The majority of the community sucks (or does it?)

^that's totally different though. ut is not as "fun" anymore because you got "bored" of the game. we're saying gw is not as "fun" anymore because anet "simplified" the game.

i'm gonna bring up a point i made in an earlier post. time spent on a game can be divided into 2 parts:
1) amount of content (time spent to complete the game)
2) replay value (time spent just to play the game)

how long did it take you to 'complete' ut? not long i imagine. the majority of your time is spent on 'replay value' and not 'amount of content'.

rpgs in general are the opposite, they have tons of content but very little replay value. gw however, was much different at the start, it had tons and tons of replay value. over time they added much more content...but at what expense? i would be fine if they added more content and the replay value was kept intact...but they destroyed quite a bit of replay value to provide tons and tons of content.


see what i mean? once you finish the "content" you won't bother with any "replay value".

we obviously play the game for different reasons.

The thing is people like dreamwind and bryant again aren't interested in adding balance to the game - they are interested in making it more difficult.

Making the game more difficult or easier is neither a good thing or bad thing by itself.

But that isn't what is on the table - what is on the table is making the game more difficult to prevent access to certain content to a small "elite".

If Anet created an "Hell difficulty" like gun pierson suggested, where no consumables and pve-only skills couldn't be used but that was otherwise identical in drops and titles to HM (this is doing a mission in HM or in Hell Mode would count for guardian title and would go in the same HM book, for example) they wouldn't want it or play it, because in the end what they are interested is limiting the so called "end game" to just a few.

For me is the same either way. If they make it harder and if I'm still playing I'll beat it as I always did (I already don't use consumables so half the thing won't affect me).

I'm just posting here cause its fun to annoy people that hide behind (some may actually be blind enough to believe in what they say) great ideals of "balance" and "giving the game credibility" (as if GW despite its problems isn't one of the best games out there), when in fact their purposed changes, either intentionally or unintentionally, will just change much more mundane aspects.

Yes and no.

Value of the game can also be the fun you had playing it. Call of duty games were really enjoyable, but I finish all of them really fast.

You say that GW is simplified and that is why isn't fun now. Still you also said it took time for people to catch on the power of skills like save yourselves or cry of pain.

I'll say that you don't thing GW is fun anymore because you are bored with it because you played to much.

I bet if you start the game today, without knowing anything of the game, you wouldn't find it simple.

I also bet that if you make a character in prophecies today, and don't give him any weapons you already have or learn skills with tomes, basically playing the game with only the resources that existed in prophecies, you would still find the game easier and simpler that when you played it the first time, even though none of the simplifying aspects introduced later in the game were present.



GWAMM requires at least finishing the storyline twice and some huge number of hours spent on it.

Seems a hell lot of replay value. And then you have 10 professions to play - the game is always the same, but you experience it from different points of view. Huge replay value.

Then you have PvP.

Starcraft and Warcraft III were and still are great. I played countless hours in those 1vs1 and teamvsteam matches. Still, despite being great, I don't play them anymore in a daily basis. I log in some times and play a match or so. Mostly I log in WC3 and play Dota.

Yes, I don't care what happens in GW if it doesn't affect me.

Yes, I care if a human population is bombed.

If you can't understand why I can think like that, you are an idiot.

And we're not?

What we're doing is looking at everyone. We take note of those who just want to play the game and have fun, we take note of those who want a deep game. We're not looking just at us. If you had been reading my posts this whole time you would acknowledge that. What we're talking about is the confusement of ANet putting the considerable effort into neglecting those who want depth.

It's not that it was something they couldn't avoid, they purposefully went out of their way to make it as such. They purposefully went out of their way to neglect portions of the community. That's not the kind of people you'd want developing a game.

I think we kind of went over this numerous times numerous pages ago.

This is about tailoring content for all skill levels. Not just for the hardcore, not just for the casual, not just for one.

The only reason you'd be concerned about wanting to play in the harder modes is for the rewards - entirely vanity based rewards - and those are the exact people you and I hate.

These changes don't cater to the "helpless nub", they help the careless brat.

So a Hell Mode like the one purposed would be fine for you?

Cause it would be fine by me.

As long as the update includes those first major steps in balancing, I'd be fine.

okie, you spent ~6 months replaying pvp over and over again... how many months did you say you were gonna replay pve over and over again once you complete gwamm? oh thats right... 0 months. my point still stands.


i never said gw was a bad game because its short or because its long.

wrong. there are many games i still play over and over again and find fun.

correct. i'm not sure what your getting at here.

thats not the point i'm trying to make. gw can be fun when your first going through the content, i won't deny that. i'm saying that the game has less re-playability after you finish going through the content. and therefore, will be less fun for someone like me who has already gone through all the content.

I'm taking what you said out of context, not implying you have said anything. Only focusing on this point, trying to produce a multiplayer game with low depth would typically involve killing off all human interaction. I don't see most games as having depth within themselves that could even compete with what replayability comes from another person being there.

Your indication that not everyone wants a deep game demonstrates that there are people who want shallow or non-existent human contact in a multiplayer game. This is either a paradox or something extremely difficult to alow to coexist within the normal structure of an MMO. I don't see how the crowd demanding simplicity doesn't have a complete incompatibility with the crowd demanding depth. This is an even worse split to me than the easy/difficult crowd.

It's bad enough that people who refer to things as having no depth may actually be failing to experience the depth; but why should designing a game around having less depth be suggested if we intend to have more people play it?

I think people are not reasoning properly when that they look at another MMO with no depth and say: people play this game because of the lack of depth. The opposite situation is still possible, people play the game because they get whatever depth they need from anything that may be in the game, including people. I will however admit, that I can see two distinct groups who play games for either depth or lack of depth, despite not being able to determine why the lack of depth group plays and how something benefits that group. Is it that the game's lack of depth allows the player to perceive himself as having more depth; instead of the alternate situation where playing a deep game causes one to gain depth that one previously did not have? After all, getting involved in a deep and complex game can easily make a person feel less significant (hopefully driving them to improve, not making the situation appear hopeless).

I think you misunderstood him, then again I'm not sure what he really meant.
The depth of this game is actually limited due to the nature of it in my opinion - you cant really expect a huge tactical depth with so limited aspects (thinking about pvp here). It defo is better than most other mmorpgs in this aspect tho



Thats why I never liked high-end pvp in GW much, felt dull and shallow after a certain point (I come from a FPS background, mainly ut2004, duels and tdm).

Mind me asking which installment of UT? I loved 04, such good memories .

Not worried about misunderstanding, as I said I have purposely pulled his statement out of context to be understood whether he thinks it, doesn't know that he thinks it, or people he knows think it.

It's intended as a fragment to produce a discussion to possibly make progress on the infinite lasting argument about game difficulity.

Great, you spot the paradox or whatever it is and it's something I try to understand too. I'm wondering if culture has something to do with it. Here in Belgium (part of western Europe) people tend to cocoon more than lets say 20 years ago. There are always the social type of people around too ofcourse, but I've read some stuff about the cocooning effect. I suspect when they go online, that they want to be part of smaller groups they know, but certainly don't want to play with complete strangers. They're prolly open to meet new people online to play with and build a small network of contacts, but not in a forced pug way. Another paradox arrises, how can you meet new people to play with if one isn't open to meet new people? I think it needs to happen spontaniously for them.

I would also like to know how many players have more names on their ignore list than on their friends list, together with the numbers on each list etc. How many friends does the average gamer (in terms of population) have on their friends list and so on. It would be a blast to examine that stuff and other behaviour.

What we do know is that Anet knows about this group, it was in Jeff Strain's speach about mmo's. What we don't know is how big this group is in % of the total playerbase.

I almost didn't realize that I had used the word paradox. Parodox does not imply that a contradiction is there, only that there appears to be.

The one thing I was trying to understand is whether it can be a good thing for the crowd that wants less depth to exist. There is something about MMOs never ending and having infinite depth that is probably difficult to deal with for people typically needing a sense of completion towards something.

Interesting explanation about Europe appearing to trend conservative, listening to it from the perspective of a country trending closer to being more European (I view the US as a baby Europe). I see good reasoning for not having the resources to deal with the next obnoxious person you are forced to meet, causing a person to cocoon.

However, the whole point of the word 'cocoon' is that implies hiding in a shell to grow, not avoiding things indefinitely. That's an appropriate term that recognizes that there is an intention to get out and deal with the difficulties of the world after a growing process.

I think that indicates we temporarily get overwhelmed by depth, not that we should seek to have it abolished.

LOL...I'm surprised Bryant didn't respond to this gem. You obviously haven't seen our major disagreements in several other threads. We agree on pretty much everything in this thread though.

Yea...the next time someone tells me "you just quit because you were bored of Guild Wars" I am probably going to kill myself. I did NOT quit because I was bored...I quit because ANet screwed up their game and I lost all faith in them.

There is a big difference between "making the game harder" and "not making the game easier". Have you even been reading what we have been trying to tell you? Geez man...I thought I was going to quit this thread ages ago I don't know why I'm still in here.

If you can't understand why so many people disagree with what you just said, than you are an idiot. Frankly if you think like that your opinions in this thread are irrevelent because you only care about yourself and not the game.

What is good for the majority of the playerbase then? Please name some things that would be good for the playerbase. You are arguing that things that lessened the depth of the game is good for the playerbase. If the majority want god mode and 10 billion damage would that be good for the playerbase? Would it be good for the game? I honestly don't understand where you are coming from. I think it would be better for the playerbase if the game hadn't gone this direction.

They have the resources, they just choose not to use them for these purposes. The majority of the community sucks because of it.

Is it a good thing? Well the crowd is a strange beast and I don't dare to speculate on that as I don't have more info or facts on it. I've been following some other games that got released recently and people were asking for cheatcodes after day one on some of those forums. I thought: 'jeez guys if you were on the Guru forums you would be chopped for even mentioning cheat codes' and with reason imo. I'm talking about real cheat codes like '/gold' = unlimited gold.

To be honest and Dreamwind and Bryant are gonna like this, I loved pre nerf DoA on release and I love some depth in the game even if we're talking about PvE and AI. Yet I don't want Anet to get into trouble, as the crowd pays the bills and GW2 is in the making. There's no point in making a very hard game if even the average decent player can't beat it.

Sorry for my late response mate, yeah UT was fun...'mmmmmonster kill kill kill'


@Dreamwind: Yeah yeah...I'm sure someone else is going to entertain you but it won't be me anymore and I don't have all the answers either. That's why I would like to hear something from Anet on the matter. Take care.

i consider many titles content, the rest are replay value but in for the form of grind/farming. grind/farming is the "fake" kind of replay value, and should not be counted towards "true" replay time. yes u can say that most things that titles require to do are optional...but so are tons of areas in gw. uw, fow, doa, urgoz, etc...you consider these 'optional' places 'content' right?


i think that when people see the word 'depth' they automatically assume 'difficult'. in terms of difficulty, a game with depth should have a multitude of levels, i.e. very easy, easy, normal, hard, very hard, etc.

I already told you when you look at making the game easier or harder you need to take in consideration people that play alone and/or in small groups, complementing it with dumb AI. Disregarding that people is, as you like to accuse me, selfish.

8 or 12 people, using a conset and 24 or 36 pve-only skills, is quite different from 1-2 people using no consets and 3-6 pve-only skills.

Now you will say that this is MMORPG so it is multiplayer blah blah blah, but maybe people prefer to play in small groups rather than huge groups. Or sometimes they like to play in large groups but most of the time they like to play in small groups.

I would like to see how successful GvG would have been if instead of 8 size teams it would require 24 people per team. Or how successful it would have been if there was a "press to join a random GvG" button anyone could squeeze at any time.

Of course I can just say that your opinion steams from the way you play and so:

If you can't understand why so many people disagree with what you just said, than you are an idiot. Frankly if you think like that your opinions in this thread are irrelevant because you only care about yourself and not the game.

If by lessening the depth of the game you mean the game being easier, then you need to look to whom the game became easier and mindless.

The addition of heroes by Anet seems to indicate that a large portion use PvE to either play alone and/or in small groups, possibly of people that know themselves in real life previously to the game.

That take us to the point of socialization Gun Pierson and Master Fuhon were/are talking about, even though I don't exactly know if they are talking about the same thing.

Thing is in real life most people don't go out do stuff with strangers on a general basis. You do stuff with people you already know and generally meet new people in social events you attend with people you already know or in some other circumstances like school/work, etc.

But when you think about having fun or engage in an entertaining situation you generally think about friends and people you know.

I can argue that one of the reason to the success of Guild Wars is the ability to choose if you want to interact with other people or not, as opposed to be forced too.

There is nothing wrong about knowing new people but just because both you and someone else wants to do that specific mission, don't make you immediately potential friends or wishing to spend time with that other person.

GW is by its nature a complex game, a very complex game, requiring good teamwork, communication and preparation. Overpowered skills and consumables simplify that but it isn't automatically a bad thing.

Sure, if you always have 7 (or 11) other people to play with, that you know very well, are in a room with them drinking and chatting or are just on ts/vent, having heaps of overpowered skills and consumables at your disposition might reduce your fun.

On the other hand, if you don't have those people available, or you're playing with your children and don't want some random scrub say stupid stuff on chat, just want to play with your friend and whatnot, those same things that might kill the fun for the crowd that play in groups of 8-12, can increase the fun and even the depth of your game by allowing them to do stuff otherwise reserved to 8-12 people parties.

So DreamWind when you talk about increasing the depth of the game, you need to see if you aren't destroying the depth and fun of other people that play GW in a different way.

What you need to come with is a way to appease both crowds.

except when you use heroes

What is your point and who said they were being disregarded?

I am talking about improving the depth of the game for everybody...you are talking about not affecting your play in small groups. I see a very wide gap there. Again, you would be much better served in an offline lan/tcp game, but that isn't what Guild Wars is. So to say we shouldn't make any changes to better the game because it wouldn't be better for YOUR game is...well you know what I mean by now hopefully.

I think Bryant has explained what we mean by depth well enough.

I couldn't argue that. Heroes weren't even invented until Nightfall. The game was a success well before Nightfall.

Unless you are playing by yourself with overpowered stuff...then none of that matters.

Yes it is. You've simplified the game more than neccessary.

Yes in the mind of Anet they should appease both crowds...the problem is they aren't doing that. The 1st type of players who want their depth, skill>time, competitive, team, etc etc game are not getting what they want anymore. The 2nd type of players who want a simple game, time>skill, noncompetitive, solo, etc etc game are getting what they want.

And quite honestly (and this is a disagreement me and Bryant have had in other threads) my opinion of this game is that the 2nd form of player shouldn't be appeased to at all. The 1st form of player is the one that this game was sold to and was what the game was all about. The complete transition to the 2nd type of player is what killed this game for the 1st type of player. The 2nd type of player is the type that bought the game wanting something it wasn't, and Anet gave it to them at the expense of the 1st type.

But other than my opinion, you still can't say "don't disregard anybody", because an entire playerbase is already being disregarded. You can say "appease everyone", but good luck with that.

Yes heroes are better than human players... please!

You are talking about improving the depth of the game according to your opinion. I'm point situations where your suggestions don't improve at all.

Then when you can't refute my arguments you tell me I'm selfish or should look for another game.

But again, you compare life of human beings with balance in a game.



So you and Bryan are one person? What he says is what you think?
He said he doesn't want consumables or PvE-only skills removed.



The game is still a success. Apparently depth of game is what you like. When you dislike the game is bad.



Another. Heroes aren't better than human players. If they were GvG would be 2 people with 6 heroes.



Says you, the ultimate authority on GW.



GvG is still there. Has everything you want so I don't know what you are talking about.

I think you are being disregarded because you want PvP into PvE. PvP has everything you want. Snaek already said skill in GvG didn't dwindle.

There is PvP that has everything you enumerate and then there is PvE that is different from that.

If you want what is in GvG and can't have then it isn't Anet or anyone fault.

Heroes: Wrong entirely. What I mentioned awhile ago is that all balancing should be based around 8 player human parties.

PvE skills: I want to balance them. I restated that many, many, many pages ago; saying to 'remove them' is entirely out of the question and was a raged exaggeration. Sure I would like to see them removed because they in themselves are an abomination in the name (PvE only), but that's just selfish.

"Less skills in the game in general": the more there are, the harder it is to balance. The more imbalance there is, the less variety there is, the less depth there is. It's not going to matter if Guild Wars has a million skills if only a percentage of them either being viable or simply the best and the rest being crap. There's no point in having tons of skills if most are just going to be useless.

If you're a good player, you'll have no need of consumables or PvE skills or anything else to make it easier: you're good, your skill alone will be able to easily fill in those holes.

Also, where do you get knowing what the majority wants? Did we somehow poll those millions of players?

The same goes for decreasing it, and in that sense ANet failed: they've ruined the depth and fun of other people.

Don't improve for who? Point to me situations where changes would not improve the game as a whole (other than removing pveskills+consumables because that has already been discussed). You act as if the game is some flawless perfection right now.

Most of your arguments have already been refuted a long time ago. And I haven't given many suggestions in this thread (those tend to be worthless with Anet anyways)...I have given things that shouldn't have been done.

No...I compare your lack of care for everybody else in the game to your lack of care about events that don't affect you.

If he said that (which I'm not sure he did) I disagree with him or anybody else. The crap needs to be removed along with a bunch of other stuff. Let me guess, you supported leaving Ursan intact as well.

I dislike when a successful game kills its own formula for success.

Unless you somehow can communicate and have teamwork with your heroes, I fail to see how me and snaek are wrong. Communication, teamwork, and complex skillful play were hallmarks of Guild Wars that are now all but gone from mainstream play.

Says me, the ultimate common sense. The game is unbelievably simplified nowadays compared to the past. It has largely contributed to a less skillful playerbase.

Uh...this is a bit off topic but PvP has had its share of problems just as much as PvE...hell a lot more problems really.

Because Prophecies and Factions didn't have that! And I disagree with snaek's assessment (if he said that I don't know), but that would be off topic as well.

On UT, I mainly played the original version (I've played them on release with dial-up modem, ping is much better now) later switched to 2003, 2004 and UT3 but didn't play any of them much.

It's not only boredom I stopped playing it.
It's also part of the development of the game, mainly the onslaught and to lesser extend assault mode that were introduced in UT2004.
I enjoyed the regular play types more and the additional modes scattered the player base somewhat.

On Guild Wars, did things really get easier?
I think yes. But part of that is related to the development of powerfull (non PvE) skills in later chapters (prophecies alone without the other campaigns isn't that easy).
And part of it is because of several years of experience.
Even without PvE skills and consumables prophecies is an easy game when playing with skills from all chapters.
However, NF with only NF as chapter might not be that easy (I should try that sometime I guess). It's the combination of all chapters that makes the power of some builds.

However, I'm not sure if this powercreep had bad influence on the average player.
Some builds did, like perma SF and Ursan to name a couple of recent onces.
But those are mainly played in farming groups, not the average story-line group. And farming is still a minor part of the PvE game in my opinion.
The main problem there is that the content is too limited to support countless hours of play, so for some players all there is left is farming.

The addition of heroes is something I have had mixed feelings about since introduction. I see the advantage, but it somewhat killed random grouping.
However, having countless Euro districts is also not helping at teaming, as is the lack of a central feature to organise groups.
Heroes somewhat make up for that but better teaming options would have been nicer.

Saw UT mentioned and had to jump in :-)

Awesome game!!!

Spent many years playing UT / UT2003 / 2004.... but I stopped playing not really because of the boredom factor... but because it became TOO challenging. I played in competitions at a fairly decent level and the fun disappeared out of playing it.... so I stopped.
I come home from work to chill and have fun..... simple as that

My point here is that GW has to appeal to a large audience so there needs to be a method of allowing the majority to progress through the game and have a good replay value.... and to do this, they must make it fun to play.
I think ANET has achieved this.. and are continuing to achieve it

If you want a challenge.... theres nothing stopping you setting your own personal goals (eg.... try clearing areas with only 6 people instead of 8... or solo non-farming areas, etc)
Do you need a title to say you have done it?!?! I dont think so

The game changes..... todays CoP is yesterdays Ursan way... Tomorrow there will be something different.
Ive played GW from its release and Ive always found something to keep myself entertained :-)

Remember... Have Fun :-)

Question: The majority of the community sucks (or does it?)

Answer: Yes it does.

close?

I'll come back later for more since I don't have much time now, but will just refute this one.

Communicating with heroes is called "flags", behavior commands, call targets, locking targets, micromanaging skills.

So apparently I can communicate with heroes. More, doing that open more options for heroes builds.

unless ur doin hb and other specific areas, theres generally minimal micro-management.

most pve hero-teams are based around the concept "c+space"

Fixed that for you. All those things you mentioned are still there, exactly where they should be.
Let's be honest, pve never required much skillful play, teamwork and communication. It's just that most of us had a lot to learn in the beginning so it seemed like that. I personally thought that FoW has hard as hell, even impossible until I completed it with some buddies without using skills like CoP and SY!. We were just paying attention to groups so that we don't overaggro, tailored our builds to support each other and applied basic GW knowledge, and that's all that you ever needed for GW pve.

PvE skills: If you want a barrager, make a Ranger. Class roles shouldn't be fuzzy, they need to be defined (and the fact that you acknowledge that you can be allowed to do relatively decent with a ranger set up as a monk shows something's wrong). That or make leveling a character once you already have a maxed character more simpler. While still not great for the core, it's a hell of a lot better than PvE skills.

Vanquishing: Then if it's too much lower the number of areas required to vanquish to get the title. In this method you maintain much more integrity without having to stupify the game. Also note that you're talking about a title, something just as essential as that super rare weapon (i.e. not essential at all).

"Too many skills": I understand the "fun" with so much variety but I also understand the balance required in doing so, and when you have a million times a million build options with only an insanely small percent of viable builds then that's poor design. You have to find the point where you can have variety and balance. You can still make a fun game while keeping it a good game.

There's no such thing as a "strong indicator" when you're dealing with millions of players viewed from such a small lens (i.e. yours). Everyone's going to have different opinions and the only way to accurately see that is garnering actual opinions from that. Simply making assumptions is not safe, "educated guesses" are not safe.

The only thing we're positive of is that people play games for fun.

I'm not going to take into account what ANet "does and says" because devs aren't always going to know what's best for the game, and ANet's already shown that.

According to whom?

Then the complaints about people not pugging anymore because of heroes make no sense at all.

Either people use heroes and don't pug as much as they did, or they only use them occasionally and keep Pug'ing at pretty much the same rate.

One of them has to be true.

Explain me exactly how does that differ from the work you do while playing a party with other people?

You control your character period.

Why do you have to do more when playing with henchmen or heroes?

Now, you can do more and it is sometimes more efficient. The fact most of the time you space is because the game can be done pretty much that way and that has nothing to do with PvE-only skills (that heroes can't use) or consumables.

In the rare areas where the enemy mobs are more balanced as a team, giving the illusion of being a team as opposed to overpowered solo mobs that happen to be in the same general area, ordering the ranger hero to attack a protector monk, while setting a earth shaker warrior hero on the healer is much more efficient than "c+space".

If you were in a team of humans those humans would do that by themselves without needing micro.

A common example of micromanagement of heroes is spreading them to avoid AoE skills to catch all of them.

Another area where micromanaging a hero works pretty well is controlling a melee hero while you are a caster to hold a chokepoint or body block if you prefer. Melee heroes don't do that very well on their own.

An additional example is micromanaging skills like lod and order of pain from afar or micromanaging the casts of enchantment removal, rigor mortis, glyph of swiftness, arcane echo, maelstrom, etc.

And again, I must have to say that 1 player+3 heroes+4 henchs, 1p+6heroes or 2 players+heroes have a very limited number of PvE-only skills at their disposal and consumables aren't as efficient as in human parties because of the lack of initiative and flexibility of heroes.

Last, if the game can be "c+space" by players plus heroes it can also be by human parties. This happens by the lack of quality of mob builds.

Removing PvE-only skills and consumables (or even just nerfing them) won't do much to change the game is played. A much higher priority is giving mobs better builds as teams.

Only then it will make any sense talking about PvE-only skills and consumables.

And we don't have anything to prove either.

But let's keep the hero discussion for another thread. What I've been saying is that you'll never be able to get much of a "majority opinion".

^how do you know that there aren't more people complaining about heroes than people who want heroes?

just because people use heroes, doesn't mean they want them. due to the current "situation" of gw, i have to use heroes as well from time to time as well. doesn't mean in any way i support them.

the point is that anet pretty much shoved heroes down our throats. i still advocate full player parties whenever possible, but will still use heroes. i think many players fall into this category.

we already had the same discussion with pve skills. yes, i still use them even though i think they are bad for the game. but i'll be a happy man when i see them gone.

Your only suggestions on this thread have been removing PvE-only skills and consumables, stating that doing so would increase the player base level of skill and would make them playing PvP.

Then you say people suck if they don't play PvP, they suck if they don't play in full human parties and that Elite areas should be reserved to only a small fraction of the PvE population, that titles and gear/skins are a way to ranking PvE players and that PvE is a competitive environment.


If that was true you would long ago stopped posting.



I said that I don't care about competition in PvE. I said that is why if someone cheats on PvE and suddenly gets a stack of armbraces of truth it won't affect my game since I'm not playing to see who gets more "perceived richness" in this game.

I play to defeat the game and to be with my friends on it. Then I have this "checklist" of stuff to do.

Then you said what about if someone had a god mode and an instant kill attack?

I said that wouldn't affect me cause I'm not having a competition on PvE to see who finishes the game faster or who gets more gear/skin.

Additionally, one person getting a title or a skin doesn't lower the chance someone else will get one. So no competition.

What if I could access a god mode?
I wouldn't use it cause it would kill my fun (or would use it once in a while for the lolz or something).

What about if it was in PvP?
That is a different matter since it is a competion situation.



I didn't, although it didn't affected my game. I was against ursan cause it removed the need for different professions and various characters per person.

But I didn't like play with ursan, and since I'm no competing, if I don't have fun with it, I don't use it, opposed to people that say consumables and PvE-only skills destroy their fun but insist on using them because they think they are in a race, so needing to using the most efficient tools even if destroy their fun.


Concluding, I find very strange that people complain about the game not being fun anymore but can't avoid the things that aren't fun as if they are under an obligation to compete.

I don't like some crappy title like drunkard or cartographer I don't do it cause it would ruin my fun.

I don't like consumables or a certain skill I don't use it.

Why would I self-ruin my fun?

I agree with you, but the problem is Anet has not shown the capability to balance such a large number of skills. I'd argue that ever since Nightfall the game has not been balanced (some would disagree with me but I digress). Even Wizards of the Coast (who has had their share of problems but is still way better than Anet in this department) phases out hundreds of cards every year for their tournament formats because they realize how hard it is to balance that many possibilities.

I'm sorry but I don't put playing with AI in the same sentence as "teamwork, communication, complexity"....ok I just did...but honestly I can't believe this is what we are passing off as teamwork and communication nowadays.

Then GW pve has major flaws...the idea is to require these skills. And your FoW example just goes back to my previous posts...the game is just easier now. Yes everybody got better somewhat, but that has no bearing on the fact that the game is easier due to power creep. Using PvE skills, consumables, and inbalanced hero bars I could c-space rollover almost any area in the game with my eyes closed at this point (including FoW which is basically a joke nowadays compared to Prophecies). It has nothing to do with how "skilled" I am.

I'm so glad you posted this so I didn't have to. +1. The fact that a lot of people are using heroes doesn't mean that everybody neccessarily wants to use heroes. Most people don't have a choice anymore because 95% of the outposts in the game (and 95% of the guilds I might add) are dead and heroes are oftentimes the only alternative.

I don't use pve skills and consumables however...I'd rather hack my leg off than be that bored and I refuse to use anything labeled "pve only". Ever since the PvP/PvE split, everything labeled "pve only" might as well read "for no skill scrubby use only".

I'm a RTS gamer at core. Controlling several units, enhance their abilities and use them to complement themselves and achieve the goals is part of a RTS game.

Don't see what is the difference of having 8 players running builds that complement each other and have 2p+6 heroes doing the same.

Don't see much difference in individuals having assigned responsibilities or having AI having the same, regardless of knowing or not.

Don't see much difference on telling "koss" to go hit x mob while telling "margrid" to hit Y dude while the rest of the attack a z target and then switch to the x mob and spike them.

Don't see much different other than it is a lot easier to accomplish with people than with heroes, and maybe that's why people tend to avoid builds heroes can't manage.

I like the overpowered hero builds bit. You can roll any areas with competent players much faster.

Again if heroes are so good why aren't GvG 2 players plus 6 heroes?



And would it be different with no heroes? Or would those areas just be dead and that was it? And how can you force people that don't take pople when they are asking for a team and prefer to take heroes than to play with people?

Ah. I remember when I started playing about 34 months ago being impossible to get a team to do the desert missions because everyone was a 55 monk or was playing factions. Guess that was the fault of PvE-only skills, heroes and consumables

Because read the wind is so more powerful now And if you don't use them how can it ruin your game experience?!?!?!

And don't forget PvP nerfs also hit mobs.

Good.

Now do this every single day, every single second, with a thousand other people.

Then you might be onto something. Until then this is easily dismissed as "personal experience" and not anything to take for granted.

YMMV: Your Milage May Vary. Don't spread it as fact.

One thing is granted - anyone that wants to come in and play can do it, other people or not.

And it has been like that since prophecies.

Heroes only improved the experience. Anyone with 2 accounts can play with 6 heroes just not 7.

I don't see why 6 heroes (or 7 if it was possible) is worse for the game than 7 henchmen.

People can toy with builds this way - and making builds is part of the "game skill".

People that want to play with other people just need to be more diplomatic and friendly. Not having to deal with the hassle of idiotic/unfriendly/stupid/rude people is a great pro in my book - either you behave or you are kicked from my party and we will just get a hero there that might not be as good but at least is quiet.

I can't speak for the masses. But I can speak for me. And I love the heroes I've got from NF and EotN...

you do realize it got the name "spamadan" for a reason right?