[State of the Game]: PvE to PvP - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

zwei2stein

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Jun 2006

Europe

The German Order [GER]

N/

02 Mar 2007 at 08:36 - 321

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

I can guarentee you he sucks at pve too - thats what people in the blue section do.

Yep. (Its actually very funny - e-peen person brings l33test armor and expects to 'pwn n00bs' gets his ass kicked, his ego getting serious hit instead)

Exactly like /tiger person who iwayed it would be stuck in blue section and ruin your DoA trip.

---

Being in blue section has nothing to do with how much you played and what titles/items you amassed. It is state of mind, something that no article will cure.

strcpy

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jul 2005

One of Many [ONE]

02 Mar 2007 at 09:22 - 322

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgb

So why did I see a Fissure armoured warrior light up with mending ten minutes ago in RA? When a comment was made, he insisted that he knew how to play and he had "Protector of Tyria" to prove it.

Maybe it was me with my celebration of this thread? Did they use Balth's Aura to make sure anyone that thinks they can out damage mending is nub and will die from Extreme Damage? I still haven't had a PvE to PvP article tell my why that doesn't work so I assume it creates a truly invincible build. All I've been told is that mending - by itself - sucks and not to run a fire build on a monk. Nothing about the leetsauce of balth's aura killing anyone who thinks they can live long enough to out damage mending. I'm not doing anything those great super PvP'ers have declared wrong.

I know know that mending doesn't mean I live forever (couldn't figure out how I dies before (THANKS!!!!lol!!!!101!!!), however I'm not so sure that it doesn't work with Balth's Aura. As someone else suggested, Unyielding Aura makes it even better (I haven't needed that yet - blath's + mending has been too uber, I still can not figure out why I die so much though - I hope the next article focuses on that).

Gun Pierson

Forge Runner

Join Date: Feb 2006

Belgium

PIMP

Mo/

02 Mar 2007 at 11:13 - 323

At this point, what's there more to say?

My conclusion:
Some are offended by the article, some are not.
PvE and PvP are 2 different playstyles.
PvE is all wonderful.
PvE is all rubbish.
PvP is all wonderful.
PvP is all rubbish.

This thread will selfdestruct in 10 secs. In other words this thread is mission impossible.

tomcruisejr

Banned

Join Date: Apr 2005

02 Mar 2007 at 11:30 - 324

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aejorii

My, what a large gathering of carebears we have in this thread.

We, the carebears, are the majority of GW players. It'll be better to piss off the snotty PvPers than us.

ayame ftw

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Nov 2006

Belgium

Forgot the Ghostlyyyyy

R/

02 Mar 2007 at 12:00 - 325

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

The Magenta section contains PvPers. They would breeze through any of the elite missions if they were the least bit interested in the game. Generally these are the pvp'ers that would recognise and complain about poor players.

The Red Section contains PvE'ers. They would be earning Glad points within an hour of trying RA for the first time. It is this group of players this article is offensive to.

The green section we're not concerned with, because they've just bought the game to chat in the great temple.

The 3 blue sections contain your mending wammos and firestorm monks. They suck at playing regardless of what flavour guildwars they choose because they haven't learned how things work yet. These people might actually benefit from what is in the article.

The article is actually aimed at the blue section, but addressed to red section and thats the problem. If they wanted to actually create an article which was aimed at making a pve to pvp transistion they would look at address things like focus swapping, stance cancelling and positioning.

I'm in the pink section so no I'm not a mending wammo - I take issue because I think it is inappropriate for Anet to have an article that insults a large proportion of its gamers with its condescending attitude and tone on the official site.

QFT, just let it go the article is for the people that only have NF

Braggi

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Mar 2006

02 Mar 2007 at 14:18 - 326

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myrkwid

But all that's written is not the reason why many prople don't move from pve to pvp. It's not the builds, it's not even that you have to "unlearn" anything, you just have to adapt a bit, just like when first entering any endgame area.
<snip>
Basically pvp is somehow like pve, just the enemies have better skillbars and act in a more chaotic and less predictable way

You don't jump right into highranked gvg, you start your way in TA and from there through HA to GvG. And that's where the problems start. TA is pretty friendly towards casual play, but HA is definately not (the reasons have been discussed to death, buildslavery, fotms, rank, etc). In addition there is something missing in between those modes. 8vs8 HA and a semicasual 6vs6 mode or something like that is needed.

Also:
1.) many simply don't like pvp and don't even want to try it, it's not their playing style
2.) many don't feel pvp is rewarding
3.) many, and I think that are the most, feel offended by the rather hostile tone thats used by the pvp community. And that's the most severe problem and it's homegrown by the pvpcommunity.
4.) I know many who don't have a pvp-slot and their pvecharacters are simply lacking and subpaar to any pvponly character due to lack of flexibility in equipment or skills etc. Nobody wanted to take them in their team.

Point 4 is a reason that's not to forget. Almost all players I know ingame come from a pure roleplaying background. The lack of slots hurted them and they were almost forced to fill all slots with pvecharacters and then they either farmed like crazy or were basically unable to pvp outside of the casual modes.

Good points.
1+2, ok
3 maybe, but pve community in endgame areas is very often as goal oriented and elitist as pvp.
4 agreed, and ever more chapters with new skills and character classes will further entrench this, unless you restrict your PvE focus on developing few chars fully, neglecting the rest.

What I feel lacking is the opportunity for casual PvP, especially with my PvE character.
In PvE you can PUG for a long time until you reach the endgame (ignore masters-nuts). In PvP, RA is just an atypical transition (no team planing possible) and TA is already very competitive, because most people there farm for gladiator points. They are no longer here "just to play" and drop fast what they feel are underperforming teams. So if you're not in a PvP guild you ether start to play dedicated PvP with building a solid friends list and eventually join such a guild, or you go AB/ GvG.

Many take offence because the author totally missed the point. He compared a PvE PUG (assuming they are uncoordinated) with a PvP TEAM and then concentrated on a few basics.
The big hurdle is the metagame - not some build assumptions any short visit on a fansite can remedy.

B Ephekt

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Feb 2006

Team Crystalline [TC]

Mo/

02 Mar 2007 at 17:41 - 327

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

You've just followed exactly the same flawed logic again. No they're not PvEers they're NEW PLAYERS!!!!

I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding here. Not all pvers are good players. Yes, there are some good pvers who can hold their own in RA (however little that says), but to imply that pve players are good simply by merit of being a pver player is flawed in and of itself. I've seen far too many FoW wearing, Chaos Axe carrying, stance/Riposte tanks in RA to put much stock into what you're saying. These players are obviously pvers - they're decked out in pve gear, and using pve tactics - they're also obviously poor players.

You seem to be saying that pver players can't be bad, without being 'new' players. This is the flawed logic.

Quote:

You seem to think that everyone that makes rudimentary mistakes is a pve'er.

I'm pretty sure I specifically stated that this was not the case. I'm not sure what you're problem with comprehension is....

I'm saying that pver players do make these newbie mistakes, even after having played the game for over a year (ie, they're ceased to be 'new' players). Not all of them, but enough of them to warrant directed statements.

tomcruisejr

Banned

Join Date: Apr 2005

02 Mar 2007 at 18:06 - 328

Quote:

Originally Posted by B Ephekt

I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding here. Not all pvers are good players. Yes, there are some good pvers who can hold their own in RA (however little that says), but to imply that pve players are good simply by merit of being a pver player is flawed in and of itself. I've seen far too many FoW wearing, Chaos Axe carrying, stance/Riposte tanks in RA to put much stock into what you're saying. These players are obviously pvers - they're decked out in pve gear, and using pve tactics - they're also obviously poor players.

Whether they're good players or poor players, the bottomline is that PvErs are contented with what theyre doing and are never writing arrogant articles that insult/malign/make fun of/critique certain groups of players. Let us mind our own businesses I guess?

Tyrnne

Academy Page

Join Date: Dec 2006

USA

Swords of Honor (Officer)

Mo/Me

02 Mar 2007 at 18:18 - 329

This quote from the article says it all:

"If you are a Monk, don't cast Fire Magic spells"

Gee, thanks for your brilliant insight. Why shucks, all us PVE Monks cast fire spells. We also use hammers and put all our attribute points into our secondary skills. That's why we don't play PVP. We're just too dang dumb.

DarkSpirit

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Feb 2006

Redmond

02 Mar 2007 at 19:53 - 330

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrnne

This quote from the article says it all:

"If you are a Monk, don't cast Fire Magic spells"

I have never ever seen a monk casting fire magic spells anywhere in the game.

Quote:

We also use hammers and put all our attribute points into our secondary skills. That's why we don't play PVP. We're just too dang dumb.

Actually hammers are more popular in PvP than in PvE due to their damage and knockdown.

People put too much emphasis on individual PvPers and skills. GW is not Diablo. You can take the best PvP player, put him in a sucky GvG team and the team would still lose. Conversely, you can put the worse PvP player, let him join the best GvG team while afk, and the team would still win.

GW high end PvP is an effect of teamwork more than individual builds, which is why I said that article is just PvP 101. It is a PvP article for RA players, nothing high end about it.

If you are that concerned about individual PvP builds then you are not a high end PvPers. High end PvPers study team strategies, when to split, when to join, and when to use siege in GvG, etc. Individual builds are such basic concerns, and only starter RA-level PvPers would argue too much about those.

Builds are easy, you can just copy them down from observer mode. But you need a greater level of pvp awareness to appreciate good PvP strategies and teamwork which is often the differentiator in high end matches. This is why simply copying, say, The Last Pride's builds, does not mean your team automatically become as good as them.

Tyrnne

Academy Page

Join Date: Dec 2006

USA

Swords of Honor (Officer)

Mo/Me

02 Mar 2007 at 21:12 - 331

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkSpirit

I have never ever seen a monk casting fire magic spells anywhere in the game.

Me either. I once saw a monk with a sword, but that was a level 7 kid on Shing Jea Island with plenty of time to learn. I gave him a staff I didn't need to help him out.

Oops, better not talk about helping someone. I'll get called a PVE care bear.

cellardweller

Likes naked dance offs

Join Date: Aug 2005

The Older Gamers [TOG]

02 Mar 2007 at 22:51 - 332

Quote:

Originally Posted by B Ephekt

You seem to be saying that pver players can't be bad, without being 'new' players. This is the flawed logic.
I'm pretty sure I specifically stated that this was not the case. I'm not sure what you're problem with comprehension is....

If you're going to say that many pve're are bad players because you see bad players in pve, then all those mending wammos are pvp'ers and pvp'ers suck at pvp.

B Ephekt

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Feb 2006

Team Crystalline [TC]

Mo/

02 Mar 2007 at 23:09 - 333

RA is the lowest common denominator. You see a lot less scrubby stuff in GvG, TA and to a much lesser extend, tombs.

The article seemed to be targeted at those players whose exposure to pvp was limited to RA.

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

03 Mar 2007 at 00:18 - 334

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardweller

You've just followed exactly the same flawed logic again. No they're not PvEers they're NEW PLAYERS!!!! You seem to think that everyone that makes rudimentary mistakes is a pve'er.

Its obvious you're not going to understand without a picture so here you go.

The Magenta section contains PvPers. They would breeze through any of the elite missions if they were the least bit interested in the game. Generally these are the pvp'ers that would recognise and complain about poor players.

The Red Section contains PvE'ers. They would be earning Glad points within an hour of trying RA for the first time. It is this group of players this article is offensive to.

The green section we're not concerned with, because they've just bought the game to chat in the great temple.

The 3 blue sections contain your mending wammos and firestorm monks. They suck at playing regardless of what flavour guildwars they choose because they haven't learned how things work yet. These people might actually benefit from what is in the article.

The article is actually aimed at the blue section, but addressed to red section and thats the problem.

I'm sorry, but your picture is horribly flawed and wrong. The reason is because the PvE player circle would essentially cover most of the entire picture (at least 80% and not 33% like you are suggesting). Thus, the New Player circle would be mostly overlapped with the PvE player circle.

The New Player circle would overlap SOME of the PvP player circle, but not much. That section would be very small because MOST players who play Guild Wars start PvE first and then might play PvP later. Anet knows this, and that is why they make so many articles dealing with PvE to PvP transition because they know that most new players are PvE players and then might move to PvP someday. Anet WANTS their PvP playerbase to grow, and they know the only way to do this is to make articles designed to target PvE players. Simple demographics.

So while the author may have used a bad sentence or two in his article, the fact remains that it was targeted at mostly PvE players who usually don't have much or any experience in PvP.

Gli

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2005

03 Mar 2007 at 00:54 - 335

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'm sorry, but your picture is horribly flawed and wrong. The reason is because the PvE player circle would essentially cover most of the entire picture (at least 80% and not 33% like you are suggesting). Thus, the New Player circle would be mostly overlapped with the PvE player circle.

The New Player circle would overlap SOME of the PvP player circle, but not much. That section would be very small because MOST players who play Guild Wars start PvE first and then might play PvP later.

Diagrams like that aren't meant to show percentiles, they show classifications.

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

03 Mar 2007 at 01:43 - 336

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Diagrams like that aren't meant to show percentiles, they show classifications.

Eh, I could have made another picture to more clearly show the real story, but my point still stands.

GloryFox

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jan 2006

Good ol' USA, where everyone else wants to be

Now Plays World of Warcraft on Whisperwind

03 Mar 2007 at 01:55 - 337

Quote:

posted by Tyrnne
Me either. I once saw a monk with a sword, but that was a level 7 kid on Shing Jea Island with plenty of time to learn. I gave him a staff I didn't need to help him out

Why heck you see monks with swords in DoA every day

Whats wrong with monks with swords?

MegaMouse

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jan 2006

south mississippi

Warriors Of Melos WOM

E/N

03 Mar 2007 at 02:26 - 338

Personaly I never got into the PVP part of Guild Wars when it came out because the PVE part was (and I stress "WAS") rather great. I play Soldier Of Fortune @ online Death matches when I want to kill someone else. I used to be a hard core GW PVE player til the nerf bast got ridiculous and gelded my favorite profession. Originaly the game was about skill and how to use what the gamemaker gave you, thus making you learn what skills actualy did and how they worked. Now the game is about cookie cutter characters and using a limited set of skills that everyone else uses. Where is the fun in that, there is no reason to PVE anymore seeing as the skills are now more broken than before. I can understand fixing a few skills that were not working as planned due to a bug, but nerfing a skill because some idiot says that it is unfair due to their lack of skill is not right.
If I want to go PVP I will stick to games like Unreal Tourney and FPS games like that. I liked Guild Wars for the RPG element and the ability to interact with others socialy, not to be called a noob whenever I went into teh PVP arenas because I didnt have some useless emote or a rank. If they want a PVP game maybe they should make a FPS, but trying to turn GW into a total PVP game will kill it.

Mega Mouse

The Bloodrose

Academy Page

Join Date: Nov 2006

CA

Dark Order of Innoruuk [DOI]

R/Rt

03 Mar 2007 at 02:42 - 339

Quote:

Originally Posted by MegaMouse

Personaly I never got into the PVP part of Guild Wars when it came out because the PVE part was (and I stress "WAS") rather great. I play Soldier Of Fortune @ online Death matches when I want to kill someone else. I used to be a hard core GW PVE player til the nerf bast got ridiculous and gelded my favorite profession. Originaly the game was about skill and how to use what the gamemaker gave you, thus making you learn what skills actualy did and how they worked. Now the game is about cookie cutter characters and using a limited set of skills that everyone else uses. Where is the fun in that, there is no reason to PVE anymore seeing as the skills are now more broken than before. I can understand fixing a few skills that were not working as planned due to a bug, but nerfing a skill because some idiot says that it is unfair due to their lack of skill is not right.
If I want to go PVP I will stick to games like Unreal Tourney and FPS games like that. I liked Guild Wars for the RPG element and the ability to interact with others socialy, not to be called a noob whenever I went into teh PVP arenas because I didnt have some useless emote or a rank. If they want a PVP game maybe they should make a FPS, but trying to turn GW into a total PVP game will kill it.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

B Ephekt

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Feb 2006

Team Crystalline [TC]

Mo/

03 Mar 2007 at 03:06 - 340

Quote:

Originally Posted by MegaMouse

Personaly I never got into the PVP part of Guild Wars when it came out because the PVE part was (and I stress "WAS") rather great. I play Soldier Of Fortune @ online Death matches when I want to kill someone else. I used to be a hard core GW PVE player til the nerf bast got ridiculous and gelded my favorite profession. Originaly the game was about skill and how to use what the gamemaker gave you, thus making you learn what skills actualy did and how they worked. Now the game is about cookie cutter characters and using a limited set of skills that everyone else uses. Where is the fun in that, there is no reason to PVE anymore seeing as the skills are now more broken than before. I can understand fixing a few skills that were not working as planned due to a bug, but nerfing a skill because some idiot says that it is unfair due to their lack of skill is not right.
If I want to go PVP I will stick to games like Unreal Tourney and FPS games like that. I liked Guild Wars for the RPG element and the ability to interact with others socialy, not to be called a noob whenever I went into teh PVP arenas because I didnt have some useless emote or a rank. If they want a PVP game maybe they should make a FPS, but trying to turn GW into a total PVP game will kill it.

Mega Mouse

I think the point is that MMO-type games offer a lot of depth and strategy to pvp (although GW is the first to get pvp right). FPSes are fun - I've played them online since Quake 1 - but they get old after a while. And really, if you've been playing FPSes for any decent amount of time, cleaning up pubs gets boring as hell.

Plus, I always found pve in this game to be notably bad.

Guild Wars is already a pvp-focused game though.

Alfrond

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jun 2006

The United States

Boston Guild [BG]

Mo/Me

03 Mar 2007 at 05:43 - 341

Quote:

Originally Posted by B Ephekt

I think the point is that MMO-type games offer a lot of depth and strategy to pvp (although GW is the first to get pvp right). FPSes are fun - I've played them online since Quake 1 - but they get old after a while. And really, if you've been playing FPSes for any decent amount of time, cleaning up pubs gets boring as hell.

Plus, I always found pve in this game to be notably bad.

Guild Wars is already a pvp-focused game though.

Please, lets not get into arguments about whether Guild Wars is pvp or pve based. Lets just all agree to disagree and go play the part of Guild Wars we like best, okay?

Shmanka

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Oct 2006

In Your Head

The Brave Will Fall [Nion]

Me/

03 Mar 2007 at 09:01 - 342

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Eh, I could have made another picture to more clearly show the real story, but my point still stands.

No it doesnt...

Kashrlyyk

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

03 Mar 2007 at 10:08 - 343

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

Hahaha wow

Wiki builds are terrible

Then go here: http://www.gw-tactics.de/charactercreator/

Maybe that is better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oink The Pig

..... It's true that few dedicate the energy to learning both sides of the game, and note that he even says that few "are successful at both," which sounds like an acknowledgement that PvP'ers can have trouble with PvE, as well as vice versa. .....

And the next sentence is: "One reason is the difficulty in learning PvP when you're accustomed to PvE."
So he is talking about people that are "accustomed to PvE", ergo experienced PvE players, which most likely will know everything he likes to "teach" them. I can understand that people are offended by that.

"the shining feature of the game." This with the description of his career at the end of the article, creates the impression, that he hasn´t played that much PvE. Which of course means, that he can´t be talking about the "PvP'ers can have trouble with PvE"-thing.
I know, this is an assumption, it is just said so little about him in the article.

@Gaile Gray: Double droprates or XP, is not an event for me, that is changing one variabel from 1 to 2.

But there are events like christmas or new years. I can´t see how PvP'er can complain about those, since they both had PvP arenas included. So are there some real PvE only events? Events where PvP-charakters can´t participate at all?

Stockholm

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Feb 2006

Censored

R/

03 Mar 2007 at 15:52 - 344

The article is less insulting to a PvE player than the insults he/she resives when trying to PvP as an unranked player.

Wtf Its A Monk

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Feb 2006

Michigan

A/

03 Mar 2007 at 16:12 - 345

this article is a discrase for both pve players and pvp players a like.....all it does is preach intolerance and take jabs at players who want to stick with one side rather than another.....i think that anet should be ashamed for letting this hurtful state of the game on there page and i think that we as the community should look past it and continue doing what we like to do rather than what one asshole at anet wants us to do

Bread Fan

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jul 2005

03 Mar 2007 at 20:55 - 346

The only thing that is a disgrace is your spelling and grammar. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the article. It seems the extremely sensitive, low self-esteem players were offended by it.

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

04 Mar 2007 at 00:52 - 347

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

No it doesnt...

Prove it wrong. I have given logical reasons for my stance while being given no good reason that people should have been offended. Saying "you are wrong" doesn't do anything and makes your post worthless.

I completely agree with above poster that only sensitive or low self esteem people were offended by it. PvE vs PvP rage is the only reason it was ever discussed...I thought I proved that like a bunch of pages ago.

DIH49

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2006

04 Mar 2007 at 04:55 - 348

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

No it doesnt...

Actually yes it does. The logic is unequivocal.

Kashrlyyk

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

04 Mar 2007 at 06:24 - 349

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bread Fan

The only thing that is a disgrace is your spelling and grammar. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the article. It seems the extremely sensitive, low self-esteem players were offended by it.

Don´t insult people, just because you don´t share their oppinion.

Kuldebar Valiturus

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Nov 2006

Garden City, Idaho

The Order of Relumination (TOoR)

R/

04 Mar 2007 at 06:25 - 350

Arguing whether something is offensive to someone, or not, is a useless endeavor because you can't argue with an emotion and you can't debate with a feeling.

Some people base the positions they take on reason, others on emotion.

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

04 Mar 2007 at 07:12 - 351

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Don´t insult people, just because you don´t share their oppinion.

I could have the opinion that the sky is red or that gravity doesn't exist but that doesn't mean I am right. Same thing applies here...just because people thought the article was offensive doesn't mean it was, especially since there is so much logic to the contrary.

Quote:

Some people base the positions they take on reason, others on emotion.

QFT.

Pakana

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Feb 2007

04 Mar 2007 at 08:32 - 352

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

What got you interested in PvP (or why aren't you interested)? Did you struggle with these issues and if so, how did you overcome them?

I have played PvP only a few times. The reasons I didn't get interested was:

1) It took HOURS to make the teams and builds. While I know that's sensible, that's also kinda boring.

2) Teams kicked me out right away when I told I don't have PvP experience. They aimed for success. There's no room for newbies.

3) There's no goal for me in PvP. I don't care about the titles in PvE either. I don't care about fame. I can solo farm UW with much better results should I need money (which I haven't needed for a year).

4) PvP changes too much and there's too much special match rules and goals. I don't have time to follow all those changes. Casual PvP-playing isn't an option.

5) Aspenwood is just so much more fun!! Teams are random and the fight is always unpredictable. And you don't need to wait all day to get to the battle. And you can get in with what ever build!

Kashrlyyk

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

04 Mar 2007 at 10:25 - 353

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I could have the opinion that the sky is red or that gravity doesn't exist but that doesn't mean I am right. Same thing applies here...just because people thought the article was offensive doesn't mean it was, especially since there is so much logic to the contrary.

Gravity is a fact, no matter your opinion. But whether the article is offending or not, is not a fact, it is subject to the individual point of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray, 27-02-2007, 03:45

I'm really sorry to see that some players are upset about the State of the Game article. I know that Adam, the writer, had absolutely no intention of denigrating or putting down any members of the community, be they PvE players, PvP players, or simply those who don't play the game yet but are reading to learn about it. Not everyone cares to play both types of gameplay. That's perfectly ok. The article is intended to provide some insight for or about those who do.

Most of the State of the Game articles are written by our external reporters, all of whom were selected for their knowledge of the game, particularly PvP. The articles are not intended as straight reportage. They are solicited and offered as "editorial" articles and the subjects they cover can be, at time, controversial. They can be, and will be, occasionally colored with a personal view, and that really is one of the strengths of the series as a whole.

However, we may have erred in not making our intentions and our objectives as clear as we could. People may have read this article, or that article, and been a little surprised to find the expression of opinion. And I guess that could cause some to get concerned. I think the opinion is ok, as long as it engenders healthy discussion and as long as the content isn't offensive. So if you were offended by the statement about Healing, or if you found any other commentary to be unappealing, please accept our apology. That's not the intention of the author, I'm sure, and is certainly not the intention of the company.

We're going to add a leader to the articles to make their editorial nature clearer. However, I really want to make it more personal that those cold corporate disclaimers: "The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the management." I mean, that's true and all, but we want it to be clear where the writers are coming from, and what they bring to their pieces.

The publication of SotG articles on the website doesn't show any special prejudice for or against a particular section of the player base. We have PvP articles; we have PvE articles, and we have a whole bunch of content that appeals to both. The State of the Game articles are intended as PvP-focused articles; that's why they're in the Competitive Section. We've thought of offering SotG articles from a PvE experience, but the metagame for PvE doesn't change and evolve as much or as visibly as the PvP metagame does, so it doesn't seem likely that we can offer the same sort of article for PvE. Your ideas about more coverage for PvE are more than welcome, of course.

So I hope this explains the situation better as far as this article and as far as the series is concerned. Thanks for reading.

Highlightning is by/from(?) me.

http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forum...&postcount=224

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

04 Mar 2007 at 10:38 - 354

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forum...&postcount=224

Meh...I posted in that thread and my post never got a good response. It effectively shut the thread down. I find it really interesting that an apology was offered there but not offered here though. Since gwonline is mostly pve players, an apology must have been offered there to appease the ridiculously large amount of offended people. Quite honestly, anybody who is smart enough should know better.

Sigh what is this world coming to...what is Anet going to have to apologize for next?

Bread Fan

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jul 2005

04 Mar 2007 at 10:41 - 355

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pakana

I have played PvP only a few times. The reasons I didn't get interested was:

3) There's no goal for me in PvP. I don't care about the titles in PvE either. I don't care about fame. I can solo farm UW with much better results should I need money (which I haven't needed for a year).

That's the thing. I could care less about guild wars economy. I don't have a single set of fissure armor. Some players get the gratification in having "l33t" armor or weapons as I enjoy shutting down another player/team. All to their own.

P.S - I still think the "extreme sensitive" players that were offended by an on line article need proffesional help.

Shmanka

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Oct 2006

In Your Head

The Brave Will Fall [Nion]

Me/

04 Mar 2007 at 10:41 - 356

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Sigh what is this world coming to...what is Anet going to have to apologize for next?

Not balancing 80% of the skills for PvP and PvE.

Zorglubb

Academy Page

Join Date: Feb 2007

04 Mar 2007 at 10:52 - 357

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Gravity is a fact, no matter your opinion.

FWIW the latest quantum unification theories consider that gravity does not exist, and is merely an illusion of some other dimensional effects.

The whole issue here is not really as much about "PvP vs PvE" itself, than about what aspects of the game turn "PvE to PvP" into a "PvE vs PvP" affair. The lack of casual PvP options, progression, ingame documentation and PvP attitude are very much factors which have been discussed here.
Another key aspect IMO is probably that of PvP rewards, thinking back, PvP has been going downhill ever since they were introduced (faction, Gladiator points) or people became aware of them (/rank). Faction and PvP toons creation improvements also introduced a separation between PvP and PvE that contributed to the problem.

TabascoSauce

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jan 2007

Virginia, US

TFgt

W/Me

04 Mar 2007 at 14:21 - 358

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I could have the opinion that the sky is red or that gravity doesn't exist but that doesn't mean I am right. Same thing applies here...just because people thought the article was offensive doesn't mean it was, especially since there is so much logic to the contrary.

I am a big fan of logic myself. While you may (or may not) have crafted flawless logical arguments, if a person feels insulted they cannot be logically proven to be wrong. Insult is an emotion.

FWIW, I think that the article was an editorial, and based on the concept behind editorials the author should have a free hand to post an opinion.

I am thinking that the placement of the article was unfortunate. If this editorial was intended for relatively new players, which seems a reasonable conclusion, who themselves want to transition from PvE to PvP, then maybe that editorial web "column" is not the right venue, as people who are not 1) needing of the advice and/or 2) receptive to the advice, will be the majority of viewers.

An indefensible but demonstrable example would be to post bird-watching articles in a bird hunting magazine. While a percentage of readers will appreciate the bird watching tips, most "hunters" who specialize will view it as insulting when no offense was meant, or a waste of space when articles devoted to their interests could be there.

Thx!
TabascoSauce

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

04 Mar 2007 at 15:09 - 359

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

Not balancing 80% of the skills for PvP and PvE.

Finally something we can agree on. Now if only Anet would stop wasting time apologizing for things that don't require it (like sotg), maybe they would get somewhere with the real problems.

Quote:

I am a big fan of logic myself. While you may (or may not) have crafted flawless logical arguments, if a person feels insulted they cannot be logically proven to be wrong. Insult is an emotion.

I suppose you are right. That just goes back to people using emotion instead of logic to determine their positions. Big fat nono in the real world.

Stockholm

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Feb 2006

Censored

R/

04 Mar 2007 at 15:23 - 360

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bread Fan

The only thing that is a disgrace is your spelling and grammar. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the article. It seems the extremely sensitive, low self-esteem players were offended by it.

Not all people here have English as first language, so comments like that is very offensive and unneccesary. IMO