Originally Posted by Siren
The "combat" in MtG is nowhere near as intense or fast-paced as the combat in GuildWars. In fact, the respective pace/speeds of the two games are almost the complete opposite. True, in highly competitive play in MtG, surely cards are getting slapped down fairly quickly, but two points need consideration there:
1) You can find even faster speeds at top-tier play in GuildWars. |
Originally Posted by Siren
And how many matches in Guild Wars routinely last 30 seconds or less?
What is the average 4v4 match length in GW? Average of less than 5 minutes? 10 at most? What's a round of CS, or Halo 2, or GoldenEye 64 like. Under even the normal settings, death occurs very quickly, and matches are over in very short amounts of time...some matches may last longer than 5 or 10 minutes, but the only difference there would be the level layouts, and if Halo 2 matches were to occur in say, Ascalon Arena, you'd see incredibly fast matches. If the win parameters were set like GW's...I wouldn't doubt we'd be seeing 2-minute matches. |
Also with the win parameters revolving around killing the other team creating the win condition, with some conditional kill target X and create and early win condition, it is very much the same as most of the fps games out there in style, but the pace is very different. Hell even bad or too fast pacing for a FPS can ruin it. The only exception being a CTF style setting, where the flag needs to be at the home point, but that is very off topic.
Originally Posted by Siren
But for argument's sake, let's continue along your postulation, and we'll use an example from the game itself:
Althea's Ashes is a quest out of Piken Square that has the player going through the Charr Flame Corridor, through loads of Charr warriors, archers, mesmers, necromancers, etc., to gather Althea's ashes from an urn at the very end of the area. This quest was a bitch and a half to complete, even for a well-organized and well-prepared team. Understandably, because it was so difficult and time-consuming due to the amounts of Charr in the area, players requested it be made easier...and lo and behold, ANet responded. The amount of Charr in the area was reduced by I'd say 25%, maybe 40%. If what you're saying is accurate (that because I'm suggesting the unlock system be tweaked so that players don't have to invest such huge amounts of time, I'm actually arguing for the total removal of the system), then those having problems with Althea's Ashes were actually arguing for a total removal of all Charr in the area. |
Originally Posted by Siren
If there's no real issue, then, no real desire from players to adjust the faction point payout/requirements, because GvG is such a huge payout, why are we seeing so many people requesting that the faction points be adjusted? If there's already a reduction ability...why is there an issue then? If faction points aren't a problem (and subsequently, the current state of the unlock system, as it's directly related to the faction points) because someone can hop into GvG and acquire a nice payout...what need is there for any instant unlock?
|
Originally Posted by Siren
Phades, I honestly like much of what you wrote there, but this sentence is very important to elaborate on, because you've arrived at a point that I'm not sure you even realize what it is quite yet.
Going too slow is a long, drawn-out tutorial, sure. But then, if going too fast is at the opposite extreme...what might that be? Perhaps UAX? The long, drawn-out tutorial will cause the faster players, more intuitive ones, to lose interest. |
Going too slow I would relate to forcing a pve style advancement upon a pvp centric player. Many people that I have come to know, that are competitive players do not need things like tutorials, manuals, or guides to help them through the game. All they require is the ability to explore all the options within the game, but even they progress at different paces and directions. A slower player could just go the route of the pve experience first or go the route within pvp with a UAX option. The difference is that the slower person will choose which to explore within either system rather than being spoon fed which they should know how to use first. That is the principle difference here. A slower person with all the options might choose what they think is cool or nice then go out and try them and subsequently get beaten. Then, if they are observant, know what combinations of things beat them and then look to what is available and begin to use counters to those things employed against them. Instead what exists is a person may or may not have that same game experience, but in turn will not be guaranteed at having the option to try those counters until after working an undisclosed amount of time in order to use them. This is a result of being spoon fed the options with no real choice of how to adjust the setup without going through the tutorial a few times. Forcing the learning style here is what I was trying to connect with the slow learner versus the fast learner analogy. Giving someone the option to learn is not the same as forcing them to learn it all at once.