Bridging the great divide. PvE and PvP. - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Avarre

Bubblegum Patrol

Join Date: Dec 2005

Singapore Armed Forces

15 Jul 2009 at 02:24 - 201

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

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.

Rage to get things done, constructive hugs later.

JR

Re:tired

Join Date: Nov 2005

W/

15 Jul 2009 at 07:59 - 202

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

That also applies to GW, and is pretty much my point.

That's very nice, but it's not my point.

There has never been a well made PvP only MMO, so no case study to reference when you say that PvP only MMOs can't work. Without a case study to back you up on that claim you are either a professor of MMOlogy, or an idiot.

YunSooJin

Pyromaniac

Join Date: Aug 2005

Mo/W

15 Jul 2009 at 08:01 - 203

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Rage to get things done, constructive hugs later.

Real men don't need hugs.

arcanemacabre

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Feb 2006

North Kryta Province

Angel Sharks [As]

15 Jul 2009 at 08:23 - 204

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

That's very nice, but it's not my point.

There has never been a well made PvP only MMO, so you no case study to reference when you say that PvP only MMOs can't work. Without a case study to back you up on that claim you are either a professor of MMOlogy, or an idiot.

Umm, no. I say it can't work because it can't by its very definition. If you remove the nearly limitless customization (through gear, stats, skills, etc) and random chance modifiers, you remove two very important qualifiers that make the game an RPG. But those things are exactly what you need to remove to make a game truly balanced. If you don't have 'true balance,' how can said game ever be realistically competitive?

In the sense of success, I just don't think there are enough people who enjoy PvP RPG. I mean, most competitive players are either sports game fanatics or FPS/RTS. Even if you could get a truly balanced RPG PvP-only game, I just don't see a huge market for it.

You say Fury had "pretty impressive" numbers when it opened, but what are we talking? Compare it to other competitive genres and their opening numbers. Say, Halo or Madden NFL. Then, compare it to other MMOs such as WAR or LotR. Are we talking higher than any of those? Initial numbers are important to look at because it shows how many people are interested in that type of game.

If you can tell me honestly that you think there is a big enough market out there for a PvP-only RPG, based on your knowledge and without bias, then I will concede. If you really think even a game like GW could have survived on PvP money alone, reaching numbers anywhere near "6mil copies sold," supplying more than enough updates to keep the players happy, then I will concede. I just don't see it.

JR

Re:tired

Join Date: Nov 2005

W/

15 Jul 2009 at 09:30 - 205

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

If you remove the nearly limitless customization (through gear, stats, skills, etc) and random chance modifiers, you remove two very important qualifiers that make the game an RPG. But those things are exactly what you need to remove to make a game truly balanced. If you don't have 'true balance,' how can said game ever be realistically competitive?

In the sense of success, I just don't think there are enough people who enjoy PvP RPG. I mean, most competitive players are either sports game fanatics or FPS/RTS. Even if you could get a truly balanced RPG PvP-only game, I just don't see a huge market for it.

When did RPGs get into this discussion? A Role Playing Game implies a story, which is obviously not describing a PvP only game. An MMO is not neccesarily an MMORPG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

You say Fury had "pretty impressive" numbers when it opened, but what are we talking? Compare it to other competitive genres and their opening numbers. Say, Halo or Madden NFL. Then, compare it to other MMOs such as WAR or LotR. Are we talking higher than any of those? Initial numbers are important to look at because it shows how many people are interested in that type of game.

I really can't remember exact numbers of a beta opening that happened about two years ago. It was positive enough that we felt comfortable with the response to justify a 15m budget and the future of the project.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread by myself and others: It was the later additions and expansions to the game that killed the fun and drove players away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

If you can tell me honestly that you think there is a big enough market out there for a PvP-only RPG, based on your knowledge and without bias, then I will concede.

If you really think even a game like GW could have survived on PvP money alone, reaching numbers anywhere near "6mil copies sold," supplying more than enough updates to keep the players happy, then I will concede. I just don't see it.

Look at a game like Unreal Tournament, Counter Strike. Sure, a completely different genre, but their massive success proves the market of competitive gamers is big enough to justify games without single player campaigns or a story element.

I don't see how the leap from that to thinking about a PvP only MMO is so huge. You are simply building an in-game world and community around that which improves networking between players, crucial to a PvP game.

Think about it this way. Would Guild Wars have anywhere near it's current population if it was PvP only? Of course not, but had they been able to focus on developing PvP the community around that would be a *lot* bigger.

Take that point and consider also that PvE content is where 90% of the development cost goes. Art is expensive and time consuming, and there is a LOT of it required for an expansive and interesting story. Not to mention quest design, QA of PvE areas... etc.

So what is your metric for success? A game as big as Guild Wars? Or a game simply profitable and filling a gap in the market? I think it would absolutely be the latter, and it would have a fair shot at the former were it done exceptionally well.

arcanemacabre

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Feb 2006

North Kryta Province

Angel Sharks [As]

15 Jul 2009 at 10:14 - 206

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

When did RPGs get into this discussion? A Role Playing Game implies a story, which is obviously not describing a PvP only game. An MMO is not neccesarily an MMORPG.

RPG is what I have been talking about the whole time, not the MMO part. Character development is a huge part of GW and is also a major identifier of RPGs. I still don't see GW as an MMO, but more of an ARPG like Diablo. So, if you're talking some kind of MMO PvP genre, then I agree with you, for the most part. I just don't see how GW could have completely changed gears and transformed into something like that, eliminating all the RPG elements (not just PvE) - and if so, I seriously doubt it would have been in anyway successful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Look at a game like Unreal Tournament, Counter Strike. Sure, a completely different genre, but their massive success proves the market of competitive gamers is big enough to justify games without single player campaigns or a story element.

I don't see how the leap from that to thinking about a PvP only MMO is so huge. You are simply building an in-game world and community around that which improves networking between players, crucial to a PvP game.

That's essentially what I was saying, and that the major difference is the genre itself. Again, I was talking ORPGs, and you're talking MMOs. I agree that such a game type like an MMOFPS might have a good success rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Think about it this way. Would Guild Wars have anywhere near it's current population if it was PvP only? Of course not, but had they been able to focus on developing PvP the community around that would be a *lot* bigger.

So what is your metric for success?

For an online game? Success is being able to keep up servers, regular updates, and a support staff. Sure, PvP in GW could be a lot bigger if they fully supported it instead of PvE. But I also feel that there's no way they could stay afloat with funding purely from that market. No way.

Avarre

Bubblegum Patrol

Join Date: Dec 2005

Singapore Armed Forces

15 Jul 2009 at 10:33 - 207

Quote:

Originally Posted by YunSooJin

Real men don't need hugs.

Inde tells me to play nice for the others in the forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

But I also feel that there's no way they could stay afloat with funding purely from that market. No way.

PvP players would buy unlocks. That right there is additional income from the PvP side. Furthermore, add in the potential of GW as a competitive game - 3rd Party Tournaments and sponsorships.

zwei2stein

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Jun 2006

Europe

The German Order [GER]

N/

15 Jul 2009 at 11:29 - 208

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

That's very nice, but it's not my point.

There has never been a well made PvP only MMO, so no case study to reference when you say that PvP only MMOs can't work. Without a case study to back you up on that claim you are either a professor of MMOlogy, or an idiot.

This is quite interesting concerning the topic of why PvP based MMOs tank: http://brokentoys.org/2009/02/19/the-mordred-problem/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

PvP players would buy unlocks.

And PvE players would buy silly stuff like storage slots or name changes, or sword that has green glow instead of yellow glow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

That right there is additional income from the PvP side. Furthermore, add in the potential of GW as a competitive game - 3rd Party Tournaments and sponsorships.

Ain't this reason PvP started to go down?

Lack of actual (3rd party) tournaments with monetary prizes?

People claim PvP went downhill after factions release ... Wasn't that also when cash-prize tournaments stopped?

Why did anet stop that anyway?

JR

Re:tired

Join Date: Nov 2005

W/

15 Jul 2009 at 12:02 - 209

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

This is quite interesting concerning the topic of why PvP based MMOs tank: http://brokentoys.org/2009/02/19/the-mordred-problem/

I think it's more a commentary on how PvP in traditional MMOs hasn't worked out in the past.

Lopezus

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Mar 2007

MDD

D/W

15 Jul 2009 at 12:20 - 210

Quote:

Think about it this way. Would Guild Wars have anywhere near it's current population if it was PvP only? Of course not, but had they been able to focus on developing PvP the community around that would be a *lot* bigger.

Take that point and consider also that PvE content is where 90% of the development cost goes. Art is expensive and time consuming, and there is a LOT of it required for an expansive and interesting story. Not to mention quest design, QA of PvE areas... etc.

So what is your metric for success? A game as big as Guild Wars? Or a game simply profitable and filling a gap in the market? I think it would absolutely be the latter, and it would have a fair shot at the former were it done exceptionally well.

But this is hardly adressing GW, it's just about completly different game tbh. And it nagates pretty well all these points about "original" game design that was lost especially with additional campagins since Prophecies have massive PvE content - more missions, more zones then Factions and Nightfall. So all in all it means that basic GW design was faulty.

YunSooJin

Pyromaniac

Join Date: Aug 2005

Mo/W

15 Jul 2009 at 12:22 - 211

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

People claim PvP went downhill after factions release ... Wasn't that also when cash-prize tournaments stopped?

Why did anet stop that anyway?

Personally I thought PvP started going down when people began to realize Izzy had no clue what he was doing and the main function of factions (and subsequent releases) was to obliterate the subtlety within the game.

Xenomortis

Tea Powered

Join Date: May 2008

UK

N/

15 Jul 2009 at 12:27 - 212

Quote:

Originally Posted by YunSooJin

the main function of factions (and subsequent releases) was to obliterate the subtlety within the game.

Given I have only been playing the game for just over 2 years now (not long before the release of EotN), I do not fully know what Factions did to "obliterate" these things. Is this where the power creep really started? Or is was it something else that it did?

Could somebody just clarify for me?

Avarre

Bubblegum Patrol

Join Date: Dec 2005

Singapore Armed Forces

15 Jul 2009 at 12:31 - 213

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenomortis

Given I have only been playing the game for just over 2 years now (not long before the release of EotN), I do not fully know what Factions did to "obliterate" these things. Is this where the power creep really started? Or is was it something else that it did?

Could somebody just clarify for me?

Tossing more classes and skills into the game kicked all the established balance high into the air. This wasn't helped by the one-dimensionality of the new classes at release - Sins are teleport combospikers, Rits lay a thousand spirits and nothing ever dies.

That said, the impact of Factions was far less than the impact of NF. The GWFC wasn't all that bad, and in the days before NF, the meta had largely become accustomed to the rit and assassin.

YunSooJin

Pyromaniac

Join Date: Aug 2005

Mo/W

15 Jul 2009 at 12:45 - 214

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenomortis

Given I have only been playing the game for just over 2 years now (not long before the release of EotN), I do not fully know what Factions did to "obliterate" these things. Is this where the power creep really started? Or is was it something else that it did?

Could somebody just clarify for me?

teleporting around = positioning is less important = less nuanced game

not a big deal in it of itself but I think it detracted from the game.. simply cause people who carried teleport skills no longer had to worry about their positioning, which could make or break teams in matches. Oh, damage compression was also a bad idea.. you can only take it so far before it begins to become a problem.

NF just had immense power creep in the form of:
paragons - unstrippable buffs, very strong buffs (initially anyways) I mean we're talking about HA teams with paragons that COULD NOT be kicked off even with two teams on them.
dervishes - every hit removes an enchantment? wut? no conditions no matter what? etc etc
lots of new skills that helped make GW less smart (LoD anyone?) Oh gotta love eurospike.. that was just a proud moment in the history of GW

After NF's beta or whatever, dervishes and paragons were massively nerfed. But even AFTER that, they had to nerfed even further once the game actually came out. All in all pretty nasty stuff. I mean, it was fun playing retardedly overpowered classes, but that's just for the first few weeks. After that you start to wonder.. when you open Pandora's box, can you ever hope for things to return to normal?

Oh and Izzy didn't have a clue. Or maybe no normal human could have a clue with the skills and crap that had been introduced.

Xenomortis

Tea Powered

Join Date: May 2008

UK

N/

15 Jul 2009 at 13:01 - 215

Quote:

Originally Posted by YunSooJin

teleporting around = positioning is less important = less nuanced game

not a big deal in it of itself but I think it detracted from the game.. simply cause people who carried teleport skills no longer had to worry about their positioning, which could make or break teams in matches. Oh, damage compression was also a bad idea.. you can only take it so far before it begins to become a problem.

Well the broken concept of the assassin in a game like Guild Wars was a bad thing to introduce.
I understand Rits were quite rapidly nerfed though, so surely they had a small impact (only a few spirits and weapon spells).

The impact of NF and its powercreep is much more obvious though.

Mordakai

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2005

Kyhlo

W/

15 Jul 2009 at 14:47 - 216

If "winning" is the only way to have fun in competitive activities, then only half of the people in the activity are having fun. (ie, there is only one winner).

Which is fine, that's what makes it competitive.

The goal of "casual" play is it should be fun all the time for casual players. Of course, one person's idea of fun is different than others, but my point was this discussion really isn't about PvP and PvE.

This is about whether GW2 can appeal to both the casual and competitive player.

JR

Re:tired

Join Date: Nov 2005

W/

15 Jul 2009 at 16:01 - 217

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

If "winning" is the only way to have fun in competitive activities, then only half of the people in the activity are having fun. (ie, there is only one winner).

That would make sense if everyone only ever played one match, and then uninstalled the game.

Are you trying to tell me that being a PvE player is fun all the time? Even when you are stood in Kamadan ID1 trying to trade?

Fril Estelin

So Serious...

Join Date: Jan 2007

London

Nerfs Are [WHAK]

E/

15 Jul 2009 at 16:17 - 218

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Are you trying to tell me that being a PvE player is fun all the time?

Why would that shock you?

Quote:

Even when you are stood in Kamadan ID1 trying to trade?

It's called afk for a reason.

JR, look at Mordakai's post from a bigger perspective: just imagine newcomers, challenged by elders which have tons of experience and knowledge. The prospect of having fun for a new PvPer is looking bleak (at best!) if it's only about winning. In particular if the next hundreds of hours of gameplay where you learn through trial/error/correct coincide with the slow death of the current PvP community.

IMHO your attitude and the attitude of other "PvPers" (it's always questionable in which boxes we're putting people) illustrates that it's NOT ONLY about player skills or willingness to be "real men". There's a broken social link between different kinds of players, an issue that wasn't help by Anet's CR throughout the years.

Nerel

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Jun 2008

Australia, what you want my home address?

[CAT]

Mo/

15 Jul 2009 at 17:19 - 219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Inde tells me to play nice for the others in the forum.

PvP players would buy unlocks. That right there is additional income from the PvP side. Furthermore, add in the potential of GW as a competitive game - 3rd Party Tournaments and sponsorships.

While off topic to this thread in general, I would be interested in knowing more about the economics of the big tournaments of yesteryear, how much of the prize value was shouldered by NCsoft, and what was their cost once you factor in advertising and transport/accommodation for hosting the finals?

And no, I'm not trying to suggest that the PvP side of things is expensive, or not worth supporting... I realize that the draw of these events DOES attract gamers, shift units and makes for some wide spread publicity.

I'd be curious about any links relating to the matter folks have to share.

Steps_Descending

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2007

IN my pocket plane. Obviously!

Little Tom's Pocket Plane [THom]

Me/Mo

15 Jul 2009 at 17:23 - 220

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

When did RPGs get into this discussion? A Role Playing Game implies a story, which is obviously not describing a PvP only game. An MMO is not neccesarily an MMORPG.

You have a point there JR, but in video game terms (and to an extend in games in general), a RPG is also understood as game mecanic archetype. That generally means a form of statistic, a limited set of predefined abilities (fonctionnal magic for those that will understand), combats ''controlled'' by the computer (the dice system) and customisation (the gear).
Note that level is ultimately optional, but there are very few games where they aren't there one way or another.

If we talk like that, a PvP ORPG with a light storyline can exist. I'll admit I started in early-faction era but what I,ve heard of early-life GW was probably one of the closest example I can think of.
Low level cap
Light history (enough to get people attached with the game) used as a road to PvP (not exactly a success for that last part).
Competitive gear is easy to get : relatively, but imagine with today's system.
Little randomness : most random numbers are 75%, a few were 50 (I think there was 1) and blind might as well be 100%.

It didn't went that well, but what if we'd have had a softer PvPlearning curve. Perhaps more Pvp-dependant end-game (we only had UW/FoW and non-pvp post-droks who can be seen as end-game if PvP starts at Tomb), maybe with an entry requirement of having Rank X.
And instead of the not-so-skill>time rank we have, perhaps something closer to *gasp* WoW's arena system : win/loss ratio more important than number of wins/matches.
And some smarter balancing, maybe removing second proffs for later balance of when the skill pool grows.

I'm not saying such a game would be the best game ever, but it could probably live at ease.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Why would that shock you?

Because if something is always fun, it gets progressively less fun in the long run.
The fun of PvP comes when you can win at least half the matches. PvP matches are fun when you win after being tired of losing. Ups and downs are the fun of every game.

edit: That being said : I'm off to read Broken Toys

Yichi

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Sep 2005

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

Dark Alley [dR]

15 Jul 2009 at 17:23 - 221

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

...I still don't see GW as an MMO, but more of an ARPG like Diablo...

This is where your argument for your points kind of falls apart. You are lumping GW into games that have a completely different character structure than GW has. In games like Diablo, the dependance on items/equipment/levels has a far more reaching effect than it has on GW. Granted if both players are decked to the hilt in Diablo, are the same level, and run the same build, than yes it can effectively become what can be associated with GW pvp, but more so often than not, there are huge indifferences within characters/gear/levels, where GW pvp isn't focused on that. Every character has the same levels, same gear all the time which eliminates 2 of the major factors that almost every other game like Diablo have that GW does not. Also the fact that GW is a team based game, whereas in games like Diablo, a single player can "hammer" their way through an 8 player game with ease, without relying on anyone else even lifting a finger to help. I have been in duels and seen duels where a properly geared character can effectively wipe the entire game, even if the other 7 players with very high end gear/levels/builds all team up against them.

So with Guildwars, essentially it comes down to build choice and player skill, unlike other games where character development is far more crucial as a factor to the outcome.

Burst Cancel

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Dec 2006

Domain of Broken Game Mechanics

15 Jul 2009 at 22:32 - 222

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebony Shadowheart

at the end of day all that matters is that you enjoyed yourself.

This isn't a competition mentality, however much you claim to understand competitive activity. There's a lot here I could respond to (in fact, I don't think I agree with a single thing in your post), but it's ultimately pointless because of the above mentality. To some people, winning matters, while others can't fathom what the big deal is ("gamez r srs bsns"). From what I've seen, neither camp has ever respected, let alone understood, the other.

Again, if fun is all you're concerned with, competitive activities are not for you. That isn't to say you can't have fun in a competitive activity, but fun itself is not the focus - to wit, there's always more to it than just having fun.

Still Number One

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2008

W/

15 Jul 2009 at 22:47 - 223

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebony Shadowheart

at the end of day all that matters is that you enjoyed yourself.

This isn't a competition mentality, however much you claim to understand competitive activity. There's a lot here I could respond to (in fact, I don't think I agree with a single thing in your post), but it's ultimately pointless because of the above mentality. To some people, winning matters, while others can't fathom what the big deal is ("gamez r srs bsns"). From what I've seen, neither camp has ever respected, let alone understood, the other.

Again, if fun is all you're concerned with, competitive activities are not for you. That isn't to say you can't have fun in a competitive activity, but fun itself is not the focus - to wit, there's always more to it than just having fun.

I'd also like to add that having fun is great and all, but it isn't all that matters and it isn't the most important thing. The most important thing is that you improved your abilities. I've sacrificed a lot of possible "fun times" because I needed to work to improve my abilities. I could have had fun running around playing Byob and not get any better or I could play a balanced build, get stomped but learn from it. You don't learn from goofing around. Goofing around is fun but gets you nowhere in competitive environments.

So at the end of the day, all that matters is that you improved. Unless of course you are top quality material already, than all that matters is whether your cape is now gold because you won the monthly.

arcanemacabre

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Feb 2006

North Kryta Province

Angel Sharks [As]

16 Jul 2009 at 02:08 - 224

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yichi

This is where your argument for your points kind of falls apart. You are lumping GW into games that have a completely different character structure than GW has.

Regardless, Diablo 2 is very similar in gameplay. I always considered GW as a kind of updated version of D2, except with less gear options, less levels, more skills, and of course, more PvP options (and centering the game around PvP balance more). The gameplay itself is effectively the same - hacknslash RPG, or Action RPG. So, that said, my point remains unscathed, I believe.

Yichi

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Sep 2005

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

Dark Alley [dR]

16 Jul 2009 at 16:45 - 225

Actually Diablo and Guildwars have completely different styles of gameplay. The interface is different, abilities different, camera work different, player targeting/aquisition different, selectable party members in Guildwars, skill usage different, no skill synergies, various more options for build not limited by gear, attribute points different, levels different, power levels of skills different, character map interaction different, travel different... (just to name a few of the probably hundreds if not thousands of differences in game styles)

so how are they similar again?

House Silvermoon

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Mar 2007

New York City

Retired

W/E

16 Jul 2009 at 18:09 - 226

like elitism doesn't exist in pve?

gud joke.

people's pitiful egos get bruised so they cant handle it. people are stupid and inept and lazy, just like they are in real life. not a big surprise to me. competition is what keeps mankind advancing and still alive, without it we would be dead cause only the strong survive.

Nerel

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Jun 2008

Australia, what you want my home address?

[CAT]

Mo/

17 Jul 2009 at 00:57 - 227

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

This isn't a competition mentality, however much you claim to understand competitive activity. There's a lot here I could respond to (in fact, I don't think I agree with a single thing in your post), but it's ultimately pointless because of the above mentality. To some people, winning matters, while others can't fathom what the big deal is ("gamez r srs bsns"). From what I've seen, neither camp has ever respected, let alone understood, the other.

Again, if fun is all you're concerned with, competitive activities are not for you. That isn't to say you can't have fun in a competitive activity, but fun itself is not the focus - to wit, there's always more to it than just having fun.

You've never had fun in PvP *and* lost, yet still found the match enjoyable? I know I have, I've had some great fights that were brilliant and entertaining, and ended with my team being smacked down... lots of GGs and chat afterwards. It isn't always about winning. Not that winning isn't nice...

Avarre

Bubblegum Patrol

Join Date: Dec 2005

Singapore Armed Forces

17 Jul 2009 at 02:09 - 228

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerel

You've never had fun in PvP *and* lost, yet still found the match enjoyable? I know I have, I've had some great fights that were brilliant and entertaining, and ended with my team being smacked down... lots of GGs and chat afterwards. It isn't always about winning. Not that winning isn't nice...

For some, it's about how they play. Losing a match after playing well is still good fun, but winning a match that they played awful in is likely to cause more frustration.

pumpkin pie

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Jul 2006

behind you

bumble bee

E/

17 Jul 2009 at 03:32 - 229

No bridge!
Where will all the fun be if there's no PvP vs PvE argument on the forum.

and I agree, its about how one play the game.

Nerel

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Jun 2008

Australia, what you want my home address?

[CAT]

Mo/

17 Jul 2009 at 03:56 - 230

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

No bridge!
Where will all the fun be if there's no PvP vs PvE argument on the forum.

and I agree, its about how one play the game.

Oh, don't be silly Pumpkin Pie, even if PvP is made more accessible in GW2 and more people move into PvP or PvX roles than in GW1, people will still argue about it, it's the nature of people, they're stupid. And thus your forum entertainment is assured!

Yay.

edit: OMG, Avatar change! Thank you PP!

edit moar! I have no idea who this Nian is, linky?

pumpkin pie

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Jul 2006

behind you

bumble bee

E/

17 Jul 2009 at 04:00 - 231

Nerel, you should thank Nian the artist!, they made a wonderful picture of my Monkie!

lol I think its the same as playing a game, this forum thing, people just love to argue. Like me!

Avarre

Bubblegum Patrol

Join Date: Dec 2005

Singapore Armed Forces

17 Jul 2009 at 05:22 - 232

I'm glad to know you're filling threads with posts for the lulz.

Kook~NBK~

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Mar 2005

A little chalet outside Drok's

Natural Born Killaz

17 Jul 2009 at 05:44 - 233

If there are any good arenas for bridging the gap between PvE and PvP, the holiday arenas are the ones. Everyone is on a level playing field with skills and armor. The only advantage anyone has is knowledge of the strategy involved and how well your team co-ordinated it's efforts.

I'll be running around this weekend in Snowball fights sans armor (or starter armor, if I feel like it) and using starter weapons (my candy weapons disappeared

) Why? Because to me, it's fun. AND it doesn't hurt my chances of winning one bit!

My point is this - there's going to be a lot of people in the snowball arena (you know, the one with skills with such names as "Let's Get 'Em!" and "Yellow Snow" and where the prize for winning is candy-cane shards - I'll be getting big bucks for those!) raging & QQing when they lose. I know not everyone acts that way, but those whiney cry-babies who can't handle losing and sit around the outpost (Snowball arenas, RA, TA, etc.) and piss and moan about getting beat are the ones that people new to PvP see. And, win or lose, those people are not fun to play with.

Nerel

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Jun 2008

Australia, what you want my home address?

[CAT]

Mo/

17 Jul 2009 at 06:35 - 234

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kook~NBK~

If there are any good arenas for bridging the gap between PvE and PvP, the holiday arenas are the ones. Everyone is on a level playing field with skills and armor. The only advantage anyone has is knowledge of the strategy involved and how well your team co-ordinated it's efforts.

I'll be running around this weekend in Snowball fights sans armor (or starter armor, if I feel like it) and using starter weapons (my candy weapons disappeared

) Why? Because to me, it's fun. AND it doesn't hurt my chances of winning one bit!

My point is this - there's going to be a lot of people in the snowball arena (you know, the one with skills with such names as "Let's Get 'Em!" and "Yellow Snow" and where the prize for winning is candy-cane shards - I'll be getting big bucks for those!) raging & QQing when they lose. I know not everyone acts that way, but those whiney cry-babies who can't handle losing and sit around the outpost (Snowball arenas, RA, TA, etc.) and piss and moan about getting beat are the ones that people new to PvP see. And, win or lose, those people are not fun to play with.

Actually, I'm rather partial to the Costume Brawl, and I think smaller scale PvP arenas using a limited skill set or premade bars might be useful, but I doubt it would have any long term appeal and does nothing to help newer players in terms of creating and fine tuning their builds. Still, sealed deck GvG and such could be interesting. Maybe having sealed decks or premade bars used in the various arenas/pvp types as a special weekend event from time to time?

Fril Estelin

So Serious...

Join Date: Jan 2007

London

Nerfs Are [WHAK]

E/

17 Jul 2009 at 12:04 - 235

Although really too short, I found the below article an example of how to bridge the gap in an original way:
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/haratu/072009/4264

Quote:

Thoughts on Thinking in MMOs
Posted by haratu Wednesday July 15 2009 at 7:18PM

Introduction

I am a school teacher (hence why font is comic sans), and nothing makes me more enthusiastic than a good game that encourages thinking, and I don't mean calculating the best item to pull of a critical 23% of the time while increasing armour to resist fire 98%. I mean serious strategical thinking that alters as you play due to constantly changing through unpredictable situations. Let me explain in more detail.

Many MMOs focus on the concept of pick a class/race then outfit with specific items to get the best out of your character dependent on their role in the game. If I were a tank class, for example, then I would be expected to get items that increase my protective skills or rolls. If I were to be the same tank class and yet get items to increase my damage then I would generally get other players either criticizing or not grouping with me because most likely I have no idea how to play my character. As a result I am defined by the game mechanics and design and am not putting effort into determining new strategies for how to play a class outside of its box.

Class Strategy

Take now an example of a game where you select your class but you can select skills to step away from the normal. Lets say I choose a Tank but this time select skills related to ranged dps. I then become a ranged dps who hits less (due to my class stats) but lasts much longer. My strategies would reflect this by my ability to stand ground for longer, resist attacks from opposing ranged dps (and not hide), and pester, but not kill as fast, other dps. My thinking and adaptability is showing itself.

I am now going to use an example from my past experience in World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade (I stopped playing in 2008). My main character was a warlock and as such I was a definite dps. At the time most warlocks chose heavy destruction (fire) mixed with shadow skills in order to increase their dps. If you did not do such then you often got criticized in large raid for not pulling your weight. I was criticized for a while with my skills because I did not choose such skills... until they realized I actually had a larger damage over the whole dungeon. Why? Because my skills let me live longer... thereby letting me do more damage over time. I was so good at staying alive I often successfully off tanked in emergencies.

This is common in many games where people rely on not thinking about their strategy and their class.

Map Strategy

Now WoW might have been a bad example as it is rather predictable, so I will move to a game where altering situations is more dominant, specifically Warhammer Online. I am choosing Warhammer as an example, there are better ones, but their situations are often more complex, so I am attempting to stick simple.

Warhammer Online has the common task of fighting the opposing player side in PvP (or RvR for pedantic people). Because different castles are taken by different sized groups, players are often forced to send out scouting parties and attack specific holdings to maintain superiority. there is often a give-take relationship where a war band will be forced to let the enemy take some land in order to take another piece of land. As well as this there is the constant shifting of numbers as people log in and out of the game, where once you my have had the upper hand you no longer do, therefore need to focus on getting a defensible position before you are overpowered. This constantly shifting position is the concept of strategy and thought where knowledge and wisdom take charge as opposed to mathematics and predictability and is more common in PvP games (although not always present).

Conclusion

So why choose a game that requires you to think about what you do?

The most important aspect to thought in an MMO is that it provides more of a feeling of having done something. Using the mind encourages you to feel like you have participated and are not just standing there to make sure the others have full hit points (yes, healing can be boring sometimes).

A second aspect is to teach you things, this is the same concept as the game of chess. By participating in a thinking MMO your mind is constantly learning about how people behave, how actions have consequences and thinking ahead (predictable instances rarely let you think further than the current monster).

The final aspect is that a thinking MMO encourages teamwork. By teamwork I do not mean "I tank, you heal", I mean your ability to adapt to the situation based upon how your team-mates work.

Remember: Chess is 3D, why can't an MMO require thought?

Ebony Shadowheart

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2006

USA

SSW

E/

17 Jul 2009 at 13:03 - 236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

This isn't a competition mentality, however much you claim to understand competitive activity. There's a lot here I could respond to (in fact, I don't think I agree with a single thing in your post), but it's ultimately pointless because of the above mentality. To some people, winning matters, while others can't fathom what the big deal is ("gamez r srs bsns"). From what I've seen, neither camp has ever respected, let alone understood, the other.

Again, if fun is all you're concerned with, competitive activities are not for you. That isn't to say you can't have fun in a competitive activity, but fun itself is not the focus - to wit, there's always more to it than just having fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Number One

I'd also like to add that having fun is great and all, but it isn't all that matters and it isn't the most important thing. The most important thing is that you improved your abilities. I've sacrificed a lot of possible "fun times" because I needed to work to improve my abilities. I could have had fun running around playing Byob and not get any better or I could play a balanced build, get stomped but learn from it. You don't learn from goofing around. Goofing around is fun but gets you nowhere in competitive environments.

So at the end of the day, all that matters is that you improved. Unless of course you are top quality material already, than all that matters is whether your cape is now gold because you won the monthly.

I guess I'm going to leave it at agreeing to disagree with you two.

To me, improving myself is part of the fun. Getting better is part of what makes it enjoyable. It keeps it interesting so it doesn't get repetitive and boring. I don't really subdivide it out like you guys do. Apparently my definition of what 'fun' is very different than yours, which you seem to be simply defining as 'goofing off.'

If winning is all that matters, then where is the enjoyment? True, no one likes losing, but there is more to the game than just winning. If you get no enjoyment out of simply competing and doing well, then you are taking competition too seriously, which can actually be bad for your mental health. I'll leave it at that, to each their own I suppose.

As for the gold trim - there is always something new to learn, something to make better. Even those with the fancy gold trim are constantly improving. Else they wouldn't have that pretty cape.

MithranArkanere

Underworld Spelunker

Join Date: Nov 2006

wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigo

Heraldos de la Llama Oscura [HLO]

E/

17 Jul 2009 at 18:12 - 237

For me it's fun when it's not the same al the time.

I play in a PvP mode until I start finding the ame 4 guys with the same profession and the same building acting in the same way.

Still Number One

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2008

W/

17 Jul 2009 at 18:44 - 238

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebony Shadowheart

As for the gold trim - there is always something new to learn, something to make better. Even those with the fancy gold trim are constantly improving. Else they wouldn't have that pretty cape.

The point was that people who are capable of winning it aren't usually satisfied with their performance unless they actually do win it. That is why we see so many great guilds disbanding every single month. They didn't place where they thought they should so they get upset and disband. It is dumb but it is how things are.

Having fun is important and since there are no real cash prizes anymore, is really the only thing that matters. But the only point I'm trying to make is that in PvP you are working with 7 other people all the time, and while you may be having fun just by playing, a more competitive person may be getting frustrated if the guild isn't improving. Usually when the guild is improving and winning all 8 players are happy. That is why improving and winning matter so much.

Alleji

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2006

17 Jul 2009 at 21:59 - 239

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerel

What do you think kept players from making the transition into becoming regular PvP players? Why is the PvP population so abysmally small compared to the masses of people happily grinding their way through PvE.

People tried, failed at it (repeatedly), got discouraged, and stopped trying. Others just heard horror stories from people who tried and didn't bother at all.

Grinding titles, on the other hand, is easy. It offers cheap gratification that people crave.

I thought everyone figured out that story by now?

Burst Cancel

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Dec 2006

Domain of Broken Game Mechanics

18 Jul 2009 at 04:50 - 240

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebony Shadowheart

To me, improving myself is part of the fun. Getting better is part of what makes it enjoyable. It keeps it interesting so it doesn't get repetitive and boring. I don't really subdivide it out like you guys do. Apparently my definition of what 'fun' is very different than yours, which you seem to be simply defining as 'goofing off.'

If winning is all that matters, then where is the enjoyment? True, no one likes losing, but there is more to the game than just winning. If you get no enjoyment out of simply competing and doing well, then you are taking competition too seriously, which can actually be bad for your mental health. I'll leave it at that, to each their own I suppose.

The difference is simpler than that: it is the difference between fun being the focus, and fun being a side effect.

If fun is all that matters, then it doesn't matter if you lose, play poorly, or don't improve, provided that you managed to have fun anyway; furthermore, playing well or winning doesn't matter to you if you don't have fun doing it. Neither of these attitudes is tenable in a competitive environment.

The reasons for this should be fairly obvious. For example, most competitive activities require a great deal of serious training, and this training is often not at all fun or enjoyable. People who are in it for the fun tend not to approach such training with much enthusiasm, and will ultimately fail as serious competitors as a result. Similarly, it is possible (or even easy, especially in a game) to have fun even while losing or playing poorly, but such play is a complete waste of time from a competitive standpoint - even if you're having fun, you're not learning anything or improving in any way. Furthermore, some of the most effective tactics may not be any fun to execute, and someone focused on fun will avoid these tactics regardless of their effectiveness in favor of tactics that are "more fun"; competition-oriented players don't care about the "fun value" of their tactics.

Once you're able to understand this mentality, most other competitive behaviors naturally follow. Calling people out* when they play poorly is not only acceptable, but expected, because nobody is particularly concerned about hurting feelings or embarrassing people; such things simply aren't relevant to begin with. Results are relevant. Skill is relevant. Feelings and bruised egos are not. "Rank elitism" exists for the same reasons - all else being equal, a higher rank is more likely to give better results.

*It should be noted that simply bitching at random is not calling anyone out for bad play - it's just stupid random bitching. This kind of behavior really has nothing to do with competition.