Bridging the great divide. PvE and PvP.

Its simple, when Anet *cough* failnet moves onto GW3,
Subcontract management of GW2 out and provide some oversight of it. Don't overuse the carrot-and-stick methods of rewards (titles, minipets, etc...) to occupy players in PvE for long periods. Don't encourage /rank, but good luck with that one, kicks. Keep the game balanced for god's sake. I started to say have 2 or 3 teams working on skill balances, but for some reason I think anet would find a way to screw up the game even more that way.

On a side note, I'm all for /rank. Obviously you don't want a pug/noob in the group because you want to win. But when I decided I wanted to get into PvP again (hadn't done that since factions release) and I couldn't get into a group, something's wrong. A game's PvP should at least encourage new players in. Right now the high-end PvP in guildwars is the same ppl trying to max the title or whatever, the same stagnant builds and play. Of course, since its the same ppl playing, everyone is ranked decently high at least and to get rank I have to find a group first - Catch 22 much?

And FYI, I've always enjoyed the PvP structure of guildwars, even when I was not playing it. But if they want to make PvP like WoW in GW2, where its all unstructured, mostly chaos, and there's no team element, then please call it something other than GW2. World of Guildwars would sound more appropriate.

Possibly, rather than bridge the gap, blow the bridge up.
Make it two seperate games entirely.
You want to PVP ... have to buy the PVP game.
You want to PVE? Buy the PVE game.
Items and skills cannot crossover from one to the other.
Toons in PVE cannot PVP and vice versa.
Focus tyhe PVP Enviroment to what the players want ... balance and consistency.
Focus the PVE Enviroment on what those players want, more story based content and geared toward casual players.

Nary the twain shall meet.

I don't think you have to be that extreme.

Just "nerf" the PvE character to fit into whatever limits PvP has.

And despite common opinion, there are some players that play both.

one game, two playstyles.
some people will only play one, some both

the 'problem' wont be resolved in gw1
anet have the chance to do something about it with gw2

Actually, if you poke around the limited information ArenaNet has released about PvP in GW2, you'll notice that even while touting the new World vs World style, Jeff Strain (at least I think it was Jeff) has stated that the structured PvP that players have become accustomed too in GW1 will still be there.

So, the structured arenas (RA/TA/HA and GvG) of GW1 will probably still be around in some form, as well as this new World vs World. It will be interesting to see how they plan to implement WvW, one can't help but think of WAR's RvR (which lots of WAR players do seem to love).

Oy, not this again.

People who like pvp bought GW1 to play pvp. People who like pve bought GW1 for pve. It was pure naivety to think large numbers of people would "transition" from pve to pvp. Personally, I think Hell is Other Players and avoid them whenever possible aside from alliance-mates and friends. Pvp will never be the "endgame" of a pve game for me, and nothing anet can do will ever change that.

Besides, how is grinding out rank any better than grinding out titles?

Better (title/loot/icome) rewards? Not really... thats not point of PvP for me.
Besides, it would turn PvP to just another farm. I don't really enjoy farming in PvE myself to begin with (I do, on the other hand, like creating farming builds.).

It would, however, be big motivator if there were monetary rewards of some kind (say, 5$ "coupon" for ingame store for placing well in ATs), something to shoot for in c-league.

But this will not solve issue of having to invest a lot of time and actually being good enough to participate and to be reasonably successful. Basically, rewards do not solve issues inherent to GW being team based game that takes some skill to enjoy. Rewards only make one endure it. Friendlier environment is the same: I am ok-ish with e-ego guys in pvp, they just belong there. But even if they all turn to fuzzy care bears, one would still have to invest lots of time and be actually good.

---

I'll tell you what I enjoyed in PvP in WoW (oh my, he mentioned it!), especially in Wintergrasp (and as a druid to be even more specific).

As player, I can still help out others without having to watch battlefield: "30 minute buff" is always appreciated, and so is "10 minute buff", and my mere presence on battlefield provides interesting benefits to my team thanks to form auras. Neither is powerful enough to really make true difference, but good enough to be appreciated.

Basically, without having to do anything taking skill one can contribute well enough to feel nice and fuzzy.

One can easily enter battle without group, but getting invite is not that hard because one more player is on more vehicle driver/one more enemy distraction. You can enter battle even after it started as reinforcements.

And leaving is not that much of issue either, because undermanned side gets buff as compensation.

Rewards are meh for me, but if i feelt like pvping and someone was starting wintergrasp raid, I could join to have some fun without much obligations.

And it was always nice to walk out with some achievement "trophy".

Maybe introducing some story-driven pvp elements: quest,misssion etc that mix both elements of pve and pvp, sure it will get old fast but it can serve as a introduction to structured world of pvp.

A lack of transitory content is a very serious problem. I've a great deal of sympathy for anyone trying to break into a format, as there's no easing your way in. The introductory quests from the Guide and Master Rioka, unlocking the various formats, etc. aren't useful in the least because you inherit nothing useful for the higher formats. There is no method to familiarize yourself with the various maps in each formats. For Guild versus Guild, you can only visit feature-disabled Guild Halls through a Canthan Ambassador. You have the option of unrated matches, but only if you can find a counterpart. You can host a guild skirmishes, but you can only play on your Guild Hall. Observe mode only gives you vicarious experience, and only for the parts of the map that are used. For HA, you're screwed; observe mode is very limited, your only introduction of each map is before you play one, and there's no exploration mode. The Zaishen Challenges don't even cover half the map rotation for Arenas. The split skills don't help either. Every update makes the list more problematic.

Unfortunately, the chance for such content is probably gone; the game is likely beyond the point of having it, and the few relics that we have are inadequate.

I'm not really sure I understand the point of this thread, as we already know the approach Anet is taking to linking PvE and PvP in Guild Wars 2.

On the timeless subject of PvE/PvP: A PvP community is always going to be smaller than a PvE community, that's just the nature of gamers. I wonder how much smaller would the difference be, had PvP not been botched from the beginning? Especially considering Guild Wars was marketed as a competitive PvP game.

PvE has certainly had the most content developed for it since prophecies, but PvP has seen the biggest mechanical improvements. J menu, ATs, UAX, obs mode... we all know the examples. What if these had been in from release? What if we hadn't had four years of players giving up on an under-developed side of the game?

Compared to a PvE player, your average PvP player is more likely to be an active member of the community. Considering that, I think we would have seen a large swing in the kind of feedback being generated. Perhaps if this led to soften impression of PvP players being a whiney 'vocal minority' issues would have been taken more seriously and dealt with in a more timely manner.

Speculation aside, you are looking at one of the biggest problems in the PvE/PvP divide. The disparity in attention paid to the two parts of the game has always led to massive amounts of friction in their respective communities. The friction led to the divide, lack of cooperation, and the unpleasant stereotypes.

To give a simple examples of how this works:

- PvE (rightfully) gets more actual content developed, giving PvE players a sense of entitlement and superiority. They are under the impression that they are the majority and as such development time should be aimed toward their needs. This is why they object so much when you trample over them with skill balances for PvP. It seems illogical and rude.

- PvP players feel neglected because their issues are rarely dealt with properly. The arguement that they are in the minority and therefore their issues aren't as important doesn't stick, because they know they are in the minority because their issues aren't seen as important.

That clash of opinions obviously leads to clashes on the forum, and the general opinion that PvE and PvP players can't mix. Suddenly PvE players are terrible at the game without exception and should never be grouped with, and PvP players are just elitist jerks who do nothing but whine and moan.

These thoroughly ingrained views put PvE players off trying to get into PvP, and it put PvP players off giving them a chance and helping them.

So there it is. Neglect of PvP issues is one of the larger causes of the PvE/PvP divide, and a major stumbling block for Jeff Strains original goal of PvP as an endgame.

Lessons for the future?

A) Stop treating PvP players like an angry vocal minority and they will stop acting like one. Your PvP community sucking is a symptom not a cause of your PvP content sucking.

B) Think big picture. You can't expect to neglect one entire side of the game and expect it not to have a nasty knock-on effect everywhere else. It's not only the PvP community that has suffered because of the state of PvP, if you can't see that then you just don't have the vision to be making any kind of judgements.

While I understand what you are getting at, parts of that argument are fairly subjective. I could just as easily say that

- PvP (rightfully) has a better knowledge of the game mechanics, thereby giving PvP players a sense of entitlement and superiority since they know what's better for the game. They are under the impression that they drive the meta, and as such, development time should be aimed towards their needs. This is why they object so much when Anet caters to the silly PvEers constantly. It seems illogical and rude.

While both what you and I said aren't entirely untrue, you can see how not taking an objective view of the matters can skew the discussion. Unfortunately, since this vehicle for communications limits us to "forum speak" (ie. sound byte sized bits of discussion or tl;dr), a lot of otherwise well intentioned discussions go straight down the shitter. Especially when touchy subjects are being discussed and ppl have their hackles up and are deliberately/accidentally misinterpreting posts. Another contributor to the divide likely... limited ability to have objective conversations with civil discourse. (I can hear people now, "civil discourse? on the boards? bwahahahahaha" Shame tho, really...)

I am somewhat skeptical of this comment
With respect to a larger percentage of the smaller community being more active, then I probably agree.

I would suggest that community activity-ness (heh) is relative. While I certainly would imagine PvPers to be active participants in a community discussion, I couldn't necessarily say that they are more or less active than say the farming community or the off-topic community (just using the guru forums for example). And the importance of each community will also be relative as well, based on personal preferences (/glances briefly in Anet's CR's direction ). Of course, I'll acknowledge that the balance forums, qq forums, the guild hall and others also serve as extensions for community discussion, regardless of official Anet recognition of those outlets. Likewise, with the various PvE community forums scattered to the winds, I'm sure all sorts of activity is happening as well, or was... at one time... this game is winding down, after all.

All that aside, I do agree that the neglect of the PvP community has been unhealthy to say the least and I only hope that there is a credible and attentive rep for this group when GW2 rolls out. It certainly contributed towards the divide inasmuch as a perceptions of favoritism have been ingrained into the community psyche.

A large percentage of your player base is never going to make the transition; some percentage due to lack of ability, and a much larger percentage due to lack of desire. That's exactly what you expect and there's no problem with it. You really have two goals. One is to make sure that your game is very appealing to the casual player to keep a healthy player base. This is where most of your players are going to fall, and it is important that they can just pick up and play the game out of the box. You want zero gate keeping.

The other part is that you need to make sure that the transition from casual PvP to more organized PvP is as smooth as possible. You only expect a fraction of your players to make the transition, but it is important that the players who do want more than casual PvP can get that. You need this at every stage. Ultimately your population is a pyramid - a small population of your most competitive and dedicated players at the top, and a very large pool of casual players at the bottom. Without the large base, you can't have a healthy population at the tip. They all go up and down together.

The tip of the pyramid is important for the legitimacy that it gives to the game. When you have very dedicated players playing for money and trying to break the game in order to win, but the environment remains healthy and competitive, that's a leading indicator that the game is well developed and supported. That trickles all the way down to the bottom, where players are much harder to gauge but feelings are much more susceptible to broken builds and plays.

The same goes for PvE in this regard; when your most dedicated players attack your most challenging content with a reasonable variety of builds, strategies, and tactics, then that's a leading indicator that your PvE is very healthy. The main reason people are so able to dismiss Guild Wars PvE as a joke is these leading indicators; the most serious players use a few broken builds to walk all over the hardest content in the game. You can't even pretend that content is remotely balanced when that's the case.

And it is precisely this attitude that turns most people away from pvp.


I'm mainly a PvE'er, I admit it openly; however I do dabble in PvP. I enjoy FA, JQ, AB, and RA. I've seen a lot of assholes, and discrimination, in every type I've played. Some of it I can deal with, I just turn off local chat, but when it comes from your own teammates....yeah it puts you off. Yes, occasionally some of it may be deserved, but a lot of it is just arrogant b*llsh*t.

I've tried team arena's but lack the grinding away of my life to have a high glad rank to get into a group. I've gotten into a few though on and off, so there are nice people out there that don't give a crap about your title. On the other hand I've gone 10 rounds in TA with a team I started in RA with and it was wonderful, but it's not very often I find great people like that.

I've also tried HA on a couple of different occasions, but the rude, uncouth people chased me away. I don't think I have ever found a nice player in HA, and as much as I would like to learn, I don't enjoy playing with assholes.

I have also tried GvG a handful of times - prior alliance, friends, etc. Again, not the best experience. I have a friend in a better GvG based guild now, and he's invited me to come gvg with them, but again due to previous experiences I'm more then a little timid in accepting such offers.

I don't mind losing, I'm in it to have fun and enjoy myself, which it sort of whole point of the game -whether you play competitively or not. It's the same with sports - its not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. If you gave it your best, enjoyed yourself in the process, and still lost in a sense you didn't lose because 1) you had fun and 2) its a learning experience. You'll do better next time.

However, I've found most pvp'ers have lost this type of outlook. All they care about is the win, at any cost. Then when they lose they ridicule one or two people for being 'noob' or for sucking, etc. This takes the fun out of it for everyone else.

I guess you enjoy playing with crappy PvE'ers that get the group wiped every monster pull.. right?

I don't really see why Playing To Win is so hard for some people to understand. They constantly recycle phrases like "elitist asshole" as if they actually meant anything. People don't PvP to lose, they don't PvP to be nice people, and they don't PvP to coddle the sensitive feelings of others.

"How you play the game" is not a rephrasing of "winning doesn't matter". The entire point of paying attention to how you play is to discover deficiencies that can be improved upon. The concept is most applicable when playing a noticeably stronger opponent - while the chances of winning are slim-to-none, it's an excellent opportunity to learn your weaknesses and observe how better players beat you. Yet, being destroyed by top players does different things to different people. For some, playing against top players is a priceless learning opportunity; in contrast, others get frustrated and discouraged, and generally shy away from playing stronger opponents. This difference in attitude is the very heart of "how you play the game".

So yes, if you play poorly, you will be called out on it. What's important is your response - you can either get offended and quit, or you can work harder to improve.

In short, if "having fun" is all you want to do, then competitive gaming - and really, anything competitive, simply isn't for you.

"Playing to win" is not the problem, it's the "playing to win and if you make a mistake we are going to piss all over you, insult you and generally put you down" that is. The overly emotional attachment to winning; not the calm, rational analysis of what went wrong.

"In short, if "having fun" is all you want to do, then competitive gaming - and really, anything competitive, simply isn't for you." That is bullshit. What about people playing a game which has a winner at the end, but still it is about having fun?? Your definition of "competitive" is way to narrow.

This exists in PvP *and* PvE. The difference with the latter is that you don't have to play with or even see other people, hence avoiding any nastiness.

In regards to how often one experiences the "spite", that will vary between players. Some see it once every day, some see it once every month. But this sort of attitude displayed by some players has been in existence since games went online.

The people who piss all over after losses aren't exclusive to PvP. It's just that losing happens a lot less often in PvE.

People do tend to get angry at losses, but in serious PvP, a lackadaisical attitude is going to be what people get angry about at people.

Do you know of any competitions where winning and losing are not clearly delineated?

my personal opinion is that there should be no pve

I agree. Then GW could have been as successful as Fury!




Yesh.

gw pvp was successful, if there was no pve then there could've been a lot more time and effort spent on pvp = winner winner.

YESH.

I heard no success is success these days.

(And I'm so glad your avatar hasn't changed : D )

GW would still need a way to rake in some cash.

Fury's lack of success had very, very little to do with being PvP only.

Ironically, the least popular/most damaging updates were the ones that went away from the grindless pure-pvp model.

Correct me if I am wrong on that though, I didn't get to play all that much.

Boy am I so glad GW wasn't designed around your personal opinion.

Perhaps you can point me in the direction of a PvP-only Online RPG that has been successful, then? You know, so I can reference it.

Small, simple mission based PvE would have been awesome way to get players familiarized with (quite weird) skill and resource system.

And from my PoW, PvE with Fury skillset would be awesome. For same reason PvE with GW skillset was, rich interesting combinations.

Some Fury game modes had AI opponents and matches were about who can farm bots more effectively. They could have as well have made some lame story + missions and reward them with some unlocks.

Actually, is there some fury server active? I had fun reenacting cripshot ranger back when fury just became free (people just could not understand how they could have died to snare and degen ). T'was definitelly fun!

I didn't say that I want or enjoy losing, in pvp or pve, only that I don't mind. No, I don't like playing PvE if we wipe at every group, however groups do occasionally screw up. You laugh it off and continue on. Its about having fun. Which is something PvPers seem to have forgotten.


"Playing to win" isn't the issue; its the "win at all cost, no matter what, and if someone f*cks you up rip them a new one" attitude thats the issue. Games are supposed to be FUN! No, people don't pvp to lose, but they don't seem to do it for fun either. You either win, or you suck and that's not the outlook anyone should have. If you lose, you figure out where you went wrong, fix it, and try again. That requires some logical thinking and some empathy for your fellow players because at one point you were just as bad. No one started pvp as an 'uber elite' player.

I never stated that winning doesn't matter, and yes in competative play winning is the goal; however other parts of playing are just as important - teamwork, understanding, fun, etc. If something goes wrong you work through it, you don't rage, bitch someone out, etc. Constrcutive critisim gets you much further than simply losing your temper and ripping someone a new one; at which point they aren't going to listen to a word you say anyway and therefore not improve.

I expect something to be said if I do something wrong. How else am I supposed to learn? However I sure as hell am gonna get offended if someone starts going off on me and doesn't even explain WHY. So it's partly about response, yes; however its also about the form the critisism comes in as well, which was part of my original point. Something you completely missed, obviously.

You can be competative and still have fun. So you're last comment is complete and utter b*llsh*t. I played sports in high school, I was also into music. I understand competition quite well. I also understand that you can enjoy yourself while being competative and that although winning is the goal, the world isn't going to end if you lose. Again, if you lose, you suck it up, learn, and move on. PvPers seem to lack the ability to have fun, putting winning above all else, including remembering that no one is perfect, shit happens, and that at the end of day all that matters is that you enjoyed yourself.

/agree

This is true, it does exist in both. I won't argue that. However, even if you don't play with people you still occasionally have to deal with it. You'll find me arguing with people about attitudes in PvE about as often as you'll find me arguing with people about attitudes in PvP.

You're entitled to your opinion; however I don't share it. To each their own. Let them play as they please.

Only if you can show me one that has actually been well designed and executed.

Fury had no problem getting beta applications, the numbers per day when it opened up were pretty impressive. As a concept it was clearly very appealing to people. The problem was that none of those players lasted more than one or two days. Eventually it was hemorrhaging players faster than it was gaining them, the matchmaking slowed down, and it began circling the drain.

The reason for that can largely be blamed on bad pacing, poor balance, far too many bugs, and useless peripheral systems that did nothing but bog down the core gameplay.

100% correct. I believe the player count was highest in "pre-beta", and maybe only once peaked back over that in "actual beta".

The pre-beta gameplay was much purer, more Unreal Tournament with magic, than the WoW arena wannabe it became later.

Nope. Fury officially and completely shut down quite a few months ago now.

I was in the same class as someone who got to a US university because he was very good at basketball and played for our countries minor team (is that the right name for people under 18?).
When you have never encoutered someone like him you think high school sports is fun and enjoyable. The moment you encounter him you know different. He plays for wins and wins only with basketball. If he can walk through you within the regulations he will.
But then, things were not always enjoyable for him either. He had to play with some idiots who could not even handle a ball the way it's supposed to be done. He was always moving free and people just forgot to pass the ball to him.

Fun depends a lot on your environment.
Hardly ever the win is important but an idiot loss is something to rant about.
Why? Because you expect better from players with certain experience.
When you say you are really good prove yourself.

However, this is for fixed teams who play together often.
In random teams you might also expect something from a player who shows certain experience (though the wolf/tiger/phoenix could be obtained by someone else or farmed with gimmick). And if (s)he doesn't meet expectations it's time for some harsh talk.

I do want to have fun but fun also means playing at a decent level.
And if people don't meet that I'm not really having fun. Either I quit for the moment (did that several times last weekend) or I rant at people I know can do better. Because I'm not enjoying when others do stupid things over and over again when I depend on them.

Shit happens? Sure. No one is perfect? Sure. All that matters is if you enjoyed yourself? Not sure. It's a team game and all should enjoy.
I can take some build that annoys everyone who I play with or against.
I'm perfectly enjoying myself playing that. But the rest won't. And the rest is also there to have fun, remember?

So in the end I think in PvP you should set yourself away and aim for wins.
And be disappointed when losing. If you cannot do this, please don't play anything competitive except with some people you know very well and who accept that you are playing for fun more than wins.

Can people who work in competitive activities actually have "fun"?

Fun, by definition, is "an activity that provides enjoyment and amusement."

Once you start doing something competitive (and I mean, really competitive), you aren't there to have fun. You are there to compete and win. It becomes your job.

That's why I think we have the argument all wrong: It's not "PvE" vs "PvP".

It's "Casual" vs "Competitive".

Just to expand on this thought:

GW2 is going to have ongoing "PvP" battles where people can supposedly join in and drop out at any level, just to engage in some "friendly" PvP. The nature of that should discourage any truly competitive players from playing, as what would be the point?

It will be interesting (to say the least) to see how it all turns out... Polymock sounded great on paper, too.

Winning is very fun.

True, and arguably the harder the challenge, the more satisfying the victory.

But it's temporary, because then the competitive person wants to do it again. And again.

too hard to get into pvp guilds/teams at this point - unless you remove all PvP titles so that no one can tell if you are good or suck lol.

there are a lot of people (myself included) that just prefer the PvE side of things, no matter how easy it might be to find a good pvp group.

You can be competitive and still enjoy yourself, aka have fun. In hard core competitive play it may be the competition that you enjoy, it may be the challenge that you get your thrill from. The whole reason you get into something seriously competitive to begin with is BECAUSE you enjoy it. If you lose that enjoyment, you aren't going to want to do it anymore because it becomes repetitive and boring.

Yes, the goal is to win, but if you're synchronized with your team, everything goes smoothly, and yet you still lose do you suddenly not enjoy it anymore? No. You figure out what went wrong, go again, and try to be better. The adrenaline is pumping and you're enjoying the rush, win or lose.

Now, if you're in a group that's doing well, evening winning, and your teammate is shooting their mouth off, showing off, or being a complete jerk is it still enjoyable? No, not really. Even though you may be doing flawlessly, having to listen to someone else bitch or be a dick sort of drags you down from your high.

If you don't enjoy the game simply because you lost or because things didn't go as planned, then you're far too serious about a simple game. Winning is not everything, even if you are a seriously competitive person. On top of that, what exactly does winning a virtual game give you? Beyond the momentary feeling of accomplishment? This isn't the NBA or the NFL, they don't pay you for winning, you don't get anything that will affect you in real life. My point is that you can be competitive and still have 'fun'.

Removing titles doesn't matter. No one but retarded guilds that are going to fall apart in a month anyway need titles when recruiting. Top guilds know top players and if they don't know you, you don't get in. That has nothing to do with titles. Newer guilds for learning players don't require titles because they are all learning to play.

Titles don't tell whether you are good or you suck. People buy fame, and people buy champ points. They mean absolutely nothing except that you have experience in the area. The only time a title ever comes in handy is in HA when joining PUG groups. It doesn't matter anywhere else (except maybe TA PUGs). So removing titles wouldn't help your cause. It'd just make people even more skeptical of you.

Winning cures all. All the rage goes away when you win. All the arguments about people raging are so stupid. The idea of the game is to have fun, correct. You have to remember there are 8 people on your team. You screwing up and causing 7 people a match they could have won prevents them from having fun. It is annoying. You get called out on it. Honestly it is very rare someone actually cusses a person out or completely rages on them. In every group I have ever been a part of it is usually me just asking someone why they chose the decision they did and then explaining to them why they were wrong and what they need to do next time.

I ask them what they were thinking at the time so I hear why they did what they did. I like to know why they thought they made the right move and what they planned to achieve through making it. It isn't because I want you to realize you are stupid.

So "rage", as people seem to like to call criticism, is a necessary part of pvp because you are preventing 7 other people to have fun by making silly mistakes. Maybe some of you had a bad experience and played with some jerk who had no clue what he was talking about, but the majority of players, and every single person I have ever played with, just helps others realize their mistakes and tells them how to fix them. You do it in a harsh tone because you have to let them know what they did isn't a joke and it has to be fixed.

Winning is fun for everyone. Losing is annoying if you lost because of the mistakes of 1 or 2 people. Rather than crying about someone yelling at you, listen to them and fix your mistakes.

That also applies to GW, and is pretty much my point. Online RPGs will never supply 'quality' PvP. Unfortunately, that title will always go to the FPSs and the RTSs. RPGs by their very nature, to stay true[r] to the genre, don't lend themselves very well to balanced and strategic gameplay such that it could be legitimately competitive.

No, PvP in games like these will always be more like a sideshow and a 'fun alternative.'

Sorry, I must have forgotten how much 'working in repetitive activities' was fun. Farm that UW, sir.

You've skipped over the fact that people don't try to become extremely competitive in something unless they enjoy doing that something in the first place. Why else would you devote time to it?

A person wants to do something they found fun again. Who would have thought? 'An activity that provides enjoyment and amusement' says nothing about duration. Name one fun activity that isn't temporary.

As for rage, it gets stuff done.

PvP still is time consuming, players are expected to know a lot about the game and players still spend a lot of time in PvP. It's not like an FPS game where you can jump on and just play.

PvE can be less of a grind depending on your goals, how YOU play the game. Not everybody is hardcore players, people don't want to have to THINK, a lot of players out there have spent all day in work THINKING and come home and want to relax. Guild Wars is good because you can play it at your own level, PvP is a nightmare for a new player to try and get involved with so they just don't bother. I think the vast majority of the population are just your bog standard players and theres where the money comes from.

The appeal of the game is the fantasy side, people who buy it like the whole knights in shining armour, dragons, a massive virtual world with real people. There isn't much appeal in coming to a point where the fantasy side is taken away and you're expected to sit on vent listening to people bang on about builds and what not for a long time. NOT interesting to your average joe. NOT interesting to many people, and the populations show it.

Just in terms of raw effectiveness it only makes sense to carefully explain mistakes and generally soothe the blow of telling someone they sucked if you're trying to maintain a lasting relationship with that person. People rage because it gets results. It trashes morale in the long term, but if you just want someone to pay attention right now call them out.

Honestly I think it's a pretty good tactic, especially in PUGs. Competitive players suck it up, especially if you're an effective leader; the people who emo out after getting called out aren't the types of people with the stomach to be effective anyway.