this game is NOT just about PvP ...

ive seen posted many times how it seems that is the focus or primary thing this game is for ... and i felt it was needed to start a thread to say exactly the opposite.

please do not make this game a PvP oriented game and lose site of the PvE RPG aspects that drive this community in general.

im all for enhancements and additions and such to the PvP side of the game .. but lets not forget that PvE in the end is what sells games like this and why many of us are herre in the first place.

just wanted to speak my mind before ANet goes over the deep end leaning to far toward PvP, and not enough the other direction

give us more new areas and storylines .. not just more arenas

Eh, Pve is fun and all. Hell pre-seering was a drag. I useally farm and get gold and items either outside of Port Sledge or PVE Tombs area. Pve is fun to the extent that the lower levels suck at doing over and over. PVP, is great time to "pwn" "own" whichever people in RA and TA. To try out new builds to do in HOH and GVG. Pve is adventures while PVP is brute force killing. People stick to one but many go PVE into PVP. Making a PVE charcter just to bring them in PVP.


Once Chapter 2 rolls around, betting HOH and GVGing will cease to grind for the new skills and items and armors. The many Pvpers will reroll and gain new skills and venture into the game that they played for months, that placed them into PVP for another adventure.

Meh. I play both. As far as I'm concerned the game was a conecpt PVE & PVP game from the initial design. No one stuck on either 'side' will be able to convince me otherwise.

Here we go again...



I agree with Tek, although there are certain aspects of the game that might convince someone that PVP was the original design, but I believe these to be just design flaws. Anet is making an effort to make both PVE & PVP just as appealing.

With the game being called 'Guild Wars', it's hard to convince people it's not only about PvP.

Guild Wars would imply only GvG battles. And I don't think the name of the game implies that GvG battles are what it is all about. I think it was a name derived from the history of Tyria, when the land was ruled by the guilds and they all fought for power.

just my opinion

It's not just your opinion, monty, it's the truth, as stated in the Lore Book that came with everyone's game. The name "Guild Wars" comes from the history of Tyria and has very little to do with actual gameplay in the game.

For those interested, here's an excerpt (from the GW website):

Over the next hundred years, the human kingdoms prospered. Powerful groups grew up within each nation. These were known as guilds. It was these groups, these guilds, that held the real power in Tyria. Though there were kings and organizations that made the laws and regulated the land, it was the guilds that enforced these laws—or didn’t—as they saw fit. As these guilds grew, their influence began to overlap.

As is ever the case with peace, it once again came to an end when the volcano erupted, spitting out the five stones and scattering them across Tyria. The magic they embodied seeped out into the lands around them. Though the Bloodstones, as they are called, have never been reunited, the power that they possess was enough to re-ignite the desire in the hearts of men.

The struggle for power commenced, and again war broke out. This time, though, the humans were not united. The guilds of the three most-influential kingdoms on the continent battled each other for supremacy. The kings of Ascalon, Kryta, and Orr were not powerful enough to stop the conflict, for the armies of the guilds were even more powerful than those of their own home nations.

The Guild Wars raged for decades, fueled by the desire for power and the influence of the Bloodstones. Never did the peace accords last long. Never did the negotiations take root. The conflict claimed the lives of many hundreds of thousands. It uprooted families, made neighbors into enemies, and soured the relations between the human nations—perhaps irrevocably.

An easy way to find out how much more popular PvE is to log on at prime times (I play america server) then count how many full district are in: Lions Arch, Ascalon, Droks, ToA, Tombs etc all the little outposts + every co-op mission and not to mention all the people actually in an instance doing a mission, farm etc.

Then count how many full district/people are in Heros Ascent, Team arena and random arena etc

Then tell me whats more popular because PvE is 8+ times more populated then PvP easily.

Althought Anet intended this game to be more PvP, the people want more PvE options, imo PvE is lacking in terms of roleplay, its more like 3rd person action game... kill a mob move on kill a mob move on etc, not much it terms of "real" questing involved. I been playing since release and spoken to many people about this.

You forgot to count the people in their own guild halls playing GvG. Although I believe there are more players in PvE than PvP, your logic was flawed.

Back to topic, I agree this game is not just about PvP, neither is it just about PvE. It has both and Anet wants us to enjoy both parts of the game. But the fact that Anet just handed out $100,000 in cash prize and spent much more on the GWWC event shows you what part of the game that really matters.

To tell the truth, the PvE content of GW is lacking, and if not for the PvP part, I wouldn't play it any more (until Factions coming out).

Flawed? well I didnt make a system and um lets not split hairs about the obvious, as it is impossible to count instances you can only really count areas, PvE is 20+ times more populated in areas EASILY.

And if you could group all the guild battles groups together I doubt it would be any more populated then Heros Ascent.

Just keeping on topic here about this not just being a PvP game and giving some idea about the overwhelming majority that play PvE compared to PvP, this kinda speaks for itself about this game being PvE or PvP orientated from what the players actually do on this game.

There are a grip of people that want to play a good MMORPG that has no monthly fees, pve style. Pvp doesn't interest me, and I would assume many have the same feelings. If you are already interested in pvp, you are pvp'ing. If you dont' know anything about it, it's gonna be tough with all the elite groups out there.

Lol... indeed, it's not just only about PvP.

But it's quite stupid if people do not realise this: if a skill gets nerfed or buffed, monsters using that skill (pve) will use the buffed, nerfed skill.

Of course if the skill nerfed is an elite skill used by 1 or 2 monsters than PvE players might have a right to riot in LA or wherever they like.

IMO nerfing/buffing based on PvP experience brings an amount of balance to PvE too.

Problem: when someones favourite hobby horse(aka skill) is nerfed and the other buffs/nerfs doesn't help him when he has to use the nerfed skill. Example: you use a nerfed skill for farming and the monsters use buffed skills. In this case your pritty f...d. Either you get better(and survive), switch some skills or instead of solo farming you get a friend to help you (don't tell me you don't have any).

When buffing skills widely used by monsters of some kind, I think anet reduces the attribute points for that skill category so PvE wont get f...d up.


I think flaming about nerfing/buffing should be left to PvP players since they suffer more from the unbalace.


And before you make any input, i`m a PvP and PvE player. Lately i play only PVE because of the well known issues with IWAY, etc... After the update prolly i`ll play only PvP till march 24th, when i`ll be into pve again.

It is much more difficult to balance PvP than it is to balance PvE. Testing focused more heavily on PvP as did many of the mechanic design things.

There are better PvE games out there, but Guild Wars has a better PvP than any RPG.

Quote from the GW FAQ:

"Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (*Competitive* Online Role-Playing Game). Guild Wars was designed from the ground up to create the best possible *competitive* role-playing experience."

The emphasis around the two uses of the word "competitive" added by me. Pay attention to the last sentence. "designed *from the ground up* to create the best possible *competitive* role-playing experience." (Again, emphasis added)

By competitive, I doubt they mean competing to see who can farm for the most gold.

It has been stated that the original intent was to play through PvE and then start PvPing with those characters. This is why there is not as much to do in PvE...the end-game content is high-end PvP. I think the developers were surprised at how many people want to do PvE only, and are trying to add more PvE content. I think the marketing of the game gives the impression that it's a free alternative to WoW,which is not the case. I admit when I bought the game, I was expecting a MMORPG, and was slightly disappionted until I began to understand the game and what it was about, when I came to love it.

Anyway, my point is that, no, it's not only about PvP (else there would be no PvE part to the game), but the game and its skill system and overall game mechanics were designed primarily around PvP. The low level cap, balanced classes, complex skill system, usage of player skills by monsters, etc all indicate this.

I started playing mainly PvE and have now moved on to PvP almost exlusively. When Chapter 2 comes out, I'll play through the story a few times and then move back to PvP. I think if you ignore either part of the game, you're missing out of half of Guild Wars. The overall design of the PvE part of the game is more like a normal RPG than a MMORPG, though. After you finish the missions and quests, there's not much left to do but farm, and ArenaNet didn't intend this to be a farming game (hence why money and items are rather unimportant).

And about "Guild Wars" referring to a historic event, yes, that's true, but don't be silly in thinking that it has no indication on the game design. Why do you think that historic event is in the history of the game? To give a background for the existence of Guilds and explain why they are constantly fighting. Why do you think that guilds and GvG are such a major design point of the game? "Guild Wars" would not be named such if the concept of guilds at war were not a major part of the game. People don't just pick a random historical event to name a game unless it's central to the game itself.

I love your logic.

The emphasis around the two uses of "role-playing" added by me. Pay attention to the last sentence. "Designed from the ground up to create the best possible competitive role-playing experience." (Again, emphasis added.)

By role-playing, I doubt they mean experiencing the in-depth character role of farming fame.

Nice try though.

Quoted for truth!

Pitty they couldnt add more for the masses in PvE...then we would have one hell of a game!

Name some other RPG's (not MMO's) that give you extra content without having to pay for it. Go ahead.

humm strange I didnt say "give" extra content rather hoping they would add much much more for PvE in comming chapters which I am sure they will charge for

I have to say that this game doesnt have the best PvP,Has anyone ever played DARK AGE OF CAMELOT much better PvP but the PvE sucks real bad.Im still unsure about this game the PvE isnt all that great IMO and still unsure about the PvP.I just wish game had more to it like armor drops and stuff like that and more ways to make your character look doesnt have that rpg feel imo.

Yes I feel customizing your appearance needs extra depth too!

I think chapter 2 will have more of this

pve is training grounds for pvp.

The intent of this game is to bring a balance competative game play on a massive scale. There is no competition in pve.

The game is not entirely pvp that is true but, it is its main focus for chapter 1. Chapter 2 on the other hand you are going to see more of a hybrid of chapter 1.

With seiges on towns and alliances that is bringing the pvp aspect to pve. Since they are going on mtg model you are going to see the mechanics of each chapter change. While the focus on chapter 1 was GvG and tombs the focus of chapter 2 will most likely be pve.

Counting the dist is not a valid way to go. The population of GW is dramaticly shrinking compared to last month in the pvp community. 4 months ago you would see about 15 dist at the random arena. At prime time you might see 5. 2-3 at the team arenas and 5-6 at hero's.

There is a huge insurgance of new players in pve. I go back to places like borlis pass and frost gate and think to myself this place is going to be completely empty because of runners. They have more people then some of the later towns do.

PvP is just the focus of chapter 1. This is going to teach you teamwork through all the other chapters and give you experience. I treat chapter 1 like a big pre-searing.

i dont think you will see any sign of a seige on any town.

i think it will be settled in the arenas for pvp and whatever mission?/joint quest?/cooperative endeavor ? on the PVE side

we will find out eventually

if you're interested in PvE you probably should have selected a game that didn't lack everything a Role Playing game should have.

The PvE campaign is dull, boring, tedious, entirely too easy, and filled with people that have no idea what they're doing due to an almost non-existant learning curve. The story makes almost no sense while forcing you to walk through the game in the most linear way possible. PvE falls drastically short of awful.

If they can manage to crank out a decent story line...add some end game content....and remove the entire Worlds at War Favor bullshit...they might be able to save the PvE portion of this game.

They have said you can take over towns for your side and siege it to keep control of it.

There will be a siege of some sort.

you win in the arenas/pve venture and take control of the designated area at stake.

they said no ganking or pvping in any other than pvp arenas.

this would clearly violate that statement.

pvp will be by choice only and in a open town seige there would be non pvp attacked.

Although I agree the PvE aspect could use a major improvement, PvE is what our guild, as well as many others, is centered around. We find PvE very fun and rewarding. So I must disagree with your statement that we should have looked to a different game for true PvE content. And I do hope that ArenaNet's idea of improving PvE is not to simply add the PvP mentality to it.

thanx for the info

they are very vague on describing the alliances and zone take overs.

This game is intended for pvp. I don't think any game can do both and be a balanced system unless you seperate the pvp and pve.

If you like endless grind this is not your game. Since that's about all pve offers this is not your game.

I had a conversation today, and this is about how it goes:

Weird guy: "You're a noob"
Me: "I don't even know you.. How do you know?"
Weird guy: "Show me your emote"
Me: "I don't have an emote, I'm a PvE player, I don't PvP"
Weird guy: "You don't play PvP because you're a noob"
Me: "So, what's your logica again? Just because I like PvE better then PvP, I'm a noob?"

And that's about where it ended.. Kinda sad.

You're a noob.


I agree, PvE in chapter 1 is satisfactory only for very casual players. I think, though, Anet is going to fix that part of the game somehow in chapter 2.

This is a PvP oriented game, if you don't like it please go play WoW, EQ2 or any other crappy pay2grind MMO.

The PvP market is far greater than the PvE market. The 5 million or so WoW players isn't even a drop in a bucket when you compare it to FPS market. Different genres you say? You'll be surprise how many people are from FPS where GW is their first "MMO". A PvP oriented MMO definately has a place in this market.

<---one of those people "from FPS" where GW is their first MMO

I wholeheartedly agree (you can add the Strategy market to that too, as well-plenty of competitive RTS players play GW). However, I think GW still attracted a lot of roleplayers because of it's sword, spell and sandal theme.

IMO, A.net should stick to its vision of a largely PvP oriented game. There are plenty of "PvE" MMOs (perhaps not free ones, but still, in GW, you get a lot of PvE for the box price) out there, and GW needs to distinguish itself from the crowd. Don't like where Anet is going? There are plenty who do. I'm sure that successive chapters will draw more of a playerbase suited to this.

Well, I thought this was a plain silly argument, and apparently I am not alone

Which is precisely why I posed that question LOL.

It's sad that some people think that their style of play is the "official" way to play the game, and anybody who deviates from that even slightly is "playing the game wrong."

Have we collectively gotten that stupid?

If I played Planescape Torment like an FPS, skipping through the text, killing things, not following the plot, would I be playing the game "wrongly?"
It's a subjective opinion, but I say yes, you would. of course, it's your right to play like that, but there would be better choices out there that would cater to your specific playstyle.

Quoted for the truth...
This whole thread is just...

Let's just say I bought the game because it had that cool looking Dragon inside the cover

Please, quote that out of something Anet and/or any of its employees have actually physically stated somewhere.

Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Ah, yes and farming for gold and items is very in-depth role-playing, I suppose?

I'm sure you think you're being very clever, but it seems you lack reading comprehension skills or understanding of what "role-playing" means.

If you think any aspect of GW involves any true role-playing you're sorely mistaken. Any type of game that involves playing a character with stats is generally called a "role-playing game", but this is purely convention. The term "role-playing game" is a vague one, but "competitive" is not. GW is called a "competitive online role-playing game". You cannot ignore "competitive" in that. Nor would its competitiveness exclude its being a "role-playing game".

Look at the genre of games called "tactical role-playing games". These games involve little if any actual role-playing, instead focusing on the tactical element. They're tactics games with characters that you develop rather than faceless identical units, just like GW is a competitive game with characters that you develop rather than faceless identical units. Neither involves any actual role-playing. Your "clever" wordplay is like saying that tactical rpgs aren't really tactical because part of the genre name is "role-playing".

Your word games don't work; sorry.