Curse

Wilhelm · Mar 14, 2007, 03:21 PM // 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Teh Mighty Warrior I

Working on something else...like this "lucky" weekend we're getting? Double drops on greens? Idk about you, but I am not interested in this pve crap.

Well you may not be, but considering 80% (Estimate) of the people that have purchased the game are interested only in PvE........it shows why PvE is a higher focus.

They're appealing to their majority audience....not to the 150ish people that grind it out daily in the gimmick arena.

Yunas Ele · Mar 14, 2007, 03:29 PM // 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomway Ftw

Right, GWO, and the TGH have respectable communities of experienced HA players. Not to mention that every PVEer who saw the thread voted for 6v6 to throw the poll off.

Like Wilhelm pointed out, the PvErs (from GWO and TGH) make up more of the community than the HAers. They're more potential profit for ANet. Of course ANet is going to take their opinions into consideration. I don't agree with it but you have to remember ANet is a company out to make money. When you're out to make money, you care about the people who are going to make you more money, not the people who are "respected on the internet".

That being said, 8v8 is winning so... maybe we will see 8v8 by 2008? Or am I expecting too much?

Death_From_Above · Mar 14, 2007, 04:19 PM // 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yunas Ele

Like Wilhelm pointed out, the PvErs (from GWO and TGH) make up more of the community than the HAers. They're more potential profit for ANet. Of course ANet is going to take their opinions into consideration. I don't agree with it but you have to remember ANet is a company out to make money. When you're out to make money, you care about the people who are going to make you more money, not the people who are "respected on the internet".

That being said, 8v8 is winning so... maybe we will see 8v8 by 2008? Or am I expecting too much?

I wanted to ask one question, how is anet winning if they make 8v8 6v6 and barely any pvers even after this change are playing it in comparrision to the HAers. HAers bought the next packs ect for the purpose of HA in most cases, so to simplify what im basically saying. You have say 2000 players of which say 500 are HAers. Ok now to please the 1500 players who dont HA. You change HA to suit them so they have a new area like AB or something like that. So to the 1500 pvers now all this is is an expansion to their game and for the HAers a deduction. So now the 500 HAers who like the pvers bought the whole game and next campeigns ect, dont bother HA anymore. Not being like agreessive or passive just curious, but my question is how does ANET make more money then if the pvers will buy the game not for HA but for pve anyway because they love it. Basically it looks like youll have 1500 players now of which say 30 actually use the HA designed for them? Can someone explain this for me please. Because to me what it looks like is more of a loss but rather a minor loss for anet but its still a loss. One last thing on an end note, didnt they promise gw when it was first realised would be mainly pvp based?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undressed

They changed, they didn't break, so no, they are not entitled to fix anything because YOUR personal opinion makes you say so.

No, I think your attitude is a complete joke, I won't comment on the comparisons with babies, it's too retarded. If you're unable to occupy yourself with other things and wait out until the game is fun again for you, you strongly need to overthink your situation.

Sorry i somewhat seem to be a bit confused. I have been occupying myself with other things whiles i wait for anet to sort themselves out. As iv said over and over again but its obvious you probly have not seen this. I have just been doing more work (school ect) and playing call of duty so in what ways am i therefore unable to occupy myself. Theres only so long though i should have to occupy myself though and i think that was crossed when we got to 8 months which if you look at it is almost a year. Also about the comment concerning babies. A comparison is a comparison is it not. Its your oppinion if you think its lame, because many others may think its rather effective at portraying my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undressed

I am very sure the loss of the leet HA players of old is not even close to marginal for ArenaNET. Even when the Top 100-GvGs would leave, it wouldn't be a problem, however GW needs its PvP-part to stay alive and prosper beyond the casual regions. Let's just give them a chance to make it better, if not now, maybe with GW2.

Understandable what you are saying here but is it right to give the pvpers stuff, the same people who have spent the same amount on the game to the pvers? PVP play in terms of HA has been killed off by anet with 6v6, so in what ways is this keeping it alive much more than 8v8 did. I have given anet a chance as the whole pvp community has. How many chances should they have, espcialy when they ignore us. I have a simple question for you, alot of people are saying 8 months is not a long wait just be pacient. So please inform me then as to how long we should have to wait before we can then start becoming impacient according to you. 2 years, 3 or maybe 4?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Weekes

We gathered poll results from numerous websites spread across several languages (English, German, Spanish and French primarily). What Gaile has said is pretty accurate. I've seen the numbers: 8v8 is ahead, however statistically speaking it *is* a close vote.

Looking at the English forums, the GWG vote was the only one to show a clear preference, with TGH and GWO both split very evenly. Comparing languages, Germans were comparatively less likely to be 'neutral' and more likely to be in favour of 6v6 than the English, while the Spanish poll resulted in 6v6 being marginally preferred.

Whiles your here Alex i would like to quickly ask a few questions which if you could answer would put me at ease, being its one i have asked since the change of halls to 6v6 but yet its never been answered. I heard anet did a poll originaly for the proposed change to 6v6 correct. Now i wanted to ask why firstly, when a large majority of the HA community at the time did not use the forms.

This poll was done on the forms and say not done on the guildwars website. I would therefore also like to know why hardly any of the pvp community where informed of this poll as every good pvper i have asked up untill now has said they were unaware of such a thing. Would this therefore not make your poll flawed if the people who actually care about HA or play it regularly were not voting and did not know about it? And if so why was anet hasty and not forsee this. My next question, why was this voting also done after a double fame weekend and would you be able to tell me what the titles of the polls where (aka the opptions).

Reason im asking this is because the double fame obviously influenced many people and therefore if the option was did you like the 6v6 event for example many people would have said yes. Lastly, i have heard many complaints about kill count, and many people have given reasons as yo why its bad as im sure you have read. Looking at this evidence therefore and seeing it is true yourself, why was kill count only removed from HA which is the last map so it has no real effect anyway.

As if you get to the last map you win or lose, you lose you start again. Why this as apposed to broken tower for example where it would then be, you win past broken as aposed to you lose at broken, go in, lose at broken go in ect. Wouldnt this make the game more fluent. It would be much appreciated if you could answer these simple questions of mine.

Yunas Ele · Mar 14, 2007, 04:42 PM // 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

I wanted to ask one question, how is anet winning if they make 8v8 6v6 and barely any pvers even after this change are playing it in comparrision to the HAers. HAers bought the next packs ect for the purpose of HA in most cases, so to simplify what im basically saying. You have say 2000 players of which say 500 are HAers. Ok now to please the 1500 players who dont HA. You change HA to suit them so they have a new area like AB or something like that. So to the 1500 pvers now all this is is an expansion to their game and for the HAers a deduction. So now the 500 HAers who like the pvers bought the whole game and next campeigns ect, dont bother HA anymore. Not being like agreessive or passive just curious, but my question is how does ANET make more money then if the pvers will buy the game not for HA but for pve anyway because they love it. Basically it looks like youll have 1500 players now of which say 30 actually use the HA designed for them? Can someone explain this for me please. Because to me what it looks like is more of a loss but rather a minor loss for anet but its still a loss.

I don't think I was clear in my post, so let me clarify. If ANet had left it 8v8 from the beginning and never touched it, it would be a win-win situation. Going with your example, the 500 HAers would still buy next chapters and the 1500 PvErs would still buy next chapters, more char slots, etc. Everybody wins. ANet included. They're earning maximum profit.

However, for whatever reason, ANet decided to screw up HA. And left it like that for wayyyy too long. Majority of those 500 HAers have rage quit the game and hate ANet. ANet has reached a "point of no return". If ANet were to make HA enjoyable again, I doubt more than 100 of those former 500 HAers would return to the game. So the time spent making HA enjoyable could be better spent pleasing PvErs (turning that 1500 into say... 1800 and having some of those 1800 buy more character slots and what not), which would in turn result in more profit than bringing back 100 of the former 500 HAers.

Just my speculation at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

One last thing on an end note, didnt they promise gw when it was first realised would be mainly pvp based?

I'm pretty sure you're right on that, but don't quote me on it. However, they soon realized that PvErs made them more money so they focus on PvErs. Let me give you an example. Lets say you open a store that sells say... hats and shoes. When you open up, your main focus is on hats, but you'll also sell shoes along side. However, when looking at your sales, most of your sales coming from shoes. You're then going to be more focused on shoes, making sure the shoe side of your store is at its best, while just maintaining the hats as a side thing (even though it was the other way around at the start). Makes sense now?

Btw, I'm just speculating so take my post as a grain of salt...

Nadia Roark · Mar 14, 2007, 04:46 PM // 16:46

Hilariously enough, almost no one that has posted since my opening remarks (at least, the ones that have been talking to me) seems to have read bullet point #3 which reads:

To anyone who still wants to complain that 8 months is a long time relative to the task at hand (I admit it probably wouldn't take long to enact these changes), please refer to statement #1.

Find something more important to worry about. In the grand scheme of things this is not a big deal and a few of you need to stop treating me like an asshole for suggesting that it isn't. The acrid responses I have been getting expose the authors as the small-minded, ill-tempered children that they are.

Despite the platitudes we keep hearing about keeping customers happy, ArenaNet does not exist for our benefit but for their own--simply put they're here to make money and if we're complaining about the game in the first place, they already have our $50. If we were paying monthly fees for Guild Wars, I would be a lot more sympathetic to the substance (and frustrated nature) of your complaints.

Put yourself in their position. People QQ for months about holding builds and how hard it is for newbies to get into groups. Don't tell me it didn't happen--or that people didn't browbeat ANet devs/Gaile/whoever else over it: they did. In response to this, they launch 6v6 (maybe to make holding less powerful? I don't know) and double fame to entice more people to play. Community response, at the time, was far from unfavorable. They thought they were making the appropriate changes based off what we had been complaining about for months.

Granted, a lot of people left when 6v6 came out (I myself took a long break) but the violent outcry against 6v6, the "petitions" here and the "protests" in HA id1 were a phenomenon that I personally did not notice until mid to late december. People may not have ever liked 6v6, but it had really only reached the boiling point a few months ago when the real absurdities of 6v6 started to dawn on us.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when I want something changed, I prefer not to assume the demeanor of a child throwing a temper tantrum.

Death_From_Above · Mar 14, 2007, 04:49 PM // 16:49

Lol, hum very well explained indeed i must say. One other question i have in relation to what you have said though is, but if they fixed HA although they have gone beyond the point of no return. Would by not doing so, mean the game can develop (HA wise) and over time florish as it did in the past. As apposed to say having 100 HAers come back and only having them play it.

Bread Fan · Mar 14, 2007, 04:56 PM // 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when I want something changed, I prefer not to assume the demeanor of a child throwing a temper tantrum.

No instead you come here and make long ass posts saying the exact same thing every time. Cpt Obvious to the rescue!

Franco Power · Mar 14, 2007, 04:57 PM // 16:57

I think people just have to accept that GW has became just another PvE game, broken skills, screwed up gvg ladder, screwed up HA, hundreds of double drop, double exp, double lucky, blah blah pve weekends?

Is it not that hard to 1+1=2 ?

Riotgear · Mar 14, 2007, 05:00 PM // 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

they already have our $50.

If you want to talk from a business standpoint, their business model revolves around selling new chapters. As with any business, devoting resources to customer satisfaction is more effective than devoting resources to advertising. Retaining customers is cheaper than attracting new ones.

Even without long-term sales considered, happy customers tell people to buy the game and boost sales, unhappy customers tell people that the game sucks and hurt them. Do you think Blizzard keeps updating Starcraft because they want their customers to buy Starcraft again?

It is in their best interest to keep their player base happy, whether they're charging a subscription fee or not.

Lord Mendes · Mar 14, 2007, 05:03 PM // 17:03

Guild Wars is a PvE game with good PvP.
AMIRITE?!

Franco Power · Mar 14, 2007, 05:07 PM // 17:07

Yay to Mendes, I thought I was the only one who knew 1+1=2

wait no,

Quote:

Guild Wars is a PvE game and once upon a time had good PvP.

fb2000 · Mar 14, 2007, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

This isn't Blizzard, and we're not playing WoW. ANet and NCsoft actually have other games.
...
Grow the f*ck up.
..

just wanted to reply to this. Next time when you want to be cocky, get educated a bit, ok? otherwise you are embarassing yourself (in my humble opinion..)

and yes,8 months is long. for a change that would take about 2-3 hours max from one persons time (not sure, can be wrong,even tho i suppose they have the previous HA stuff in backup...so less than that)

Apple · Mar 14, 2007, 05:12 PM // 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Mendes

Guild Wars is a game with PvP that is good enough that it's better than any alternative, yet utterly appalling that they just can't get it right for once.
AMIRITE?!

fixed lol amirite?
EDIT : OHSHI I LOST MY GREEN NAME, WHY MUST YOU SMITE ME DRALSPIRE!

Death_From_Above · Mar 14, 2007, 05:14 PM // 17:14

Quote:

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when I want something changed, I prefer not to assume the demeanor of a child throwing a temper tantrum.

As i said before in another post i think on another thread directed at you when you stated basically this exact same thing. You claim all of us who are showing were not happy with these lame changes when the majority want it "children throwing a temper tantrum." Its funny because even though its a game no ones saying were going to work for example or school with deep hatred 2wards anet the whole day and hence are sulking. Oh noo. A simple question for you, when they increase taxes by say 40p because say someone doesnt want to go work and so has to live off the state. People complain do they not, theres uproar.

But its only 40p or say 1 pound or what ever. Its not going to break your bank. In the same way i can say its just 1 pound, but if you look its not the money thats the problem. People find it imoral and thats why they complain. Another example, when you go to the shop. You buy a piece of equipment and get a reciet. The equipment costs 600 or say 89 or say 50 pounds. You go home and find its faulty. You go to the store and ask for a replacment and they say oh sorry were not going to do that you have bought the item ect and they start chatting rubbish when there clearly in the wrong.

Nadia are you telling me you stand there and go ok, and the walk off out the shop? I wouldnt be surprised if you lost your cool and flammed the person or gave them a nice shouting to. The point here is different people react in different ways. What may be big to you may not be big to me, and what is big to me may not be big to you. So although you dont feel this is quite big in relation to many other pvpers. I think making statements like were acting like children is irrelivent because as i said before, have you ever behaved like a child in a certain situation.

Infact is even complaining for what is right even tantrum like? If you stand there and remain quite putting all your hope in somethin such as anet. Your going to find they have let you down, now if you complain you at least stand a chance of getting them to listern and understand your complaint. Anet said everything regardin party size would be like dun and dusty at 1st March. So why isnt it.

Patccmoi · Mar 14, 2007, 05:25 PM // 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

Would by not doing so, mean the game can develop (HA wise) and over time florish as it did in the past. As apposed to say having 100 HAers come back and only having them play it.

I think that something a lot of HAers don't realize when talking about the old 8v8 is that it WASN'T flourishing. It had a decent player base (i think anyway), but it was NOT getting new people in, or at least less than people leaving it anyway. That was the main problem and the main reason people QQ before the change (cause let's face it, there was always QQing before ANet ever changed anything, and no it was not just 'PvE newbs').

I mean sure you can keep a mighty attitude and say 'oh but we worked for our rank do the same newbs', but in the end if there's less people joining it's bad for the game. It -was- hard to get in HA, and very demoralizing especially for new players, and it was much harder at this point than it was during Tombs when every1 was relatively low rank (i mean, there was tons of R0-R3 groups forming all over the place back then) and also overall less skilled (hell, i remember Tombing and winning HoH with Air spike without even using Vent, that wouldn't actually work now). And with less NEW people playing, it only left the 'hardcore' HAers which, being more skilled, tore appart new players, which was just more demoralizing for them (i mean, the reality of low rank PuGing is bad enough, if they don't even get the chance to fight other low rank PuGs in the first map it sucks for them). Yes it's possible and yes some went through, i don't wanna hear any 'i did it' story, the thing is if it's TOO hard for the majority of the player base who would like to get in and in the end it DOESN'T bring enough people in, the arena isn't going well. It doesn't matter if you did it or if most of the current 'good HAers' did it. What matters to ANet is that the arena was declining in the long run and they tried something to bring some new blood in there.

They likely took a bad approach, but mistakes are made. I agree that it's taking too long for their fixes and updates, but this happens too (that's not just ANet, any game company that grows at all never meet deadlines. I followed Blizz games before that and oh were deadlines never met and updates took forever to come to fix obvious abuses too. The thing is they have a lot more things to do and to consider than the players see in the end). But PLEASE stop blaming them for trying something in the first place.

Lord Mendes · Mar 14, 2007, 05:30 PM // 17:30

My problem with guildwars is that instead of trying to keep and attract new PvP players and start to become a competitive PvP game with a big PvP playerbase, they are trying to get the old PvEers to buy the next game.
This is not just a 6v6 vs 8v8 or a delay in automated tournaments issue, it is simply a marketing "mistake" that ended up attracting so many PvEers instead of PvPers that the game cannot expand PvP-wise without making PvEers happy.

People used to rage at me in riverside for saying that "Guildwars is a PvP game financed by cheap PvEers", but I guess I was wrong.
Tangeants are fun, discuss?

I agree with Patccmoi as usual, but they way they changed it hardly made difference in terms of making it more accessible to newer players. They either made it a PvE arena (read: heroes) or a gimped and r/p/s arena (read: 6v6). Heroes made it too accessible, making it hero battle with fame, hardly a decent PvP mode, and 6v6 made it just as hard for newer players to play all while gimping the arena and creating a stale-ER metagame.

Changing fundamental parts of an arena so reliant on a simple mechanic is lame and won't attract new players, but "educating the masses" and removing many of the barries of entry in HA will.

Again you said it yourself, newer players were demoralized because they were getting crushed by hardcore players, how in hell is 6v6 going to change that?

Divinus Stella · Mar 14, 2007, 05:56 PM // 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Apple]

fixed lol amirite?
EDIT : OHSHI I LOST MY GREEN NAME, WHY MUST YOU SMITE ME DRALSPIRE!

Well it was database guru before and the guru datebase is always broke, so your to blame.

btw i got Winterhearts Guild before, its all good stuff, couldn't find any best-of albums tho.

Yunas Ele · Mar 14, 2007, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Hilariously enough, almost no one that has posted since my opening remarks (at least, the ones that have been talking to me) seems to have read bullet point #3 which reads:

To anyone who still wants to complain that 8 months is a long time relative to the task at hand (I admit it probably wouldn't take long to enact these changes), please refer to statement #1.

Find something more important to worry about. In the grand scheme of things this is not a big deal and a few of you need to stop treating me like an asshole for suggesting that it isn't. The acrid responses I have been getting expose the authors as the small-minded, ill-tempered children that they are.

You're right, its not the end of the world like some people are making it out to be. I can't speak to everyone but its not life ruining or whatever for me. I have my life outside of guild wars, however, I still had time for GW. I played it. I enjoyed it. I no longer enjoy it because of decisions ANet made. So I spend some of that time posting on this forum, sharing my opinion about ANet's poor decisions with others. Theres nothing wrong with that, is there?

And as for people being assholes, welcome to the internet. Nothing new to see here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Despite the platitudes we keep hearing about keeping customers happy, ArenaNet does not exist for our benefit but for their own--simply put they're here to make money and if we're complaining about the game in the first place, they already have our $50. If we were paying monthly fees for Guild Wars, I would be a lot more sympathetic to the substance (and frustrated nature) of your complaints.

I've been saying something similar for a while (ANet makes more money pleasing PvErs so its no surprise they aren't doing anything for HA population) so don't have much to say here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Put yourself in their position. People QQ for months about holding builds and how hard it is for newbies to get into groups. Don't tell me it didn't happen--or that people didn't browbeat ANet devs/Gaile/whoever else over it: they did. In response to this, they launch 6v6 (maybe to make holding less powerful? I don't know) and double fame to entice more people to play. Community response, at the time, was far from unfavorable. They thought they were making the appropriate changes based off what we had been complaining about for months.

Granted, a lot of people left when 6v6 came out (I myself took a long break) but the violent outcry against 6v6, the "petitions" here and the "protests" in HA id1 were a phenomenon that I personally did not notice until mid to late december. People may not have ever liked 6v6, but it had really only reached the boiling point a few months ago when the real absurdities of 6v6 started to dawn on us.

Personally I never QQed about 8v8, but yes a lot of people did so yes, I see your point and where ANet was coming from. However, once 6v6 settled in, the QQing got even worse and more people raged the game... I don't know about you, but I'd say having it bad (8v8) is better than having it really bad (6v6). Thats why I am frustrated with ANet. Why can't they at least change it to the way it was, which wasn't as bad as it is now, or better yet, make some changes to it that make it GOOD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when I want something changed, I prefer not to assume the demeanor of a child throwing a temper tantrum.

You're right some people are taking this way too serious but I don't see anything wrong with sharing my opinions of the decision's ANet have made with others on a forum (which is what I'm doing).

milan · Mar 14, 2007, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Wow...Too much sugar for some people.

I'm seeing the same names again and again on this string saying how HA was broken 8 months ago, personally I think they fixed it.

Time and time again the PvP crowd scoff and bitch at the PvE crowd because they wouldn't/couldn't adapt after a skill update and yet here we are with the same tired old arguements after 8 months still whining.

I prefer 6v6 for HA, it also fills a gap in PvP from 4v4 in TA to the top level of PvP 8v8 GvG

Franco Power · Mar 14, 2007, 06:39 PM // 18:39

Yes I agree, lol, that's why HA should be 6v6 lol, cuz ta is 4v4 and gvg is 8v8, so ha should be 6v6!!!lol!!!! it all makes sense to me, thank you for showing me the light lol

/sarcasm