Curse

red orc · May 20, 2007, 03:23 PM // 15:23

Even a bad guild will start to win every second fight when they get to fight their peers. There is no difference if you're 100 guild or 10,000 guild

TheOneMephisto · May 20, 2007, 03:42 PM // 15:42

How many 10,000 guilds do you think play regularly? After a certain point, you won't be facing your peers because they never play.

Frantic-Sheep · May 20, 2007, 05:28 PM // 17:28

I'm too lazy to go back and quote, but someone said it scares noobie people out etc.

You think it is the rewards? Sorry sir, but I dont think someone goes out 'I lost, I dont get points, this sucks, I quit'. I think you are mistaken there. The learning curve is very high in Guild Wars, due the many skills out there. If you havent been around since Prophecies, there will be a tough time catching up. You can't expect to win a lot and be awesome at the first run. No of course its not rewarding in the beginning. Your first GW PvE experience is not rewarding much as well (in terms of gold and items), but it all grows after playing more.

Another thing. Guy Joe the warrior goes in PvP, screams around and sees his gladiator stance and mending doesnt give him victories. He whines and people seem to be hostile against him. Yes those people get shoo'd away. Now Jack the warrior goes in with his mending build, observes other warriors and sees the good ones dont use it! Why he questions, and he changes the build and might even whisper a guy in friendly words. Jack learns from the other player and tries to score more kills and hooks up with other people. Now the difference is that Jack wants to learn, has patience and accepts the long learning curve. Joe wants the easy way and doesnt like to take the hard route, is not polite and isnt willing to listen..

I know the upper example is a bit sketchy - but I hope you get the point. Not everyone can and will ever be happy to play PvP, or will fit into their player needs. There are plenty of other things GW has to offer, or any other game.

The problem is people need to invest time to get 'good', and with GW it might take a bit more time + its more visible. Playing any shooter gives you access to everything right of the start you boot it up. GW has a long way of unlocking shit etc. (you dont need to be UAX to play tho). It still takes a lot of time to get good in any competitive game - its just less visible and less overwhelming as all the skills in GW (9 guns/x maps vs 1400+ skills and x types of play and x maps).

Once again - I think its beaad to give more rewards for losing. Could better invent something to lessen the learning curve (cant think of any and dont know if its possible). And of course, fix balance etc. (the usual)

Thomas.knbk · May 20, 2007, 06:25 PM // 18:25

There are a lot more Joes than Jacks

Blame the Monks · May 20, 2007, 07:42 PM // 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Servant of Kali

You dont reward them for losing, you reward them for PARTICIPATING.

Thank you. 789

DutchSmurf · May 20, 2007, 09:47 PM // 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Servant of Kali

You dont reward them for losing, you reward them for PARTICIPATING.

No you don't, you reward them for hitting the "enter battle" button. Somehow that is a big difference, as said many times in this thread already.

And I can only agree with Frantic-Sheep.

LuckyGiant · May 20, 2007, 11:59 PM // 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Servant of Kali

There are tons of people who are interested in very casual playing, but they have no motivation and rather spend time in boring PvE farming. These people are not interested at being #1 in GvG or in HA, they just want to have some fun along the way. When you go in PvP and lose, you get absolutely nothing. When you go to PvE and lose, you still get stuff you picked along the way. That's why for a lot of people casual PvPing is really a waste of time. You spend whole day PvPing, learning how to play, getting smacked, and then end up with zero gold. The guy then thinks "if i farmed these 10 hours i wouldve earned tons of cash". And so he goes a-farming.

You have to understand that providing gold for winning or losing matches is not the answer. For each gold a lower/middle class pvp player can earn, higher will earn 2-3x. This is just going to inflate the economy, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Although the lower/middle class have more gold they now have less purchasing power.

If you can find a reward system that works, without biased I'm all for it. But I doubt you can use the gold currency as incentive because the above situation will occur, making them worse off.

Xanthar · May 21, 2007, 09:01 AM // 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyGiant

For each gold a lower/middle class pvp player can earn, higher will earn 2-3x.

That quite depends on the reward system, doesn't it? I can imagine (as a mere example) that RA would net more gold than TA which would in turn net more gold than HA and GvG. In this kind of system, as the number of other rewards increase (titles, cape trims, emotes, ranking etc.) the gold earnings go down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyGiant

This is just going to inflate the economy, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Although the lower/middle class have more gold they now have less purchasing power.

I fail to perceive PvP:ers as "rich" in the sense that they have much gold. In fact, playing GvG will net you no gold at all in the current order of things, meaning that a guild that exclusively does GvG cannot even afford their own sigils.

Also - In what way is rewarding players according to skill "unequal" in the moral sense of the word? Is it also wrong to reward players focusing on farming more than players who concentrate on mission completion?

Please understand that gold going into the economy in a reward system like this is likely to simply be a substitution from one source (farming) to another (PvP) - Player time is still limited. Sure, a slight inflation might occur, but the number of PvP players is comparatively very small, so I'd hazard a guess that the effects will be negligible.

Again, I'll put forth the argument that in order to attract presumptive PvP:ers out of the PvE crowd, gold is an essential part of the equation.

DutchSmurf · May 21, 2007, 10:14 AM // 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xanthar

Again, I'll put forth the argument that in order to attract presumptive PvP:ers out of the PvE crowd, gold is an essential part of the equation.

Or maybe we should start with making PvP fun and easy to access. And what gives you the idea that the PvE crowd will suddenly start playing a part of the game they hate (just look the forums after a balance-update) when they can get gold for it?
And even if it works, which I really doubt, how much reward are you going to give and what do you need to do for it? If it is for winning only, you miss the new players who will probably lose far more often then not. If it is for losing too, you encourage people to leech. And if there was an easy solution for that problem Anet would have solved that long ago.
And even if we can get past that stage, the 'high-end' PvP is still impossible to access. The often used "no fame=no group, no group=no fame" makes it impossible to get a decent group in HA. And don't give me that "you need to work for it" speech. I want to have fun when playing a game, not having to farm HA for weeks just to be able to play it in a normal way.
GvG you say then? You mean that type of game you need 7 other players for with no way at all to find them ingame? The type of game where you first fights are against eF and EW? Where you lose in 4 minutes (for 2 matches) and when you complain in this forum people say you should learn something from how they killed you? The type of game that the few times you do find an opponent of your level, matches can be decided by a random catapult shot or some strange AI behavior?
Leaves you with TA, RA, AB and HvH. And except for TA those formats are still doing very well and don't need any support to get new players in at all. New players starting PvP isn't the main problem. Getting them to to right formats is.

Xanthar · May 21, 2007, 10:52 AM // 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchSmurf

...

Vitriolic? Yes. Constructive? No.

DuchSmurf - "making PvP fun and easy to access" - How would you go about it? It is far easier to, as they say, curse the darkness than to light a candle. I suggest more of the latter and less of the first.

Gunzwei · May 22, 2007, 08:09 AM // 08:09

I like the idea of adding additional rewards to PvP, and it would definitely get more people into it. It would help a lot of people like myself who enjoy both sides of the coin, but are a bit left out of HA/GVG due to lack of interest in PVP from PvE oriented guilds.

DutchSmurf · May 22, 2007, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xanthar

Vitriolic? Yes. Constructive? No.

DuchSmurf - "making PvP fun and easy to access" - How would you go about it? It is far easier to, as they say, curse the darkness than to light a candle. I suggest more of the latter and less of the first.

That would require that much changed that it is easier to make a new game, which is exactly what Anet is doing. But to name a few things:
UAX for all chapters if you buy atleast one.
Good starting builds instead of the ones you currently get. Bring back the premades.
A global searchengine for guilds ingame.
Move gladiatorpoints to TA only. If you really want a title for RA, include it in the (un)lucky titles. Although that might encourage people killing themselves.
Set a limit for spirits in all 4vs4 games. That, or half the health of spirits in those games.
HA and GvG are almost impossible to safe, so I would really just forget about those. And hope GW2 delivers something to replace them. Also with GW2 coming, I would suggest concentrating more on the 4vs4 modes for GW itself.

Sad thing is, we would not get any of this ever. So I just wasted my time by making this post. Which is why my last post was the way it is to begin with. And one last comment on rewards in PvP: Nice thought, won't do anything positive. Atleast not for the 'serious' types of PvP.

Frantic-Sheep · May 23, 2007, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas.knbk

There are a lot more Joes than Jacks

And guess what - this will only bring more Jacks around. Joes would be already in PvP and not quitting because there is no gold or loser reward (or participate reward).

Sasha' · May 23, 2007, 07:48 PM // 19:48

Game is dead, get over it.

ghostkai · May 25, 2007, 05:32 PM // 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sasha'

Game is dead, get over it.

great input....

More to the point, i really like this idea, but like everyone here thinks, please don't reward failure, rewarding failure leaves no need to improve. If i get paid for making a shit wall for someone, why should I make a good wall instead? Sure i get paid slightly more, but it's more effort and takes longer.

Treg Q · May 25, 2007, 09:17 PM // 21:17

Give us the old GW back!

I'm getting tired of hack and slash monsters in PvE and PvP is the last chance play this wonderful game.

I Brother Bloood I · May 26, 2007, 01:55 PM // 13:55

Bumb cuz this is a good idea.

Mylon · May 27, 2007, 06:01 AM // 06:01

I think the idea of being able to buy booze with Balth faction would be awesome. Just as long as it only costs like, 100-200 faction per bottle. But I'd still probably not get anything out of PvP, as I spend all of my points on unlocks still for that mythical (for me) UAX.