GW2: How2Ballance without making PvE people whine. - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

31 May 2009 at 00:45 - 121

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

How is it known where the majority player mostly resides?
How is it known what the majority player does?
What they play? *How* they play? Do they *still* play, and if not why not? Etc.?

A lot of questions that are near impossible to answer, but why do you think people buy games?

We know the answers to these by statistics, what Anet has told us, and just common sense. We know the majority player plays PvE. Hell we can even say the majority player plays "casual" PvE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Are most really gonna pick it up and say "holy crap I want everything I hope it's easy!" or "oh gees that looks pretty, I wonder how it is playing a Warrior?"?

Exagerrated example. I guarantee you they won't be saying "wow I hope this game is very challenging to a point where if I suck I won't be able to access all the content". As for your warrior comment, you'd be surprised how many people buy games because they "look cool".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Granted things get more messy as you go further more into the depth...but that's not what games are for. The casual player - the majority player - just wants hit things without too much difficulty. This has become clear to me through years of gaming and reading the WoW forums (haw).

So we basically agree, you are just being difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slowerpoke

Would GW still be around today if it was purely pvp from the beginning?

Of course it would still be around. That isn't the question to ask though. The question to ask is "would GW still be popular today if it was a PvP focused game with PvE in it" and I think the answer is a resounding yes. Remember...a large part of the reason PvP is dying and PvE is thriving is because Anet chose it to be that way.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

31 May 2009 at 01:22 - 122

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So we basically agree...

Somewhat, but not really. Either way we should both stfu.

glacialphoenix

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jul 2008

Singapore

Royal Order of Flying Lemmings [ROFL]

Mo/

31 May 2009 at 02:00 - 123

Quote:

A split between PvP and PvE is inevitable as there are conflicting expectations.

Pretty much this, really - people are going to take different attitudes towards different types of play.

Seriously, sometimes I think being a PvEr is damned if you do, damned if you don't - ask for PvE skills to be nerfed and it's because you're elitist and don't want other people to get the loot that you did; don't say anything and you're the whiny PvEr who ruins the game for PvPers. What?

And frankly, at this stage of the game, I'll be surprised if there's a change that makes everyone happy.

UnChosen

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Mar 2006

31 May 2009 at 02:30 - 124

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

It would die a slow horrible death if that was the case.

Agreed

The draw of Guild Wars had always been free to play co-op RPG.

haggus71

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jun 2007

FotS

31 May 2009 at 02:36 - 125

I guess we just better hope they stick to the plan they said over a year ago. PvP and PvE separate, with a world vs world area where both can play. PvE'ers can gogo carebear, PvP'ers can go live out Darwinism, and everyone can be happy.

Of course, if I get the gist of the conversation, about a year into the game, some pussies will crying, "wah! I wants to pway PvP too's! Gimme wins buttonz!", and it will all circle the toilet again.

Goddess Of Defense

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Feb 2009

United States

One Thirty Three Seven [????????????]

P/W

31 May 2009 at 09:14 - 126

The game is designed for PVE and PVP now, just because PVP was introduced first does not mean it gets first priority over PVE. You may think some people are whining, but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan because it let every class get into a pug and win, when Ursan was nerfed Elite areas were reduced to 2-3 classes: Assassin, Monk, and Necromancer. Some of the nerfs have no business being nerfed in PVE when only the PVP people cry over it. For instance Peace and Harmony was "too overpowered" why? Because it actually replaced RC? So now PVE suffers duration to recharge time because it was "over powered." IMHO PVPers cry more than PVE players.

faraaz

Banned

Join Date: Feb 2008

India

Hey Mallyx [icU]

A/

31 May 2009 at 10:15 - 127

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goddess Of Defense

but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan

I don't mean to be a jerk but...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAAAAA...

And people werent complaining about PnH because it replaced RC, they were complaining because it completely raped hexway which was used (abused?) by a lot of ppl in HA.

glacialphoenix

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jul 2008

Singapore

Royal Order of Flying Lemmings [ROFL]

Mo/

31 May 2009 at 10:47 - 128

Quote:

The game is designed for PVE and PVP now, just because PVP was introduced first does not mean it gets first priority over PVE. You may think some people are whining, but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan because it let every class get into a pug and win

...wrong.

It was taking a turn towards selecting classes that either had high energy advantages (elementalist, necro), or 80 armour (warrior, paragon). There were people wanting only r10 Norn warriors after a while - yes, I saw them advertising. So even the Ursan winbutton favoured a few classes over others.

Longasc

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2005

31 May 2009 at 11:11 - 129

First PvE vs PvP and now Ursan vs Everyone... keke. The Thread has been totally derailed.

Default Name

Academy Page

Join Date: Sep 2007

Pigs Go [Oink]

W/R

31 May 2009 at 13:07 - 130

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Then make it so people can steamroll in PvE. Does anybody have a problem with this anymore? I see a bunch of people going on endlessly about "yea well the majority wants this so thats the way it should be blah blah blah". Fine...then I should be able to steamroll PvE because that is sadly what the majority wants. The majority of people who bought Guild Wars bought it because they thought it was something it wasn't. The real challenge has always been PvP anyways...Anet would be better served spending their time balancing PvP properly because PvE players in general are easy to please.

It's called perceived difficult. Look it up, you may learn a few things about game development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Replace the word "best" with the word "worst" and I absolutely agree with you.

Time and effort to deploy with as little impact as possible to contradicting segments of the game makes this a win.

But then and again, to someone who doesn't see the big picture, QQing is way better I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Which is why the best PvP games in the history of the world have free updates, are balanced, and aren't subscription based. Yep that sums it all up perfectly.

Ahh but not all the games are called GWs and developed by A-Net with exactly the same business model. I guess that's something too hard for some to grasp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haggus71

I guess we just better hope they stick to the plan they said over a year ago. PvP and PvE separate, with a world vs world area where both can play. PvE'ers can gogo carebear, PvP'ers can go live out Darwinism, and everyone can be happy.

Of course, if I get the gist of the conversation, about a year into the game, some pussies will crying, "wah! I wants to pway PvP too's! Gimme wins buttonz!", and it will all circle the toilet again.

Eh, people not cut out to PVP have been thrown a life-line by the PVP community themselves with FOTMs and wiki builds. Granted wiki bars aren't the best ones for a given role. But it doesn't downright suck either. At least there is a place to start now unlike 4 years ago when you just grab 8 and hope for the best.

Hilarious and epic battles in three way gank fest maps, anyone?

enter_the_zone

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Nov 2007

R/

31 May 2009 at 15:30 - 131

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Simple: Release "serious" PvP part of game year (or more) in advance before releasing PvE part.

Reason: PvEr issue with nerfs is that:
a) They get attached to unbalanced crap that makes game easy and protect it as 'ballance'
b) They get attached to unbalanced crap that gets em virtual pixel goods and protect is as 'fun'
c) They get attached to unbalanced crap they did not know is unbalanced crap and protect it as 'being punished for being original'

Which is all eliminated if they never get to use that builds before and when their first hands-on encounter with skillset happens after all major rebalances happen.

Normal Betas/Alphas usually fail at detecting broken stuff which gets discovered quite fast in environment where people play to win and not to test. (Failure being discovering 100 exploits and not noticing number 101).

---

Would separating PvP/PvE chronologically work better than separation at skill level?

No, separating PVE/PVP versions of skills makes a lot more sense. Not the half-hearted way it's done currently, complete separation.

Or release GW2 in 2011 (my guestimate) to pvp only and watch ANet go "serious" bankrupt...

Burst Cancel

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Dec 2006

Domain of Broken Game Mechanics

31 May 2009 at 18:39 - 132

There's no need to split PvP/PvE. Very few (if any) PvP-oriented games actually have a completely split-off PvE mode with different mechanics. Units in RTS games, weapons in FPS games, characters in fighting games, etc. are all identical between PvP and story/campaign modes. PvE and PvP operate under the same systems, except one has computer opponents and the other has human opponents.

I actually think that, more than anything else, the group requirement is the main problem with GW. The fact that HA/GvG/TA require organized teams presents a bar to entry that most people are either unable or unwilling to surmount. Other games with large, healthy PvP communities got that way because the only requirement for successful PvP is individual skill - you don't have to find 7 other skilled people to play with all the time. PvP in those other games isn't any less Darwinian ("elitist", in the carebear vocabulary), and the players aren't any better behaved, but normal people don't seem to have any problem getting into PvP anyway.

Gigashadow

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Aug 2005

Bellevue, WA

W/

01 Jun 2009 at 02:04 - 133

It'll be interesting to see what happens with grouping in GW2. For example, is GvG still 8 people? 6? Can you even have interesting tactical GvG with only 6 people? How about the equivalent of HA? Is team arena 4v4, 5v5, 3v3, 2v2?

The closest thing for comparison is WoW's (nerd rage faucet opened!) 2v2 arenas are compared with 5v5, the latter is pretty much a dead bracket now. The smaller the group the larger the population. I used to do 5's, which were actually kind of fun, but it was a real pain to get everyone together.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

01 Jun 2009 at 02:32 - 134

The GvG format will definitely need to be large. As easily shown in various class based games, the smaller the format the less variety you can allow. Just look at 2's in WoW.

All in all, I'm just hoping a lot for more skill>build casual play in GW2, but that's just me.

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

01 Jun 2009 at 02:44 - 135

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goddess Of Defense

The game is designed for PVE and PVP now, just because PVP was introduced first does not mean it gets first priority over PVE. You may think some people are whining, but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan

Actually it was designed for PvP...just nitpicking though. LoL at your Ursan comment as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

It's called perceived difficult. Look it up, you may learn a few things about game development.

So you want perceived difficulty and not actual difficulty. I'm glad you fit perfectly into my generalization of the majority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

Time and effort to deploy with as little impact as possible to contradicting segments of the game makes this a win.

But then and again, to someone who doesn't see the big picture, QQing is way better I guess.

Because I'm a purist who wants the game to be balanced on its founding mechanics and I want it to be as simple as possible. I don't want 2 seperate games where skills have to be relearned etc. The game is already overcomplicated. Not to mention, in the big picture 95% of the PvP updates had little to no effect on PvE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

Ahh but not all the games are called GWs and developed by A-Net with exactly the same business model. I guess that's something too hard for some to grasp.

So let me get this straight...Anet with their "no monthly fees" business model is something new to competitive games? I guess thats why almost every good PvP game in history follows the same model. You are simply an Anet apologist. You shrug off their balancing mistakes with awful excuses while not seeing the light in front of your eyes...the light being that Anet is clearly not very good at balancing. Good at a lot of other things, but not balancing.

UnChosen

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Mar 2006

01 Jun 2009 at 02:56 - 136

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

There's no need to split PvP/PvE. Very few (if any) PvP-oriented games actually have a completely split-off PvE mode with different mechanics. Units in RTS games, weapons in FPS games, characters in fighting games, etc. are all identical between PvP and story/campaign modes. PvE and PvP operate under the same systems, except one has computer opponents and the other has human opponents,

Zeratul vs. Dark Templar in Starcraft.
Warcraft campaign mode heroes vs. multiplayer heroes.
Giant Bowser in story mode vs. Normal bowser in smash bros. melee.

Of course games like FPS never really have a "PvE mode", and when they do its usually rather tacked on and ridiculously short and easy. Even then the single and multiplayer mode are still separated, just by maps and weapon placements. Other games allow grind and potions to make up for any changes in skills, aka conventional RPGS...destroying monsters in 2 hits at lvl 50 nerfed to destroying monsters in 2 hits at lvl 60 is not a big deal.

Racthoh

Did I hear 7 heroes?

Join Date: May 2005

Scars Meadows [SMS], Guild Leader (Not Recruiting)

01 Jun 2009 at 05:12 - 137

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Normal Betas/Alphas usually fail at detecting broken stuff which gets discovered quite fast in environment where people play to win and not to test. (Failure being discovering 100 exploits and not noticing number 101).

I'd argue it's more because of the sample size. It'll be much easier to find a problem if more people have access to what you're working with. How often are patches applied only for an immediate hot fix to be released because some bug was discovered by some random player?

PvE has, or at least was, always been about problem solving. You will be faced with a pre-determined situation and you have to find someway to deal with it. That's all really. Regardless of how skills are balanced there will always be some combination that will allow you to complete the task at hand. The playerbase simply refuses to believe it though and would rather believe the combination of 8 skills that they had were the only way to succeed, hence the uproars when one or two things get changed and suddenly it's 'impossible' for them to play. Although in most cases the fact their farming build becomes unusable is the main reason for the commotion.

I would assume the mentality from other MMOs that you can use any skill at anytime carried over to Guild Wars, which in turn created the issue with skill balancing causing problems with PvE.

Consumables were ultimately the worst thing to happen to PvE, not skill balances. Suddenly everything became how fast you could clear the zone not whether your group could even clear it. I was under the impression Hard Mode was supposed to add a level of difficulty to the game, not ramp up the loot if players were willing to spend slightly more time in zones. Imbalance contributes to the mess but consumables only fuel them to another level.

Default Name

Academy Page

Join Date: Sep 2007

Pigs Go [Oink]

W/R

01 Jun 2009 at 15:59 - 138

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So you want perceived difficulty and not actual difficulty. I'm glad you fit perfectly into my generalization of the majority.

It is irrelevant really this argument. The right difficulty sells the game to a larger group. That's a fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Because I'm a purist who wants the game to be balanced on its founding mechanics and I want it to be as simple as possible. I don't want 2 seperate games where skills have to be relearned etc. The game is already overcomplicated. Not to mention, in the big picture 95% of the PvP updates had little to no effect on PvE.

Then, obviously you weren't around long enough to witness the PVE epic QQs of the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So let me get this straight...Anet with their "no monthly fees" business model is something new to competitive games? I guess thats why almost every good PvP game in history follows the same model. You are simply an Anet apologist. You shrug off their balancing mistakes with awful excuses while not seeing the light in front of your eyes...the light being that Anet is clearly not very good at balancing. Good at a lot of other things, but not balancing.

A-net apologist? You mean fanboi?

Hardly.

I am into business, I sell software and was in the gaming industry a couple of years back. Minimal effort to please 2 crowds residing on two sides of a coin is a win to me.

Why these opposing crowds exist? In GWs the person behind gets trained more as the game progress not the toon. The emphasis on organization and team synergy with the rest of the players also means you will be punished for the lack of unlike an RTS.

In most RTS your fate is in your own control. This is especially true the more skillful you get. You don't need to depend on the X other players for bringing the right cards and playing them at the right time.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

01 Jun 2009 at 18:47 - 139

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

Why these opposing crowds exist? In GWs the person behind gets trained more as the game progress not the toon. The emphasis on organization and team synergy with the rest of the players also means you will be punished for the lack of unlike an RTS.

In most RTS your fate is in your own control. This is especially true the more skillful you get. You don't need to depend on the X other players for bringing the right cards and playing them at the right time.

I think this is really why I have such a problem in team games : \ When I get my skill up, I realize most people are content with keeping it low.

Not a problem for them, of course, but it can bring a bit of discouragement when you personally give it your best, bring your best, but still the team as a whole cripples.

That's why I'm really hoping for the "optional partying" in GW2. It'll suck losing the 8 person requirement we've seen in GW1, but the pros *far* outweigh the cons in my opinion.

UndeadRoadkill

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Feb 2006

01 Jun 2009 at 19:02 - 140

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goddess Of Defense

but PVE was actually balanced with Ursan because it let every class get into a pug and win

How is being able to 1,2,3 whack the hell out of elite areas at light speed with little skill balanced? "Balanced" doesn't mean that all professions are equally super-powerful vs monsters.

Please stop giving PvE-ers a bad name, just look at the way the elitist PVPers are dragging it through the muck in this thread.

Grj

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Apr 2007

01 Jun 2009 at 19:24 - 141

Why are people saying they could get into groups with ursan? just before it got nerfed, i remember people started to only take certain classes, the war for example for the higher armor.

The discrimination was starting, and also who remember's if you don't have 7k for consets then basically it was gtfo... oh and if you was a monk you didn't have to pay...

glacialphoenix

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jul 2008

Singapore

Royal Order of Flying Lemmings [ROFL]

Mo/

01 Jun 2009 at 19:30 - 142

Quote:

Why are people saying they could get into groups with ursan? just before it got nerfed, i remember people started to only take certain classes, the war for example for the higher armor.

Am I glad I'm not the only person to remember that. Ironically enough, I only noticed it cause I monked, and I monked because I didn't have the cash to pay for consets...

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

01 Jun 2009 at 19:59 - 143

Ursan did everything it aimed to do entirely wrong: it aimed to help class discrimination by completely throwing out all the game was about while not helping discrimination in the least. Warriors were still king and "only R10's allowed" still rings pretty loud in my ears.

Thankfully, while it's still there it's gone...but it still didn't get rid of the zounds of other problems that remained in PvE.

UnChosen

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Mar 2006

01 Jun 2009 at 20:29 - 144

Quote:

Originally Posted by UndeadRoadkill

How is being able to 1,2,3 whack the hell out of elite areas at light speed with little skill balanced? "Balanced" doesn't mean that all professions are equally super-powerful vs monsters.

Please stop giving PvE-ers a bad name, just look at the way the elitist PVPers are dragging it through the muck in this thread.

Even with ursan at least 60% of the group I've been in failed, people tend to take examples of organized guild groups and blow things way out of proportion.

Same with the current perma...at least half of them can't maintain the skill correctly and dies, I can't count how many UWSC I've been in fail despite how easy its supposed to be.

As for cryway...people don't follow targets. Putting these skills in the hands of pug merely improves their standing from utter failure to average.

I rather have these newbie/technically inept people crutches than being forced to discordway everything, tyvm.

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

02 Jun 2009 at 00:26 - 145

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

It is irrelevant really this argument. The right difficulty sells the game to a larger group. That's a fact.

The right difficulty can be very low according to you. We only need "perceived" difficulty. Thus I was right all along and you mostly agreed with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

Then, obviously you weren't around long enough to witness the PVE epic QQs of the past.

Of course I was...to see the epic QQs over nothing. The only legit QQs over change where to things such as sole reaping, but even those QQs were rather stupid as soul reaping needed to be nerfed in both PvP AND PvE without question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

I am into business, I sell software and was in the gaming industry a couple of years back. Minimal effort to please 2 crowds residing on two sides of a coin is a win to me.

The problem? Anet hasn't pleased both crowds. Instead they have 2 subpar inbalanced products because they attempted to please both crowds instead of making the original point of their game better. Fortunately for them they are a brilliant company at so many other things that these flaws are often overlooked by many.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

02 Jun 2009 at 01:52 - 146

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Fortunately for them they are a brilliant company at so many other things that these flaws are often overlooked by many.

It's not ANet doing anything amazing, it's just that they're able to make a pleasing, easy-to-pick-up game.

That's probably why so many posters here got so easily drawn into GW in the first place. It's pretty, atmospheric, has a fun and fluid combat, and NM is largely forgiving (I beat the whole game with Mending and Battle Rage on my bar. WEEE!). With all of those, it's gonna be played.

UndeadRoadkill

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Feb 2006

02 Jun 2009 at 02:23 - 147

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnChosen

I rather have these newbie/technically inept people crutches than being forced to discordway everything, tyvm.

Valid points, perhaps, but I'd take discordway over having to play with that boring-ass ursan bar with real people. Especially since I won't grind myself to sleep for the rep points.

Kashrlyyk

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

02 Jun 2009 at 05:38 - 148

Quote:

Originally Posted by UndeadRoadkill

Valid points, perhaps, but I'd take discordway over having to play with that boring-ass ursan bar with real people. Especially since I won't grind myself to sleep for the rep points.

So the problem is not so much Ursan itself but scaling with faction rank?
What if Ursan from the very start was independent of the players class with nothing else changed?

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

02 Jun 2009 at 05:41 - 149

Would you be able to specify that a bit more, Kash?

fenix

Major-General Awesome

Join Date: Aug 2005

Aussie Trolling Crew HQ - Event Organiser and IRC Tiger

Ex Talionis [Law], Trinity of the Ascended [ToA] ????????????????&#

W/

02 Jun 2009 at 05:45 - 150

This thread could have been answered on the first page;

Step 1) Make Guild Wars 2.
Step 2) Make the skills.
Step 3) Balance for PvP only.
Step 4) Never touch PvE. Ever. Who cares if everything is overpowered, it's PvE.
Step 5) ???
Step 6) PROFIT! (lolvaporwarecan'tprofit)

UndeadRoadkill

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Feb 2006

02 Jun 2009 at 08:11 - 151

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

So the problem is not so much Ursan itself but scaling with faction rank?
What if Ursan from the very start was independent of the players class with nothing else changed?

No, I think it's boring. I wouldn't use it even if everybody got completely identical stats.

glacialphoenix

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jul 2008

Singapore

Royal Order of Flying Lemmings [ROFL]

Mo/

02 Jun 2009 at 08:30 - 152

Quote:

So the problem is not so much Ursan itself but scaling with faction rank?
What if Ursan from the very start was independent of the players class with nothing else changed?

I think, either way, people would have come to rely on it far too much.

Take Slaver's Exile. At first, when Ursan didn't have a foothold, people just went in with a certain set build - obbytank, etc.

Then Ursan wormed its way in, and people started demanding that you run Ursan.

After that, the bar got raised higher - r8/r9/r10 or nothing, and I think I'm being generous with the ranks here, because I saw plenty r10 or nothing groups around. You'd think that would be enough to breeze through anything even without consets - I mean, technically it is, isn't it...

Nope. Consets. Consets NOW or else THIS GROUP WILL NOT WORK. EVEN IF WE'RE ALL R10.

That is what I saw happening. The more winbuttons people got, the more people used those winbuttons and became convinced that you couldn't do without those winbuttons.

Kashrlyyk

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

02 Jun 2009 at 10:47 - 153

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Would you be able to specify that a bit more, Kash?

Independent of the weapon, its speed or special boni and all its modifications and setting primary attributes to zero. Fixing the values of health, armor and energy.

Avarre

Bubblegum Patrol

Join Date: Dec 2005

Singapore Armed Forces

02 Jun 2009 at 10:47 - 154

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

This thread could have been answered on the first page;

Step 1) Make Guild Wars 2.
Step 2) Make the skills.
Step 3) Balance for PvP only.
Step 4) Never touch PvE. Ever. Who cares if everything is overpowered, it's PvE.
Step 5) ???
Step 6) PROFIT! (lolvaporwarecan'tprofit)

No.

PvE must have random balance changes to ruin the lives of players who are casual.

This is 100% essential.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

02 Jun 2009 at 11:41 - 155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Independent of the weapon, its speed or special boni and all its modifications and setting primary attributes to zero. Fixing the values of health, armor and energy.

While an improvement, it's still throwing out nearly all the fundamentals of Guild Wars. If all ANet wanted us to do was use UB, why make any professions at all?

Mordakai

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2005

Kyhlo

W/

02 Jun 2009 at 14:34 - 156

Would it be better if you had to "build up" to Ursan mode either with Adrenaline, or another adrenaline-like mechanic?

And have forced downtime as well? That way, you'd have to have a build in order to get to use Ursan, and survive when it goes down. Making Ursan dependent only on Energy was the worst mistake, IMO.

The sad thing is, I wanted a "shapeshifter" in Guild Wars since Factions. But like most things, once I got it, I realized I didn't like it after all....

Default Name

Academy Page

Join Date: Sep 2007

Pigs Go [Oink]

W/R

02 Jun 2009 at 14:37 - 157

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The right difficulty can be very low according to you. We only need "perceived" difficulty. Thus I was right all along and you mostly agreed with me.

I did no such thing.

The "difficulty" QQing is irrelevant really. If you want dynamic play, do PVP. That's all there is, nothing more nothing less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Of course I was...to see the epic QQs over nothing. The only legit QQs over change where to things such as sole reaping, but even those QQs were rather stupid as soul reaping needed to be nerfed in both PvP AND PvE without question.

Pissed off customers are not satisfied customers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The problem? Anet hasn't pleased both crowds. Instead they have 2 subpar inbalanced products because they attempted to please both crowds instead of making the original point of their game better. Fortunately for them they are a brilliant company at so many other things that these flaws are often overlooked by many.

Perhaps.

One thing's for sure, not splitting would leave a narrower ground to thread.

Kashrlyyk

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

02 Jun 2009 at 15:47 - 158

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

While an improvement, it's still throwing out nearly all the fundamentals of Guild Wars. If all ANet wanted us to do was use UB, why make any professions at all?

Yes, it hurts the "fundamentals" but what alternative is there for the high difficulty areas??

Because not everyone wants to use Ursan for everything. It gets boring and the more intelligent players then stop using it. And then the different professions come into play.

I don´t use Ursan anymore because it is boring the same goes for Discordway or Sabway. They work but it gets boring going everywhere with the three necromancer heroes. I want to use my other heroes too.

This game today is way too much about getting things done than having fun. People leaving runs because in their views it takes too long, tank dies too often etc....

E.g: You get the vanquish reward after finishing the vanquish. So if you can´t beat the last group you basically wasted your time.

Why not make it so: E.g: 400 enemies in the area. The vanquish reward would be 4000 faction points. Now how about this:
After the first 50 enemies 5% of the total vanquish reward is granted.
After 100 the next 5%.
After 150 another 5%.
After 200 you gain 10%.
250 grants another 10%
300 would be 15%.
And 350 20% and 400 the last 30%.

That way not finishing the vanquish wouldn´t be so much of a waste of time.

glacialphoenix

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jul 2008

Singapore

Royal Order of Flying Lemmings [ROFL]

Mo/

02 Jun 2009 at 16:02 - 159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Yes, it hurts the "fundamentals" but what alternative is there for the high difficulty areas??

The problem is, it wouldn't be used only for the high difficulty areas. You'd have people using it for the low-difficulty areas, going to the high-difficulty areas, and complaining that it's too hard.

And, well, while you wouldn't have to worry about class discrimination or rank discrimination if that's the case, you'd still have a really big issue where people would demand that you run Ursan or HB if you wanted in, you'd still have to bring a conset... where would that leave the players who got sick of running Ursan?

Yichi

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Sep 2005

Guild Hall, Vent, Guesting, PvE, or the occasional HA match...

Dark Alley [dR]

02 Jun 2009 at 16:46 - 160

Quote:

Originally Posted by Default Name

Pissed off customers are not satisfied customers.

Your customer base being pissed off at no longer being able to abuse a broken mechanic in the game is hardly a valid argument...

What you and many others are now failing to realize is that if there is a nerf to a skill thats both PvE and PvP, than it is being abused in PvE as well. So many people were quick to throw the blame at PvP'rs for the PwK nerf, when it was a staple in both the discord and sabway builds that could pretty much steamroll through PvE in either difficulty. If it wasn't a problem in PvE, than they would have just make the change PvP only.