Alright, it is time to pick apart every terrible argument made in this thread. It will be a long read and probably only for those who actually care about this game. Enjoy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Pierson
You sound like a spoiled kid who's world is coming to an end.
|
Let me start by saying, if you are calling people names in this thread, your points are already probably bad by default. I did read everything though, so I'll continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Pierson
The message and the main point is: we don't want to hurt PvE play while balancing PvP for tournaments. Nobody gets hurt, we have a win win situation.
|
Wrong...PvP players get hurt because the quest for true balance is given up because of PvE. PvP needs constant balance, not temporary balance that is reverted for PvE purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Pierson
PvP doesn't have to sacrifice jack sh1t. PvE sacrificed over the past 3 years all in the name of balancing PvP.
|
I will admit that both sides have had some sacrifices, but I strongly believe that PvP has had many more sacrifices over the years because of PvE.
If you can give me a list of 5-10 MAJOR changes that STRONGLY affected the PvE game in the name of PvP, let me know. I will give you a list twice as long of PvE stuff that affected the PvP game if you ever do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Pierson
I have to agree on you though that a lot of the PvP players resent PvE and that's exactly why we have those doom posts now. You guys can't stand it PvE won't take collateral damage it seems.
|
You have to understand that me (and others like me) don't want to see PvE take damage and die or something. I simply believe that if PvP requires major changes that minorly affect PvE, those changes need to be made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDL
Dreamwind: You know what I really, really resent? The use of 'ursan' as a "hah! I win the argument!" tactic in every post you seem to make (I know you're not the only one to use this tactic, but you're here, so hey).
Look: not everyone uses it. Seriously, there are a ton of people who don't even HAVE it, and of those that have it, not all of them use it. Certainly there are relatively few people who use it ALL THE TIME, FOR EVERYTHING.
|
The fact that some people don't use Ursan or don't have it is irrelevent. The fact it EXISTS is relevant. It proves that PvE does not have balance by its sheer existence. The point I was trying to make is that Anet
CAN ABSOLUTELY NOT claim that they care about PvE balance when Ursan runs wild throughout PvE.
So when Anet makes the statement "we will not make changes that affect PvE play", me and others like me laugh because it implies that their intentions are for PvE balance when they obviously aren't.
The Ursan argument is an easily won one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDL
Your argument is simply "Who cares: you idiots all use URSAN!" and then streams of poorly concealed hate.
The fact that an effective godmode exists in GW does not IN ANY WAY detract from the fact that "non-godmode" stuff is in need of attention. Funnily enough, not everyone LIKES to play in godmode. Some of us like..well, things like "skill", or "playing the way the game was intended to be played".
|
I didn't say everybody uses Ursan (as I stated above), but the fact that a godmode exists DOES detract from any form of balance PvE may ever attain. I could easily make the argument that Ursan exists because Anet WANTED a godmode in PvE.
Let me give an example to make a point. When DoA first came out, there was an incredibly long thread on this very forum of PvE players whining that it was far too difficult. Now comes Ursan, and the entire game can be effectively farmed. You never hear DoA difficulty complaints anymore do you? Anet succeeded. They realize that PvE players in general HATE nerfs and LOVE buffs.
But not everybody hates nerfs and love buffs obviously...just the majority. So what is the point I am trying to make? The point is that Anet will throw balance out the window as long as they appease the MAJORITY. That is what these recent announcements reek of.
Arguing that you or people you know are in the minority is completely irrelevent to the point. There can NEVER be balance in PvE as long as Ursan or anything overpowered exists. The problem is that you rarely EVER see PvE players complaining about overpowered skills...they only complain when nerfs happen, even if the nerfs hardly affect the PvE game whatsoever. That is why balance cannot exists in PvE with Anet running the show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDL
Now, aside from all that: consider the statement "focus on changes that will not impact PvE play at all" and actually look at some of the changes that have been made: loads of stuff that stops guild NPCs from being ganked/buffed to invincibility. Oh, look: Guild NPCs crop up fairly rarely in PvE, don't they? So that's not impacting PvE play at all, and it's not even really changing the functionality of any skills at all.
|
Thanks for making my point for me. These changes hardly affect PvE. The fact that any PvE player complains about them just confirms my earlier point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDL
If the changes work, they'll probably be implemented permanently at some point in future. If they don't they won't. if they sort of work, they'll sort of be implemented.
The point is they get to SEE what effect these changes have without actually committing to a permanent change, which is what they should be doing all the time, to be honest.
|
The fact that they are reverting the changes is not the major concern here. The major concern is that they said they will not make future PvP changes that affect PvE. That sounds to me like a PERMANENT statement, not a "we are testing this" statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quickmonty
Do we really need all these threads that revert to the old PvP vs. PvE arguments?
|
Let me ask a question. Who lit the spark that started this argument? I think that entity is as fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom the Pale
Truthfully, GW should have been 2 games not one in the first place. Integrating PvP and PvE just will not work.
|
I disagree. There are a ton of games with both PvE and PvP out there that work just fine. Hell, even this game with Prophecies worked fine. There was relatively few PvE vs PvP arguments back then compared to today. The two sides just blended a lot better back then. Nowadays they are completely separated, and theres only one entity to blame for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kusandaa
IMHO, UB does NOT justify the nerf of skills in PvE.
|
Yes it does if you care about balance whatsoever. See my point about it above. The reason some people are mad on this issue is because you can't claim to like this update, and still say you have no problems with overpowered stuff in PvE. It is logically ridiculous to claim to care about balance and ignore the most inbalanced things in the game (PvE AND PvP).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
This thread started from the very own OP with a PvP/PvE divide and guess how it's going to end... Anet didn't being this on "us" (though they could have made things in a better way), "we" did.
|
I hate to say this, but that is absolutely ridiculous. As I said above, who lit the spark? ARENANET lit it. Anet created the PvP vs PvE divide that exists today. They have lit every spark between the two sides that has ever existed over the years. It is not the players fault that this happened.
I can probably come up with a list of 50 things that Anet did to make PvE players and PvP players resent each other. Saying it is our fault this happened is like taking a tiger and a lion who don't mind each other, then throwing a big steak in the middle of them and watching them fight over it. Is it really the lion and tigers fault they are fighting, or is it the person who threw the steak?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chthon
1. Don't be oblique. Come right out and say it: You think a-net is giving up on GW1 and this is the end of balance updates.
2. You may be right.
3. As a PvE player, that doesn't bother me too much.
|
Yes I think Anet is giving up on true PvP balance in Guild Wars 1. They either realized they can't do it, or the benefits weren't worth it. The fact that you say you are a PvE player and it doesn't bother you is a big statement. I believe that type of thinking is exactly why Anet is doing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chthon
If you really think PvE hasn't had to make a lot of sacrifices for the sake of PvP balance, I have a necromancer who really wants to talk to you.
|
Anybody who cares about balance whatsoever, whether they are a PvE player or PvP player, knows that soul reaping was broken in both PvP and PvE. Anybody complaining that it was nerfed simply doesn't care about the strength of Guild Wars as a game, and only cares about their own selfish wants quite honestly. This was not a PvP affecting PvE balance. It was a "this is needed for the better of the game" balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xx sorin xx
The fact is, the majority of PvP players dont understand, nor care to, the average PvE player and the things that the average PvE player want. And the fact is, the majority of PvE players dont understand, nor care to, the average PvP player and the things they want. Stop pretending like most of you do, because this thread proves you don't. It shows all of the overgeneralized assumptions that one makes about the other, with no real understanding of what they are saying. Give it a rest.
|
I hate to break this to you, but most people who call themselves "PvP players" started out in PvE. Many of them (probably most of them) still play PvE to this day, so technically they could be called PvE players as well. They just like PvP more so they put themselves in the "PvP player" title for sake of these arguments.
So what am I trying to say? PvE players and PvP players are not black and white. Most of them are shades of grey, and play both sides of the game. That is the reason why this Anet created divide is so sad. Most of the people I play with consider themselves "PvP players" and have multiple maxed out PvE titles.
What I am about to say will tick off some people, but I find it true. If I was going to put the task of giving Anet information from the players to either PvE players or PvP players, I would definately choose the PvP players. They almost surely have more experience, because most of them came from PvE. More of them know the experiences of both sides of the game. Of course, many PvE players also play PvP, but I have found that if you call yourself a "PvE player", you are less likely to have the solid experience in both sides of the game required to give Anet good information.
The problem is, Anet has resorted to listening to majority, regardless of how bad the information is. That is the direction they have taken, and this recent update is just another step in complete and total PvE takeover. I know that sounds ridiculously doom oriented, but that is exactly what is happening here folks, and you are blind if you can't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle222
For goodness sake just be happy they are updating the game every bloody thursday. Trust me, if EA was in control of GW, this whole fanbase would be empty by now.
|
The difference is that EA is an established company with hundreds of games under their belt. Anet is relatively new with one game under their belt. The way I see it, people like me are simply trying to let everybody (including Anet) know the mistakes they are making. If people like me can do anything to change the future of Guild Wars 1 or 2, I will be happy.
And I am not trying to take this game or company down. I really like this game. If I didn't, I wouldn't be posting any of this. I strongly believe though that if Anet continues on the direction they are going, they won't get anywhere near EA in terms of how long they last. To me it feels like they are trying to make the next WoW, and I'm sorry but it just isn't going to work that way.
So what is the conclusion I have come to in all of these recents events? Here it is:
Anet needed to capitalize on what made them unique, and PVP WAS IT. But they didn't...and I guess that is that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra
The way it was explained to me is that the changes are going to be reverted, as stated -- to reduce the impact on PvE play. After the changes have been reverted, the effects of the changes will be evaluated. As for the statement regarding possible future tournament changes "that will not impact PvE play at all," I'm unable to provide more details because of the contingent nature of the possible plans. Basically, there are some ideas floating around about this, but they aren't sure whether the implementation will work, and/or whether we have the resources to do so. Because the plans are not definite one way or the other, and because the plans depend on a lot of internal factors, it's not something we can go into great detail about at this time. If we did go into detail and then the plans changed, there would probably be a lot more anger and speculation than if such details were not released.
|
First I've heard from Regina. Anyways...Anet not providing details...well I can't say I'm shocked. I'm very interested to see what these "internal factors" are. All I have to say is, they have created a lot of anger and speculation already over the years. I'm not sure how it can get any worse. The future awaits as they say...