Post-launch review: Guild Wars - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Mouse at Large

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Dec 2005

Scotland

Fuzzy Physics Institute

E/

28 Jul 2011 at 14:22 - 41

I thought it was a pretty fair and balanced article. In such a short piece, you are never going to be able to cover everyone's personal peeves.

And on a more personal note, I've been playing this game for close on 6 years. I recognise it isn't perfect (then again what is??). However, I do consider that it's provided me with extremely good value.

If I felt the same way as many of the moaners/doomsayers/serial complaniers here, I'd simply give up on GW and go do something else more pleasant. Nobody is forcing you to carry on playing a game that obviously causes you such distress and frustration....

urania

Forge Runner

Join Date: Apr 2006

vD

Mo/

28 Jul 2011 at 15:04 - 42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

Nope, I know Im not wrong. I wrote that players were complaining that the Mysticism line was crap, not that it actually was bad. I personally like some of the old Avatars more than the new ones as well.. it doesnt mean that Anet is doign somethign wrong... it just means that I have to look for or create better builds with the currently available skills.

you said dervs weren't OP in the past. and thats just plain wrong.
and anet is doing a lot of things wrong - but they're following their own agenda, one that will never again provide the game with a quality pvp experience it used to give.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

Look at all the threads in this forum (mostly in the Sardelac subfoum) how many "Dervishes are crap" threads there are before the update. The point of this discussion is not "is Anet doing a great job of making every single player with every single complaint happy" (which would be impossible anyways), but "Is Anet listening to its playerbase or not?"

I don't read pve forum sections (and often now, pvp sections are just as misleading) when looking for balance feedback, and neither should anet.
if they do pvp skill balancing, they should consult quality and insightful pvp player base only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

The answer is: Yes, Anet is quite deffinitely listening to its playerbase.

no.

in addition to what i have already posted, i will repeat what many others have already posted (in this very thread too): the pvp player base did, by no means whatsoever, ask for the most recent mesmer and dervish updates. nor did it call for any other random buff that resulted in months of broken meta and vast abuse of a few overpowered builds, which subsequently killed off 'creativity' (as pve-oriented player base so likes to complain about) and the chance to run anything else but that meta and still stay competitive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

People complain about the game being dead and Anet not doing anything except for churning out new microtransaction crap. There have however been some really big content and skill updates since you bought the game for which you did not have to spend a single cent for;

the game IS dead. but not so much player-number-wise as it is competition-wise.

on a side note, how ironic is it that about 12 out of 18 of the things you listed are strictly pve-related. mind that the part about the game being dead never did and never will apply for pve. pvp needs a critical mass of 3 tiers of player types: high end veterans, middle range good and improving player base and low end begginers - a drop in population as well as low competition walk hand in hand and mutually influence each other.
none of that holds true in pve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

As you can see, Anet is far from the money grabbing lazy company that some are putting them out to be. OK, they could do more, but lets face it. Their main goal at the moment is to complete GW2 and get it out for sale so that they can make enough money to carry on giving out free updates with no monthly fees for their clients.

its not so much anet as it is NCSoft that wants to squeeze the last drop out of GW, really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artisan Archer

Guild Wars PvP would have been MUCH better off if ANet stopped updating any skills right before the removal of VoD and the two big Elite Skill updates. Discuss.

i'd love seeing an arena that with old school proph skills only.

Silmar Alech

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Aug 2009

Europe

Tom Son [TS]

E/

28 Jul 2011 at 15:06 - 43

I don't understand the acid comments about Arenanet's support of the game. The game was never better than today, seen from a technical and gameplay perspective. I play now for 4 years, and the game was continuously improved - never made worse. There were bugs and problems with some updates, of course, but these were always fixed in time according to their severity.

There are always minor problems in such a complex system, but nothing so serious like it sound in those remarks. They seem to tell that Prophecies on release day was the best game ever and after that every new campaign and update only made the game less fun. Nothing is more far from the truth.

The truth is that the game experience today is the best there ever was. The problem today is the dwindling player base, but this is due to the age of the game, not due to the quality of the game.

Coast

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Jul 2006

Belgium

Whats Going On [sup]

Mo/

28 Jul 2011 at 15:10 - 44

Should of let everything how it was,except stupid stuff like iway/spiritstacking...
PVP wise the game would been way better (quality) + it would not matter if it was stale.
Rather stale and kinda balanced then unbalanced and stale.

AndrewSX

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2010

Italy, Turin

Lake

E/

28 Jul 2011 at 15:20 - 45

Somethings jumped on my mind reading this...

-GW is fee-free.
Whatever we got, even if wasn't perfect or a bit lackuster, were free. WiK, WoC, all the work previously done like furnace...all for free. Now seriously. For -let's say 80$ (if bought the 4 campaigns on release)- how many game houses gave us such quality of game updates, still going after 6 years? (Frequency/quality may have dropped, but they're still giving it).

-the perfect balance don't exist, expecially in the actual state of the game.
Powercreep, Skill proliferation, not-so-wise updates may have made it even more problematic, but this is another story. About Anet working on it over years....can't really say. But stuff got reworked or nerfed or revamped or fixed. Again, maybe not perfectly.

-the age problem is inavoidable, expecially if you consider when anet released a real new expansion/campaign. WiK, WoC aren't simply enough to keep alive a game. Ask to (plz don't kill me for mentioning this name, is just an example!

) WoW.
[age problem is population problem. I almost never played with a human till unlocked HM.
Also, for lesser note, most of minor language districts (i'm italian, and saw this very well) are simply DESERT.]

Just my ideas.

Skyy High

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: May 2006

R/

28 Jul 2011 at 15:57 - 46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silmar Alech

I don't understand the acid comments about Arenanet's support of the game. The game was never better than today, seen from a technical and gameplay perspective. I play now for 4 years, and the game was continuously improved - never made worse.

I'm assuming you don't play PvP much. That's where all the "acid comments" are mainly coming from. That, and bitterness that SF farming has been in the game for as long as it has been, I think.

Elfblade

Academy Page

Join Date: Dec 2006

A/

28 Jul 2011 at 16:08 - 47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

. The point of this discussion is not "is Anet doing a great job of making every single player with every single complaint happy" (which would be impossible anyways), but "Is Anet listening to its playerbase or not?"

The answer is: Yes, Anet is quite deffinitely listening to its playerbase.

Anet listens to the community for pve and content that is asked for, i got my than my money worth out of guildwars. I dont think many people disagree.

But Anet does not listen to the community in terms of pvp update the last few years. They do not adress the problems there are. The remakes of the dervish was needed but was very harmful to guildwars pvp. Post update you can see how anet does not listen to the community on what should be fixed about dervishes(they fixed some problems that are there). currently its not a minority that is satisfied about pvp balance but a huge majority.

Willie Lumpkin

Academy Page

Join Date: Feb 2011

Canada

Sandwalkers of Ascalon

E/Me

28 Jul 2011 at 16:31 - 48

Personally, I never got into PvP because I started GW some time after launch, and by that time a thriving metagame had already developed -- one complex enough that it seemed too much work to research what was currently being played and how to adapt and counter.

THAT, in my opinion, is the main problem with GW PvP: in its current form it's too complex, regardless of skill balance. You don't get many new players anymore because it's hard to get into such a complex environment. On the other hand, something like a competitive shooter is much easier to get into, as you can hone your skills before ever getting into the competitive scene, and there are fewer complexities and intricacies and interrelationships.

The intention to streamline GW2 with fewer skills, partially predetermined bars, and much greater flexibility is a step in the right direction. In GW1 PvP, if my team was built to counter one strategy and the enemy runs another, it'll be very hard to adapt on the fly, given that you can't swap skills or gear mid-combat. In GW2, though, if I'm playing a fire Ele and the enemy team has plenty of fire resistance, I can swap attunement. In turn, the enemy will adapt to my new damage type, and so on.

Missing HB

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Mar 2010

Anna

A/

28 Jul 2011 at 16:34 - 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

Red resign was one of the reasons why Hero Battles were removed... players were then warned that it was match manipulation and red resigning in matches has become a lot less common.

You obviously don't play PvP nor read forums a lot, do you?

But well yes, assuming it was the reason they removed it ,i guess people are still allowed to do the same kind of abuse in GvG, Codex or even in HA( check second accounts syncers on dead hours that get no restarts at all...)

Codex Arena was typically the arena that could solve problems( in terms of crap metas, inactivity considering it was 4v4 and not 8v8 like GvG)... but it was let down from start, having no link with capture points, not getting any form of automated tournaments and not getting any update on the future, except making syncers earn a strongbox for each 5 wins....

PvE is just getting too much love compared to PvP, which isn't necessarly needed...

tealspikes

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jul 2009

28 Jul 2011 at 16:35 - 50

The amount of attention the game gets is incredible, and if something is broken, it won’t be for long.

had to lol at this

urania

Forge Runner

Join Date: Apr 2006

vD

Mo/

28 Jul 2011 at 16:38 - 51

stop comparing GW to shooter games.
if you think the current state f the game is complex (in terms of skill demand and skil reward), then you're fairly ignorant.

Willie Lumpkin

Academy Page

Join Date: Feb 2011

Canada

Sandwalkers of Ascalon

E/Me

28 Jul 2011 at 16:46 - 52

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

stop comparing GW to shooter games.
if you think the current state f the game is complex (in terms of skill demand and skil reward), then you're fairly ignorant.

Way to nitpick a minor analogy and not even address the point at all. Sounds like trolling to me. But whatever, I'll bite.

There are 1,235 skills and 90 profession combinations, ignoring the more minor aspects like runes/insignias and weapons. How am I fairly ignorant to think that those numbers translate to a fairly complex PvP metagame? I know that some skills are better than others, and some skills work better in combination with specific counterparts -- but there are an awful lot of possibilities to consider.

And anyway, I don't even care about the total possible number of combinations, so much as how hard it is for a new player to learn all the viable ones.

Elfblade

Academy Page

Join Date: Dec 2006

A/

28 Jul 2011 at 17:05 - 53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

Way to nitpick a minor analogy and not even address the point at all. Sounds like trolling to me. But whatever, I'll bite.

There are 1,235 skills and 90 profession combinations, ignoring the more minor aspects like runes/insignias and weapons. How am I fairly ignorant to think that those numbers translate to a fairly complex PvP metagame? I know that some skills are better than others, and some skills work better in combination with specific counterparts -- but there are an awful lot of possibilities to consider.

And anyway, I don't even care about the total possible number of combinations, so much as how hard it is for a new player to learn all the viable ones.

Pvp is all about learning your profession,most of all networking, a willing guild to play pvp and last understanding of tactics and strategies. It means handling your role in the team so it benefits to the result. Metagame is just the bar your running. If you can play a proffession, you should be able to adapt to any build without much difficulty.

For you as a player the metagame is just a small part of playing pvp.

edit: Did you write the review?

Artisan Archer

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: May 2007

Free Wind

R/

28 Jul 2011 at 17:09 - 54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

Zaishen Mission/Bounty/PVP
Many monthly skillupdates until they changed to periodic large updates
Information on the HOM in terms of preparing for GW2 before it is released
Ritualist update
Mesmer update
Dervish update
Razzah being a changeable primary proffession hero (basically a free Mercenary for anyone who has Nightfall)

4 of those only made the game worse, the other 3 were tiny updates they could probably have made in 1 day's work (combined). I'll let you figure out which is which.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

[*]Loads of smaller updates that the players have been requesting such as being able to log in offline or being able to check a box next to your name to show you are ready before a mission instead of typing 1.

That was about the best update the game had in 2 years. Says alot.

Swingline

Forge Runner

Join Date: Sep 2010

Somewhere far away from you

The Mirror of Reason[SNOW]

W/

28 Jul 2011 at 17:20 - 55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

There are 1,235 skills and 90 profession combinations, ignoring the more minor aspects like runes/insignias and weapons. How am I fairly ignorant to think that those numbers translate to a fairly complex PvP metagame? I know that some skills are better than others, and some skills work better in combination with specific counterparts -- but there are an awful lot of possibilities to consider.

The massive amount of skills was one of the main reasons Anet abandoned GW1 because of the sheer amount of work that had to be put in to balance such a complex skill system. People say the game would have been better off without the rit,sin,para and derv but it seems to me its the new skills that were released every expansion for existing professions that did not need to be put into the game. It would have been a whole new ball game if those extra skills hadn't been put into the game.

Missing HB

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Mar 2010

Anna

A/

28 Jul 2011 at 17:32 - 56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swingline

The massive amount of skills was one of the main reasons Anet abandoned GW1 because of the sheer amount of work that had to be put in to balance such a complex skill system. People say the game would have been better off without the rit,sin,para and derv but it seems to me its the new skills that were released every expansion for existing professions that did not need to be put into the game. It would have been a whole new ball game if those extra skills hadn't been put into the game.

I'm not sure to be honest...If it was that hard to handle, then why didn't they go on with codex arena or costume brawl, which obviously wouldn't require any skill balancing....

And even for PvE, although there are some skills way too overpowered, you can still play almost anything and kill/get rewards..

Swingline

Forge Runner

Join Date: Sep 2010

Somewhere far away from you

The Mirror of Reason[SNOW]

W/

28 Jul 2011 at 18:04 - 57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missing HB

I'm not sure to be honest...If it was that hard to handle, then why didn't they go on with codex arena or costume brawl, which obviously wouldn't require any skill balancing....

And even for PvE, although there are some skills way too overpowered, you can still play almost anything and kill/get rewards..

No one wants to pay for a watered down game where 90% of the skills are restricted for a day in every pvp format. That type of game play can be fun for an arena if done right but not for every pvp format. I sincerely think arena net just lacked the foresight to see the complex skill system they were creating. GWs was their first game after all.

Arena Nets main focus for skill balances has always been PvP. This can be seen by how long SF has been the way it is. PvE really does not matter much compared to PvP in the skill balance department.

Estic

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Mar 2006

Mongoose United

28 Jul 2011 at 19:06 - 58

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

The answer is: Yes, Anet is quite deffinitely listening to its playerbase.

no.

in addition to what i have already posted, i will repeat what many others have already posted (in this very thread too): the pvp player base did, by no means whatsoever, ask for the most recent mesmer and dervish updates. nor did it call for any other random buff that resulted in months of broken meta and vast abuse of a few overpowered builds, which subsequently killed off 'creativity' (as pve-oriented player base so likes to complain about) and the chance to run anything else but that meta and still stay competitive.

yes.

The pvp playerbase is too small to be of any interest to Anet. PvE is where the playerbase is and hence where the money is (see: minitransactions). So: listening to the playerbase = listening to the PvE players = no interest in balance.

lemming

The Hotshot

Join Date: May 2006

Honolulu

International District [id???]

28 Jul 2011 at 19:54 - 59

Try to keep in mind the target audience of this writeup. An evaluation of Anet's history of inadequacies honestly doesn't pertain to someone just getting the game who just wants to PvE casually for a few weeks.

Rushin Roulette

Forge Runner

Join Date: Sep 2007

Right here

Ende

28 Jul 2011 at 21:05 - 60

Thsi is exactly what I wrote in my last post. PvP players whining that Anet is doing nothing although Anet is catering to the Majority of the players. PvP is still getting updates, just not as big as PvE is getting, but lets face it. PvP is just a small part of the game and most of teh players dont even go near it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

The problem is however that there are so many players with so many different views that, no matter what Anet does, some part of the players are guaranteed to complain and these complainers will blend out the updated/skillchanges/bugfixes as "My problems were not addressed, so Anet is being lazy and not doing anything".

But thanks for proving my point ( "My problems were not addressed, so Anet is being lazy and not doing anything") with your posts about Anet not doing anything against all proof and others also saying that Anet is doing fine.

Mouse at Large

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Dec 2005

Scotland

Fuzzy Physics Institute

E/

28 Jul 2011 at 21:36 - 61

Just a quick observation on the PvE -v- PvP resources debate. As I write this, the members of this board are split 349 to 28 between the Campfire (PvE forum) v The Gladiators Arena (PvP forum).

I know it's a random snapshot of one forum at one time, but if you were Anet, where would you allocate your limited resources?

Just a thought.

Still Number One

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2008

W/

28 Jul 2011 at 21:54 - 62

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse at Large

Just a quick observation on the PvE -v- PvP resources debate. As I write this, the members of this board are split 349 to 28 between the Campfire (PvE forum) v The Gladiators Arena (PvP forum).

I know it's a random snapshot of one forum at one time, but if you were Anet, where would you allocate your limited resources?

Just a thought.

You make a point, but not a very good one. You don't dedicate resources to the side with the most people. You dedicate them to the side with the most people in need of those resources. PvE is very well off and would be perfectly fine with no updates for long periods of time. PvP has been drowning in a cesspool of broken skills and mechanics for years now and has been in desperate need of fixes. Unfortunately, A.Nets fixes throughout the years have been to put a band-aid on a severed limb. It is good they are acknowledging there is an injury and something needs to be done, but their solution only solves 1% of the problem.

So if I was A.Net where would I allocate my resources? To the side that actually needs them more. A lot more.

Willie Lumpkin

Academy Page

Join Date: Feb 2011

Canada

Sandwalkers of Ascalon

E/Me

28 Jul 2011 at 23:12 - 63

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Number One

You make a point, but not a very good one. You don't dedicate resources to the side with the most people. You dedicate them to the side with the most people in need of those resources. PvE is very well off and would be perfectly fine with no updates for long periods of time. PvP has been drowning in a cesspool of broken skills and mechanics for years now and has been in desperate need of fixes. Unfortunately, A.Nets fixes throughout the years have been to put a band-aid on a severed limb. It is good they are acknowledging there is an injury and something needs to be done, but their solution only solves 1% of the problem.

So if I was A.Net where would I allocate my resources? To the side that actually needs them more. A lot more.

This is naively idealistic. A company that wants to make money focuses on where the money is. Sometimes a player group's needs correspond to what makes money, and sometimes they don't.

As an example: is a map pack really what Duke Nukem Forever needs most? Nope, but that's what's being made.

X Dr Pepper X

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Apr 2008

The Mirror of Reason [SNOW]

R/

28 Jul 2011 at 23:49 - 64

As time goes on, ANet just digs themself a bigger and bigger hole with GW1.

PvP isnt worth fixing because PvE players fund ANet with micro transactions.

The money is in PvE because ANet doesnt fix and update PvP.

ANet wont fix the retarded SC meta and heavily farm abusive meta in PvE because players will quit GW1.

Players conform to the SC meta after it stagnated so long in PvE and after PvE turned into a cheap gimmick of farming titles and material wealth, and now they feel entitled to the SC meta where they heavily abuse key professions, skills, items, and builds to skew the effort/reward ratios of various content.

If ANet hadn't given up trying to dig themselves out of this hole several years ago, we wouldn't have gone deeper and deeper into this hole.

Kunder

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Nov 2010

29 Jul 2011 at 01:41 - 65

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse at Large

Just a quick observation on the PvE -v- PvP resources debate. As I write this, the members of this board are split 349 to 28 between the Campfire (PvE forum) v The Gladiators Arena (PvP forum).

I know it's a random snapshot of one forum at one time, but if you were Anet, where would you allocate your limited resources?

Just a thought.

You can have your cake and eat it too.

Thing is, most of what PvP needs doesn't require nearly as much resources as what PvE needs. The combined wants of every sane PvPing player can currently be summarized as: "WTF Anet fix the derv already". PvEing players OTOH want new areas/quests/items/endless BS. The former requires changing a few numbers in a data file somewhere, the latter actual resource allocation.

TheRakeman

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Mar 2011

W/P

29 Jul 2011 at 04:00 - 66

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunder

You can have your cake and eat it too.

Thing is, most of what PvP needs doesn't require nearly as much resources as what PvE needs. The combined wants of every sane PvPing player can currently be summarized as: "WTF Anet fix the derv already". PvEing players OTOH want new areas/quests/items/endless BS. The former requires changing a few numbers in a data file somewhere, the latter actual resource allocation.

The problem is, Anet doesn't want to kill the Derv, just nerf it to a balanced state. This is actually difficult to accomplish.

Coast

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Jul 2006

Belgium

Whats Going On [sup]

Mo/

29 Jul 2011 at 09:23 - 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRakeman

The problem is, Anet doesn't want to kill the Derv, just nerf it to a balanced state. This is actually difficult to accomplish.

Indeed, if u don't know your own game...

urania

Forge Runner

Join Date: Apr 2006

vD

Mo/

29 Jul 2011 at 11:28 - 68

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

Way to nitpick a minor analogy and not even address the point at all. Sounds like trolling to me. But whatever, I'll bite.

There are 1,235 skills and 90 profession combinations, ignoring the more minor aspects like runes/insignias and weapons. How am I fairly ignorant to think that those numbers translate to a fairly complex PvP metagame? I know that some skills are better than others, and some skills work better in combination with specific counterparts -- but there are an awful lot of possibilities to consider.

And anyway, I don't even care about the total possible number of combinations, so much as how hard it is for a new player to learn all the viable ones.

my point was that the game used to be far more complex, especially when it came to gvg strategy and tactics. but they successfully dumbed that down completely and instead of introducing skills that would have be mediocre when used without thought and deliver great results when used properly, they instead implement button-mash proffession overhauls that dumb the game further down.

moreover, the combinations viable (in pvp) are not as many as you believe them to be. if you wish to stay competitive, that is.

last but not least, since you like to say devs always catered to the pve player base...
anet organised international rl tournaments in germany - and those were PVP tournaments. it has been the pvp aspect of GW that was marketed as the game's main advantage over other games (and for a while, it held true, too), not the pve part of it, so your whole claim that they ought catering to pve'ers instead of pvpers is completely faulted if you take that into account.

but since NCSoft took over (and because greed became stronger than anything else and since prestige alone didnt earn them as much moneyz as massive pve player base could - maybe because they didnt use the right approach? - look at sc2, for example), pve demands have reign supreme pretty much ever since and that is most obvious change that's clearly noticable in GW2, which is (so far, at least) emphasizing its (dynamic) pve aspect, which is supposedly superior to standard quest-based mmorpg pve.

Willie Lumpkin

Academy Page

Join Date: Feb 2011

Canada

Sandwalkers of Ascalon

E/Me

29 Jul 2011 at 12:24 - 69

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

my point was that the game used to be far more complex, especially when it came to gvg strategy and tactics. but they successfully dumbed that down completely and instead of introducing skills that would have be mediocre when used without thought and deliver great results when used properly, they instead implement button-mash proffession overhauls that dumb the game further down.

moreover, the combinations viable (in pvp) are not as many as you believe them to be. if you wish to stay competitive, that is.

last but not least, since you like to say devs always catered to the pve player base...
anet organised international rl tournaments in germany - and those were PVP tournaments. it has been the pvp aspect of GW that was marketed as the game's main advantage over other games (and for a while, it held true, too), not the pve part of it, so your whole claim that they ought catering to pve'ers instead of pvpers is completely faulted if you take that into account.

but since NCSoft took over (and because greed became stronger than anything else and since prestige alone didnt earn them as much moneyz as massive pve player base could - maybe because they didnt use the right approach? - look at sc2, for example), pve demands have reign supreme pretty much ever since and that is most obvious change that's clearly noticable in GW2, which is (so far, at least) emphasizing its (dynamic) pve aspect, which is supposedly superior to standard quest-based mmorpg pve.

You're still missing my point. It's PERCEIVED complexity that keeps new players away from PvP. Doesn't matter how complex it ACTUALLY is, it's enough that people THINK it's complex and therefore stay away.

lursey

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

d2

R/N

29 Jul 2011 at 12:31 - 70

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

You're still missing my point. It's PERCEIVED complexity that keeps new players away from PvP. Doesn't matter how complex it ACTUALLY is, it's enough that people THINK it's complex and therefore stay away.

complexity keeps simple pve player away, but not competitive pvp players..

imagine if the base is dominated by complex competitive pvp players, dumbing the format down is a dumb move.

Elfblade

Academy Page

Join Date: Dec 2006

A/

29 Jul 2011 at 12:34 - 71

Actually that is what keeps small group away. There are plenty of people who want to pvp but dont because of guild restrictions or rank requirements. Getting in groups (especially gvg for new players/guilds) is what is complex to organize.

Edit: I am talking about pre EOTN. What you say is true for the current situation

lursey

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

d2

R/N

29 Jul 2011 at 12:42 - 72

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfblade

Actually that is what keeps small group away. There are plenty of people who want to pvp but dont because of guild restrictions or rank requirements. Getting in groups (especially gvg for new players/guilds) is what is complex to organize.

it is not the guild restrictions or the rank requirement,
it is just simply not enough pvp players in the whole gw....

even if there is a rank 3 monk, ele, warrior, there is not another rank 3 necro or mesmer to form a rank 3 team.. for example...

it applies to all level of ranks...

if there are 100 rank 3 monks, ele, warriors, mesmer, necro, paragon etc each....the game can go smoothly....

Willie Lumpkin

Academy Page

Join Date: Feb 2011

Canada

Sandwalkers of Ascalon

E/Me

29 Jul 2011 at 13:27 - 73

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

it is not the guild restrictions or the rank requirement,
it is just simply not enough pvp players in the whole gw....

And WHY are there not enough PvP players?

Because potential new PvP players are intimidated by perceived complexity or by team/guild/alliance requirements, and so the PvP population remains static with the people who are already invested in it.

lursey

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

d2

R/N

29 Jul 2011 at 13:36 - 74

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

And WHY are there not enough PvP players?

Because potential new PvP players are intimidated by perceived complexity or by team/guild/alliance requirements, and so the PvP population remains static with the people who are already invested in it.

a simple question to ask, how simple do you want gw pvp to be like?
everyone just bring 1 damage skill and see who c space faster?

what meta do you want to see, that won't has a voice of complain?
this is a question that anet want an answer for almost the whole life of gw....

instead anet should find a way to get more people to like an extremely complex meta than trying to fixing skills to a population that can never be satisfied..

Willie Lumpkin

Academy Page

Join Date: Feb 2011

Canada

Sandwalkers of Ascalon

E/Me

29 Jul 2011 at 14:21 - 75

Quote:

Originally Posted by lursey

a simple question to ask, how simple do you want gw pvp to be like?
everyone just bring 1 damage skill and see who c space faster?

what meta do you want to see, that won't has a voice of complain?
this is a question that anet want an answer for almost the whole life of gw....

instead anet should find a way to get more people to like an extremely complex meta than trying to fixing skills to a population that can never be satisfied..

People really aren't reading my posts. I'm saying the problem is PERCEIVED complexity. I'll even make it bigger for you.

PERCEIVED COMPLEXITY IS WHAT KEEPS NEW PLAYERS AWAY FROM PVP. NOT ACTUAL COMPLEXITY.

urania

Forge Runner

Join Date: Apr 2006

vD

Mo/

29 Jul 2011 at 14:44 - 76

the thread that pulled people into trying and getting good at pvp has been severed. a few years ago. the complexity is by far not the main nor the biggest reason, else the pvp player base would never have been as active as it used to be.

Missing HB

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Mar 2010

Anna

A/

29 Jul 2011 at 15:54 - 77

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

People really aren't reading my posts. I'm saying the problem is PERCEIVED complexity. I'll even make it bigger for you.

PERCEIVED COMPLEXITY IS WHAT KEEPS NEW PLAYERS AWAY FROM PVP. NOT ACTUAL COMPLEXITY.

That's not so right but well, let's assume it was true and they pureposely made those skill updates leading to buttonmashing builds to help beginners ...

Don't you think it will also be a way for better and top players to play easier and still faceroll those other players? You got the proof by looking on last 2 if not more GvG MAT's....

The real reason is close to your idea though, it's more likely that people know what's gonna happen and don't even bother. This is even the case for mid-level players :
- why would i waste 1 hour forming a team in HA, anyway we will wait 1 more hour to get until halls just to lose it and everyone will leave...
- why shall we test that build in GvG? Anyway, the only thing we will face will be triple grenth + mesmer + ranger
- why shall i try to experience a new melee bar in RA? Anyway, either i will have no monk, either i will face those air eles

You see what i mean ? Perceived complexity can fit too, but those 3 points i just said are a consequence of a PvE being too easy and too rewarding... Take 1st point : why would i waste 2 hours to lose if i know i can clear 2 underworlds at least during that time ??

lemming

The Hotshot

Join Date: May 2006

Honolulu

International District [id???]

29 Jul 2011 at 18:41 - 78

There was a previous discussion thread in Riverside that asked PvEers why they don't PvP. I think it's pertinent to this line of discussion.

lursey

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

d2

R/N

29 Jul 2011 at 21:09 - 79

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

People really aren't reading my posts. I'm saying the problem is PERCEIVED complexity. I'll even make it bigger for you.

PERCEIVED COMPLEXITY IS WHAT KEEPS NEW PLAYERS AWAY FROM PVP. NOT ACTUAL COMPLEXITY.

I know you said perceived complexity, meaning a new player feels he requires to do a lot in order to play....

so I said dumb the complexity down to make the game less competitive for the new player is not the solution...

instead.. a new player should be made to learn the game is competitive, if the game is competitive, and you are not competitive enough, you either, go away or learn the game.

even there are 90 runners, and 10 footballers, you cannot ask a supposedly football game, and turned it into a running game..because the game is not about running, anet should either turns the runner into the footballers, or find the footballers from the outside..

so concluding the game is complex..that's why it is being perceived into complex.