No. I am not.
Original Skill
E:5 C:1 R:15
Spell. Steals 50 Health. (Attribute line A)
Are NOT functionality changes:
Original Skill
E:10 C:2 R:7
Skill. Steals 60 Health. (Attribute line B)
None of those is a change of what the skill does.
IS a functionality change:
Original Skill
E:5 C:1 R:15
Spell. Heals 50 to user, deals 50 damage to target. (Attribute line A)
This is a functionality change.
Anet listened to us didn't they?
MithranArkanere
Yichi
action/reaction is all inherent in all forms of functionality. If skill "x" deals 10 damage and heals the user for 10 health, than thats the functionality of the skill. Period.
By making the skill 10 damage on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday... and 15 Damage on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday (skill is disabled on Sunday
) than essentially, you have changed the functionality of the skill.
So yes you are wrong.
By making the skill 10 damage on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday... and 15 Damage on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday (skill is disabled on Sunday
) than essentially, you have changed the functionality of the skill.So yes you are wrong.
SerenitySilverstar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sniper22
1) It's just stupid. Why should my LoD heal for less when I'm facing players compared to facing monsters.
|
Quote:
| 2) It causes more confusion. With two different forms of skills, this forces people to remember both function for PvE and PvP and this could get confusing when switching between the two. |
Quote:
| 3) GW should not be two separate games. If anything anet should encourage people to play both. |
Stealthc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
They are going to do what they are going to do because there is no other way to do so in GW1. Not because some people are against this or another agree with this.
What is not going to be different is FUNCTIONALITY of skills. If they change a certain functionality, the functionality will be changed for both PvP and PvE version of the skill. Now does that affect gameplay? NO. In PvP people has 200 attribute points, and thuse their max damage and average attributes are mostly the same. But in PvE, monsters may have more than 400 attribute points, so a skill that would give 20 armor and reduce 100 damage from an enemy attack to 75 damage, may have 40 in PvE and reduce a hit of 400 damage to 200? In PvE you are not fighting in equal footage. NEVER. Monsters may have more Health, way more energy, more attributes, more skills, Monster skills, and Player just get PvE skills, and keep the same limitations as in PvE. The only limiations hostile NPCs have in PvE is thir puny AI. Since the measures are different, it's logical than some figures may perfectly be different. |
Axel Zinfandel
I find it funny that everyone thing it's going take a massive adjustment of playing style and build changing to adapt to these changes.
I mean, be serious, It's not like they are going to change every skill to "Kill target enemy". What's the worst that can happen?
And don't point out Ursan :P
I mean, be serious, It's not like they are going to change every skill to "Kill target enemy". What's the worst that can happen?
And don't point out Ursan :P
Shadow
The problem is they listen too much to "us" as we don't know what we're doing, or what we want.
Sniper22
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SerenitySilverstar
Because facing people, you're on an equal level. When facing monsters their level, armour, HP etc are higher - you need to be stronger to combat them.
Inherently, humans don't like change. But they get used to it. Plus, a little research never hurts. Use the wiki. They do. In game - Titles, weapons, emotes, minis, Zaishen chest. Outside - tournaments with real world monetary rewards. |
1) You aren't on an equal lvl in PvE. You're ABOVE them. Mobs lack any knowledge so they have to be balanced out with extra power or it will be way too easy - note why hard mode improved enemy hp/lvl/casting time/few skills/etc, but it didn't improve enemy AI.
2) I have other things to learn.
3) Titles are specifically PvE or PvP, not both. I don't know what you mean by weapons. If that's the zaishen title/chest you're talking about, then people will find it easier to farm gold to buy it rather than do the pvp. Um minipets? lol.
nirhan shadowmauler
i just want to see protective bond useable in pvp again. seriously.
El Presidente
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Turtle222
Do you feel that Anet listened to you (not matter the time it took, im speaking about the fact that they do pay attention)?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadow
The problem is they listen too much to "us" as we don't know what we're doing, or what we want.
|
I'd bet they listen to us more than we think they do; however, acting on/implementing our every wish/demand as to what each player (or even the majority) deems as their priority is another story...
Some ideas just plain suck; others ~ well, no matter how good they are and/or how much they make really sense, it involves time constraints, cost, feasability, resources/manpower allocated to this game's priorities, GW2, etc. before Anet decides if/when any idea will be put in game...no matter how many threads (on the same topic) are created and /signed.
Lyonette
honestly, imo, i'd wait till anet starts doing this skill updates to see how well they listened before getting all excited about the intial annoucement 
bryann380
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sniper22
GW should not be two separate games. If anything anet should encourage people to play both.
|
Kakumei
The update is great for people who play one or the other to the point of exclusivity, but for people who play both this is nothing more than a big annoyance.
I've been vocal about this never occurring for years. Anet sure as hell didn't listen to me.
I've been vocal about this never occurring for years. Anet sure as hell didn't listen to me.
Gattocheese
I was semi-vocal about this. I wanted seperation between skills. I think its the best solution. Of course i wish they would of done this maybe a year or two ago, because now i am moving on to AoC. Of course i may log on just to see which skills they buff, it might make things a lil more fun again.
Navaros
Anet sometimes implements changes the players want, however, they are very selective about what they act on and what they neglect. The single most game-breaking thing wrong with GW, no Auction House, has been complained about ad infinitum (and rightly so) since the beta and they did virtually nothing in regards to that. Just let the grievous flaw stagnant (and no, the "party search window" is not even close to a suitable substitute for an Auction House).
Savio
The main problem with ArenaNet is that they don't know what they want to do, so game changes go in every direction. It's hard to find a single cohesive goal behind their changes.
With the way Guild Wars was and is, an auction house hasn't ever been absolutely useful or necessary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Navaros
The single most game-breaking thing wrong with GW, no Auction House, has been complained about ad infinitum
|
Haskell
It's always a bad decission to listen to people who have zero clue about gamedesign.
It's more likely that the leaddesigner said: "Whatever..."
It's more likely that the leaddesigner said: "Whatever..."
Mac Sidewinder
I still don't know why some people actually think that anet listened to anybody. They haven't listened up to now on very many things so why start now? I honestly think this is a design test for GW2 to see if it will work. Why screw up your new game with concepts that you're not sure of. GW2 will be coming out soon and does it really matter if they mess GW up a little trying things out? Pretty soon most people will be playing GW2 anyway.
R.Shayne
If they are listening that has to be the slowest response time I have seen. If they are listening to us then how come we still have to resort to ecto to make trades? If they are listening to us then how come a better trade system has not been implemented?
I don't expect them fix all the skills they have nerfed to an unusable state thus the separation of PvE / PvP is too little too late. I hope I am wrong.
I just don't have much faith in a company that would ignore customers for so long. I compare "Izzy" reign over PvE as shooting yourself in the foot every week and not learning from it.
I would like to use some of the old skills that were nerfed with some of the new skills. Wonder what would happen if they fixed [Protective bond] so that it no longer stops being maintained when you reach zero energy?
I don't expect them fix all the skills they have nerfed to an unusable state thus the separation of PvE / PvP is too little too late. I hope I am wrong.
I just don't have much faith in a company that would ignore customers for so long. I compare "Izzy" reign over PvE as shooting yourself in the foot every week and not learning from it.
I would like to use some of the old skills that were nerfed with some of the new skills. Wonder what would happen if they fixed [Protective bond] so that it no longer stops being maintained when you reach zero energy?
Mewcatus
For those who wish to continue to play with PvP based Skill rules system in PvE. ( AKA pre-patch ).
Go to this thread and make an active vote for it.
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10287497
An idea to have an additional toggle for which skill system to use.
Now, that solves alot of problems, doesn't it ?
1. Those who desire the reversion, gets it.
2. Those who wishes for a minimal difference bond between PvP and PvE, gets it.
The only ones left who would be unstatisfied are those with a desire to dictate that how others should play. ( AKA the Dominators ).
Go to this thread and make an active vote for it.
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10287497
An idea to have an additional toggle for which skill system to use.
Now, that solves alot of problems, doesn't it ?
1. Those who desire the reversion, gets it.
2. Those who wishes for a minimal difference bond between PvP and PvE, gets it.
The only ones left who would be unstatisfied are those with a desire to dictate that how others should play. ( AKA the Dominators ).
C2K
I doubt most people actually complained about PvE and PvP using the same skillset, but those who did were certainly the loudest and most obnoxious to make Anet force their hand.
Mewcatus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by C2K
I doubt most people actually complained about PvE and PvP using the same skillset, but those who did were certainly the loudest and most obnoxious to make Anet force their hand.
|
The opposite end can also throw the same accusation back, and eventually, it just turns out to be a full fledged flinging mud session.
Red Sonya
Splitting PVE from PVP was the best thing they've ever done. I'm so glad it's finally here and going to be in GW2 as well. Yes, this does prove Anet listens to those they should listen to. Sometimes it takes time, but, welp patience is a virtue. 
Bront
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sniper22
note why hard mode improved enemy hp/lvl/casting time/few skills/etc, but it didn't improve enemy AI.
|
Before panicing, should we perhaps wait and see how many skills will get this treatment? I don't think it's going to be every skill will have a PvP and PvE version, only a select few.
Artisan Archer
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DarkNecrid
everything in PvE will be buffed not nerfed...
|
Alicendre
Well, they sure listen to the community more than most companies.
Not sure whether this is good or bad... But I've always wanted this update. So yeah...
Not sure whether this is good or bad... But I've always wanted this update. So yeah...
Cab Tastic
Yes, my first thought was that this was the correct thing to do. We will see in the coming months how much of an effect this has on the people who play both PVE and PvP(like myself). It could be a bit confusing but I am sure it will not be that hard to get used to.
One post earlier mentioned that to Anet, PVE pays the bills. I don't know what the proportion is but it in my estimation it must be over 90% play PVE only. Its just bad business to consistently annoy your biggest customers
One post earlier mentioned that to Anet, PVE pays the bills. I don't know what the proportion is but it in my estimation it must be over 90% play PVE only. Its just bad business to consistently annoy your biggest customers
C2K
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Artisan Archer
Oh? You can look into the future? (Or do you completely understand Anet's actions)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mewcatus
Without taking sides.
The opposite end can also throw the same accusation back, and eventually, it just turns out to be a full fledged flinging mud session. |
So, maybe if a thousand topics saying "PvE and PvP shouldn't be separated" were created across all the fansites, they'll reverse their decision. It all depends is the people who care actually care enough to do it, or if they rather just leave it alone and play another game.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cab Tastic
.
One post earlier mentioned that to Anet, PVE pays the bills. I don't know what the proportion is but it in my estimation it must be over 90% play PVE only. Its just bad business to consistently annoy your biggest customers |
5% PvE only
5% PvP only
90% Both
Turbobusa
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Artisan Archer
Oh? You can look into the future? (Or do you completely understand Anet's actions)
|
PvE:
-Nerf: ZOMG dey nurft mai build i quitz!
-Buff: Yay i luvz Anet you guyz
PvP:
-Nerf: Yay finally but nao dis is too late
-Buff: ZOMG evrissing is imba nao
You want to please both, what do you do? split em, buff for pve, nerf for pvp.
\o/
wilkinscs1
Anet was just trying to please the majority. There is a lot more people that ONLY play PvE or ONLY play PvP and not as many people who play both actively.
Mewcatus
We would probably seeing the 1st of this changes very soon. Guess its lab rat time. We are all gonna end up as human-behaviour test monkeys for the next couple of weeks. As long as they don't gas us, we should live through it. 
Avarre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Turtle222
But for me it gives me a sense of comfort knowing that Anet have considered our opinion faithfully.
|
Then again, considering how they handled the Alpha, I'm not surprised.
Mewcatus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Avarre
It gives me a sense of dread that ANet listens to the average player for game-shaping decisions rather than the players with extensive experience with how the game works.
Then again, considering how they handled the Alpha, I'm not surprised. |
Which of the the groups should they satisfy ? Who do you think pays the pays the larger proportion of the revenue ?
Once you answer all these questions, you will very soon realise that from their perspective, it is the correct way to do things.
Avarre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mewcatus
Once you answer all these questions, you will very soon realise that from their perspective, it is the correct way to do things.
|
There is a reason some people are game devs and others are not.
Turbobusa
It's business vs gameplay.
DarkNecrid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Artisan Archer
Oh? You can look into the future? (Or do you completely understand Anet's actions)
|
Mewcatus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Avarre
The problem is most players don't know what they want. Most of the changes suggested by players give a very slight superficial gratification and in the long run would wreck the game.
There is a reason some people are game devs and others are not. |
Business vs Gameplay.
Anywayz, GW is reaching to the end of its active product cycle life. Anet has already milked its profits.
They are see no harm if they turn GW into a experimental lab for changes. Even if all hell breaks loose, the most is, all the old GW players quit.
Then at the time, probably GW 2 starts, and they would have learned alot and know how far they can afford to stretch players. Even in this case, they have scored an advantage.
Reduced overall Bandwidth utility for the original GW, can only be advantegeous to Anet cost wise.
Plus, given that the promise was made that new GW 2 players will not be disadvantaged, game play wise compared to players who migrated from GW, will have the potential to create a new fanbase, if the old decides to go.
So, even in the worst case scenario for them, in a warped sort of way, they still win.
That is why, I say, prepare for a hell alot of drastic things to come in this final chapter of GW's product cycle life.
Eru Valenehtar
Awesome, another topic on this. And I see many of the same faces from the others. You guys know, everything seems bad when it's not here yet. I say you keep, atleast the strong oppinions of this change subdued until it is actually released. I'm sure we'll learn to live with it.
Avarre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mewcatus
Like Turbobusa sums it up nicely.
Business vs Gameplay. |
I'd imagine if ANet stuck with their original plan and developed it, the mass exposure from competitive play/subsequent sponsor support could have gotten a fair profit for them. However, the risk-free mainstream PvE game was apparently more appealing.
The game has been in decline since the end of the GWWCs.
Magikarp
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove
They listened to you, not me. I wouldn't shut up about how bad an idea it is.
|
mafia cyborg
they just listened to a vocal minority that congragates on this site.
the balance of skills can only happen in pvp where skills are compared vs each other. pve players should not be concerned with pvp balance changes.
what u witness in pve is the effectiveness of a skill towards the current AI.
if the AI changes or composition of mobs changes.....even the pve balance changes.
example: mobs scattering on aoe made aoe spells not as broken as they were before .
if they made Ai even more advanced detecting and avoiding traps, a very strong pve speciality like trapping would turn into very weak without no change to the actual skills.
and the composition of mobs ....usually just a numerous gang ....a piled up mess of mobs .....which turns pve into "how many mobs can i hit at once" and aoe fest which leave classes like mesmers disadvantaged for not havin great aoe damage. it would be much different if u were facing off mobs groups resembling a proper pvp team.
AI and mob composition determin the pve balance. some ppl understand it....most not and whine about skill balances.
the balance of skills can only happen in pvp where skills are compared vs each other. pve players should not be concerned with pvp balance changes.
what u witness in pve is the effectiveness of a skill towards the current AI.
if the AI changes or composition of mobs changes.....even the pve balance changes.
example: mobs scattering on aoe made aoe spells not as broken as they were before .
if they made Ai even more advanced detecting and avoiding traps, a very strong pve speciality like trapping would turn into very weak without no change to the actual skills.
and the composition of mobs ....usually just a numerous gang ....a piled up mess of mobs .....which turns pve into "how many mobs can i hit at once" and aoe fest which leave classes like mesmers disadvantaged for not havin great aoe damage. it would be much different if u were facing off mobs groups resembling a proper pvp team.
AI and mob composition determin the pve balance. some ppl understand it....most not and whine about skill balances.