PvP--/cry

By saying its "click and wait for them to die" I could easily say counter-strike is simply "pointing the gun and pulling the trigger"

But then we're both being dumb.

you have recoil...you can't shoot in a crouch in counter strike(unless you're in a pub...and if you're shooting from a crouch in a pub you're a noob and there's no reason to have this discussion)

there's other people shooting back at you...and YOU DON'T GET 500 HP with the ability to be res'd and healed. You don't get health back by running around the map. You don't get to come back to life before the next round.

NONE of the guns shoot the same way...they are ALL different with recoil...fiing rate...distance....strength.

there are countless elements of counter strike that make the game far more skillfull than GW PvP.

You've never done HoH and you won't. You just said Pubs are a joke because they've never played in leagues but you can't recognize the paralel that is HoH is to Lyons as Pubs are to leagues?

If you don't want to play that's fine but you're saying that playing baseball is funner than playing soccer. That's just your own opinion and not really one that's backed up by anything.

Sure, you can click on someone and just wait for them to die... But oops.. they've got a monk behind them.. or maybe they've got some stances lined up to avoid all that nice damage output, or they've got an ele with protection spells, or maybe they've got better damage output than you, or maybe they're on higher ground than you, or maybe they've got empathy, spirit of failure, ennervating charge, blinding flash, pacifism, or a lot of knockdown skills, or interupts to stop your skills, or....

lol, just got my 2 copies of BF2. I'd argue with you guys more but I'm too excited to care.

I'll be fighting with tanks, jeeps, buggies, planes, boats, choppers. Planting mines, sticking C4 on vehicles/artillery, reviving dead squad members, defending flags, attacking flags, knifing snipers, being a sniper, coordinating attacks with the commander, and countless other things.

All of which require no skill at all, it's all luck and *twitch* based. Nothing to do with teamwork either. And it's certainly no war, I mean, only 32ppl on each side? Please. We all know that 8 people is all you need for a real fun war.

Yep, it takes a lot more skill to pick your skill for slot 6 in GW (all while sitting safely in prep area or build screen). Point and shoot? lol please. Command your army in an RTS type mode except each unit has a real mind behind? Stupid. I'd much rather be elite at pressing key # 2 fast enough to do dmg on the preselected target.

oh I'm gonna do HoH when I get their...just to reaffirm my belief that the PvP aspect of this game is a joke....and if it's not a joke you can be assured I'll come to the forums here and retract my statements. I'm not the type of person to complain just for the sake of complaining. Even if I DON'T like PvP in the HoH I'll be able to admit there is skill involved....if in fact there actually is any. All of the PvP i've done this far(which IS limited) has been "set trap...run behind my trap....fire arrows until someone dies or chases me through said trap....wait for everyone to die".

I still die in pubs....I still get killed...I still have to pay attention and keep my eyes open. Last night I played a PvP match where I set my character to a target and then left and smoked a cigarrette...when I came back I was still alive and the team had won.......that's not exactly skill.

Why are you comparing two completely different games from two completely different genres which both require two completely different types of skill?

because 1 of them works as a PvP...and the other is a complete joke. the comparison is the PvP aspect of each game...not the game itself.

oh is that true ?

- diversity of skills (CS .. skills ? maybe multiple weapons...)

- cool effects, magic looks nice =) (a Hand Grenade.. err.. =/ )

- OMG we've planted the bomb and not encountered an enemy.. omg.. it's like.. yeah.. we won without ever having to fire a shot.

- Oh.. I am not very good at the game but I want to learn it, let's just give it a try *enters game, buys weapons* walks about carefully.. oh oh a terrorist! *fires* omg.. he turned around headshot.. damn... and so on..

- where are the swords, axes, hammers ?

list could go on...and oooonnn

Wow BF2 sounds awesome...I might have to look into that. I haven't played GW for more than an hour in the last 3 weeks. It became deathly boring when my friends stopped playing because it was impossible for us to obtain a sigil so we could start PvPing. We lost the drive to play because of the shitty economic system in GW. Anyway. Before that GW was great. I never played HoH but even the regular PvP required more skill than CSS. Don't get me wrong CSS is amazingly fun but the entire game revolves around luck. The game hinges on who sees who first and pulls the trigger first and gets lucky enough to have a bullet hit. You can't compare CSS to really anything other than games exactly like it (Socom/SocomII etc). It's not like GW. GW requires thought and timing CSS doesn't. In CSS you know what the enemies have: Guns, grenades, and flashbangs. In GW you have no way of telling what the other team is packing. Both great games but you can't compare them. At this point CSS and GW have bored me and I've started to play NFS and Sports games. But if I had a choice about which PvP game to play I would boot up the Xbox and play Halo2.

a serious question for you

since you consider it a waste of time and bf2 and cs are your dream games to play the style of game you want why are you wasteing time posting on the forum of a game that sucks big time on something so important to you?

i think that is a fair question

The PvP aspect of each game is not comparable, though. Counterstrike isn't an RPG, if you hadn't noticed.

the skill is in your ability to play the game...something Guild Wars claims to be.




Exactly the reason I play Guild Wars...if I want something to look pretty I play GW and explore the terrain. If I want PvP I play Counter Strike and ignore that its ugly.

never once have I planted the bomb and had it gone off without EVER seeing an enemy...I'm not sure how this would even be possible unless they stack Site A and you plant at B and they never try to defuse...certainly the rarity not the norm.

I don't think I killed anyone the first 15 times I played the game...random headshots happen....but certainly not enough that it would make the game enjoyable if you didn't have skill

you'd look pretty foolish showing up to a gun fight with a sword wouldn't you?

Come play against my guild, that strategy will last you 1 minute at most. You wontnt even be able to take our monk down.

Wait, nevermind, I forgot you dont play PvP.

You must have had an odd string of luck in the... couple hours you played PvP? Maybe the rest of the team was competent enough to win every match for you.

Well then, maybe they should go and play one of the plethora of first-person-shooters already out there, instead. Seriously, why are people here so intent on re-inventing the wheel?

I love Guild Wars....it's a really really good PvE game. so no...I don't think it sucks. I think it's value as a PvE is quite good....It's value as a PvP is quite poor.

Double post content:


or maybe it's that PvP doesn't require skill at all....merely the thought process that says "Kill the MONK FIRST"....

as far as playing your guild...thank you but I'll pass

That may work in the random arenas, but that level of thought process won't win games in even the Team Arenas, let alone ToPK or guild battles.

This is a game with 3 guns: an AWP, and 2 nearly identical rifles (AK, Colt). Nobody uses anything else. Every round is the same, and is ALWAYS dominated by 2 or 3 players who can headshot every single time, from all the way across the map. CS is the dullest game on the face of the earth. How that game has more players than Unreal and Battlefield is baffling to me, and it makes me cry at night.

Just so I can clear up something in my mind Algren, does winning at Chess require skill?

the AK and Colt are nothing alike...at all. which shows how little you've played the game.

and you can choose to play with whatever gun you want to play with....just like you can choose whatever skill you want for PvP in GW...some skills are more usefull(the ak and the colt) some have their moments (smgs)...some are there just to make the game more fun should you be above the skill level of everyone else(pump, tmp, mac, knife ump)...just like GW it's all how you play the game.

My team has played entire matches with just knife and pump...and it was alot of fun.

in a PUB yes there are 1 or 2 players that dominate...in league play the playing field is more level(no hacks...atleast minimal, unless you play CAL-O).

yes....

Do you play Magic: The Gathering? There's an absurdly high level of skill involved in playing a deck, not just building one. The same is true in Guildwars, even if you are playing a "simple" tank character.

The skills involved in building a M:TG deck and GWs skill bar are somewhat similar. The actual play is wildly different, of course. Also wildly different are any RTS game, which is wildly different from FPS. It's hardly even reasonable to compare them, unless you focus on very specific things.

It's fine for one person to like RTS more, or FPS, or RPG, or whatever. But simply saying one class is better than another in general is misleading, because they can't be compared using the same scale.

FPS games require physical skills more than other games (hand-eye coordination, etc.) RTS games require the ability to multitask more than nearly any other computer game. CCGs (like M:TG) require logical pattern matching as well as on the spot creativity and innovation. Massive Online RPGs (for the PvP aspect) often require team coordination more than anything else, both in setting up your group and in actual play.

All of these games generally require some of the skills needed by the other games, but the focus is very different for each genre, and sometimes within the genre. I think it's just plain wrong to say that other games require more skill, especially as a simple blanket statement.

The first part of the question, "Why do you like other games more than GuildWars" could have been answered by saying that you think there is little skill required in GuildWars, which doesn't seem to be true. If there was little skill involved, the ladders would be extremely unstable -- no one would remain near the top. No one would hold the Hall of Heroes for more than a couple battles in a row, because nearly any team should have a 50% chance of beating them, if there's no skill involved.

As far as all other Massive Online games being better (in PvE) than GuildWars in general, that's absurd and almost obviously wrong. There have been some terrible games that weren't worth playing for a day, let alone the two months you claim GuildWars was good for. (Nevermind that it hasn't been out for two months yet.) Everyone's free to their opinions, but it doesn't sound like even you think GuildWars is the worst of the lot out there.

Anyway, I'd still happily pay $50 for a game that entertained me during all my free time for two months. I hope everyone feels they've gotten their money's worth, even if they don't love GuildWars above and beyond all other games.

Did you miss the part where I said you wouldnt be able to kill our monk?

People have come up with much better strategies than yours and were not able to take me down.

Additionally, I suggest you try your 'strategy' in the Tombs and see how often you die. But you doubt you will, as you'd rather rant without having a clue, nor trying to get one.

if you call what I posted a strategy....

Like i said when I get to the HoH i'll let you know if it changes my opinion of GW PvP...though I doubt it will.

So chess requires skill....while Guild wars PVP does not...interesting. Please, shine some light in my direction.

So player A in CS consistently beating player B...that is skill

Team A consistently beating team B in GW....what does that mean to you?

The sad thing is that you may, in fact, just be naturally talented at GuildWars PvP, and for you beating random pickup teams isn't challenging.

Also, is there anything you don't like about GuildWars PvP other than your assertion that it requires no skill? You do repeatedly say that "PvP is bad" or "PvP is a joke", and I'm wondering there's any problems besides the apparent skill level required.

Many teams can consistently beat other teams. (Maybe not absolutely every time, but that's a good thing anyways.) To me, this is pretty much proof that there is skill involved.

It won't, with your attitude. Don't waste your time.

because chess requires thought and planning....my experience with GW PvP has required 0 thought and 0 planning.... I went outside to smoke while playing PvP and didn't die

You haven't pointed anything out. Please say something enlightening, especially when we are on the same side of the argument.

Seriously, let's change some of the words:
"So chess requires skill....while flipping a coin does not...interesting."

It's just true. <Competition A> might require skill while <Competition B> does not. Unless I've missed something and chess had been made into a subgame as part of GuildWars PvP, there's no obvious contradiction.

I can understand that people enjoy PvP...I can even understand that some people think it requires skill...and hell it might require skill. But to me...games like this don't work for PvP...there's no entertainment. I've yet to die in a PvP match...i've yet to even be threatened with death in a PvP match...and yes I realize that it's just a PUG match when I'm playing in LA....but these peolpe are 3 levels(or more) ahead of me..... I don't know if there is a problem with PvP in this game...I just don't like the entire dynamic of the PvP aspect. You select skills...you equip those skills..then you point and click until everything is dead....it's just mind numbing.

If what you say is true, it is painfully obvious the teams you were playing were inexperienced. I dont think you can judge the entire game based on your experiences in one of the most uncompetitive places possible.

Just as in a chess match, if I go and make random moves and win against an awful, inexperienced player, it does not exactly detract from skill required in chess. Your particular match may not have required skill, I assure you, but many other matches have.

And I'm sorry that GW pvp is not your type of entertainment.

but how does skill make "point and click" fun?

thats partially what one Anet person said in an interview.

he said in many ways it could be considered a single player rpg that had the bonus of being playable with your friends or henchmen or a mix of both with options to pvp as well.

i am less than 1/3 of the way through (if a long mission is interupted by real life do over) but still feel that i have already gotten my moneys worth since i dont pay a monthly fee.

if/when i get tired of it it will be replaced with a book or anything else until the next chapter comes out and i will happily jump back in

to me it truly is just a game for enjoyment to pass idle time

I've certainly gotten my money's worth and have no complaints on the PvE side of the game...even though the story line lacks any solid content...will I buy the expansion, probably not...for the simple fact that by the timet he expansion is available the new Zelda will be out and the next installment in the Final Fantasy series will be out....and I'll have no free time needed to be filled with Guild Wars.

I really don't like PVP THAT much either, its solid at best, a nice changeup from PVE. But when you think about it, pretty much every game is point and click. Hell, Warcraft III and Starcraft are point and click games. What defines if a game is fun or not are the choices being put into each point and each click. Thats where, I guess, people derive fun from any game.

I can agree with that....I guess I just don't think turn based fighting systems work for PvP....it just doesn't make logical sense to me.

and i will hopefully have Elder Scrolls 4 : OBLIVION to jump into by then but i can still use each as a break for the other

Chess is a turn based fighting system. It works. It think it might even pre-date your loved CS.

Not that I agree that GW is turn based. It very much is not. I've played turn based RPGs with PvP components (NWN on AOL, for example), and GW's combat system is not like that.

exactly..I take the game for what it's worth. It's been alot of fun...and I've got something like 100 hours of playtime out of it thus far and I'm only at Druids....but if someone asks if I like the PvP...I'm gonna tell them it's a pointless waste of time.

This all simply boils down to what one percieves as "skill".

"Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience."

Through that definition, yes, GW does require skill. Someone who knows exactly what each skill does will have an enormous advantage over someone who has no clue. But match 2 players against eachother, both having the same knowledge of the game, is one going to win over the other because they are more skilled? I doubt it. At that point, it's probably down to luck.

Now look at a game like CounterStrike. Match 2 players against eachother, both having the same knowledge of the game. There is still a factor of luck here, bullets don't go straight 100% of the time, one player might luckily come up behind the other before them see him. One difference though, if one person entirely sucks at avoiding and/or aiming, he'll lose - luck or no luck.