or removing ATs, because it lays way more deeper.

Let's say you are a very, very good mesmer - you play all your skills at perfect timing and do everything right - what's left to improve yourself now? The things that seperate you from a mesmer of this other guild - playing some ranks below yours - are pretty marginal.

So all comes down to 2 things: How is your "teamspirit" - how do you play with the other 7 peeps, how can you have an advantage by playing better because you know each other, communicate better and 2nd: -- What is you build. That's it. A bit of luck also comes into this calculation of course, because everything is close. But those 2 major things are left for "competitive PvP" atm.

So - to answer the question - "Why is PvP is lackluster?" - is: Because Anet want's it to be that way! - If they would not - they would design their game better and I think they are smart enough to accomplish that, except --- there is no reason to do that atm. Unfortunatly. Many players say it by themself: We are playing GW because there is no other good PvP-MMO out there.

The market will change and I doubt they will have success to get off their crappy WoW-clone aka GW2 in 2 years when WAR, SGW, AoC or Fallout Online will be be there. That's the other side of the coin.

--s

Despozblehero · Oct 02, 2007, 02:53 AM // 02:53

Ooo fallout online? I dont keep up with new games coming out but fallout series was fun, story was cool too. Thought it would be cool to take that system and make it mmorpg (without the turnbased stuff lol).

Back to OP

GW PvP isnt taken seriously by its makers anymore... thats it.

Ensign · Oct 02, 2007, 09:58 PM // 21:58

There was a shift, starting shortly after nightfall, that de-emphasized strategy and tactics and increased emphasis on precise execution of very simple plays. Essentially, the brute force power level of the game has increased substantially, while the value of robust or finesse skills has remained stagnant or gone backwards. There's very little room to make plays on current templates, and not much you can do to break a game open or change terms. It's more or less down to precise execution of simple percentage plays and seeing who can take more shots / who gets lucky first. It's made the game a lot more accessible, but it isn't nearly as interesting as a competitive game as it has been in the past.

Phades · Oct 04, 2007, 07:39 AM // 07:39

Games that are easy to pick up, but take a long time to master are the kind that stay. The ones that are easy to master in the video game realm get delegated to the "rental" realm. Moving an online game into the "rental" realm direction is a poor choice of design, because it makes the game easily forgetable as there is little to remeber in order to have a "mastery" over it.

Guildwars originally i would call hard to pick up and hard to master, considering the social engineering required on top of breaking through the basic hurdles of aquiring the bare minimums of unlocks and equipment in order to become "competitive". This was viewed in different ways depending on of the individual was a PVE or a PVP player. Now days for any new player i would say that the game is still hard to pick up, if not harder, due to the volume of material required to become competitive, but easier to master. The ease of mastery is going to eventually turn away longer time players as there is little remaining to hold their interest or challenge them over time. This challenge in pvp is the interest of varied confrontational setups or inventive plays. In the past this was enabled by the "robust" skills. Dumming down the options and simplifying the options removes that interest through repetition and lack of ability to modify the situation, similar to facing a situation where an individual would be forced to concede defeat, even in a winning situation.

This inevitability can easily be felt at any moment when an individual can not discern if the actions taken are causing any real impact. There were skills that did this well in different eras, such as gale, blackout, diversion, and distracting shot. There have also been skills that achieved this effect as well, but in a rather negative way, such as avatar of grenth. Of course the monk role, in terms of influence, has not really changed unless influenced by skills that created a "negative" impact upon the game.

RhanoctJocosa · Oct 04, 2007, 05:39 PM // 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phades

...This inevitability can easily be felt at any moment when an individual can not discern if the actions taken are causing any real impact. There were skills that did this well in different eras, such as gale, blackout, diversion, and distracting shot. There have also been skills that achieved this effect as well, but in a rather negative way, such as avatar of grenth. Of course the monk role, in terms of influence, has not really changed unless influenced by skills that created a "negative" impact upon the game.

Great post, qft.

Riotgear · Oct 04, 2007, 08:46 PM // 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

There was a shift, starting shortly after nightfall, that de-emphasized strategy and tactics and increased emphasis on precise execution of very simple plays.

That can largely be blamed on Critical Chop and the then-cheap Shadow Prison. Now Conjure is causing a similar mess. It's simply become far too easy to instagib players and too easy to negate pressure with mass-defense templates and LoD.

Kanyatta · Oct 07, 2007, 06:28 PM // 18:28

for the love of God, do not, under any circumstances call The Last Pride TLP!

EvIL, gone, but never forgotten...

Bankai · Oct 07, 2007, 06:51 PM // 18:51

The 'shift' you're talking about is certainly noticeable, especially in the way you can use a skill.

For example, let's take Windborne speed. Windborne speed has (had?) a lot of uses. You can put it on a monk to get away from that nasty warrior, put it on a warrior for a speed-boost, use it on the thief to make it walk faster, or use it on yourself to run flags.
Now, let's take another skill. Same line, but now from a newer campaign.
Storm djinn's haste has the same function, but takes a huge amount of time, and you have a dis-advantage that's only noticeable in battle. This skill is purely one-dimensional: You can only use it for one thing. Flag running.